I like The Daily Howler a lot. Bob Somerby is a smart, funny liberal (and was a Harvard roommate of Al Gore and Tommy Lee Jones.)
However, Somerby didn’t say that that Graham was innocent. His site is really about criticizing media coverage. So, your cite didn’t even claim to prove your allegation.
Let me see if I got you right here, Sam. Our Leader goes to the UN, says basicly, if you wussies dont go with me on this, I go anyway. And anybody who doesn’t go along can depend that they are on the wrong side of the US from here on out.
Speak softly, and if we figure you need the stick, we’ll hit you with it.
Theres the alternative interpretation: that the UN Security Council voted for inspections trying to prevent war, not as a means of declaring their hearty support for a bit of international carnage. They were very careful to make sure that there was no automatic, hair trigger, one slip and bang.
Our Leader, of course, was pressing for exactly that.
Nonetheless, he still makes it clear that the US retains the “right” to go ahead regardless.
So what is it you were expecting us to cheer about? That he sure taught those UN wussies a lesson? That my country swaggers around the international arena? Machismo is fine, I guess, if you like that sort of thing, and lives aren’t at stake. But they are.
Getting back to the OP…
Chumpsky, you carry on as if Iraq is some sort of bespectacled 98-pound weakling who keeps getting picked on by the class bully. Iraq initiated an unprovoked attack on Kuwait. Its army killed, raped and looted. When met with miltary resistance, they fled after first setting Kuwaiti oil fields ablaze, making them, in my mind at least, first-class scumbags.
They started a war, and they lost.
Usually, when you start a war and lose, “to the victor goes the spoils.”
There was ample opportunity to press the war into Baghdad. This did not happen, Iraq was not “carved up,” and Saddam Hussein remains in power. While you will doubtless claim that this was all part of a western plot, the fact remains that the Iraq drew the first blood, yet the only price they had to pay for their failed belligerence is to demonstrably disarm. They got off pretty easy, if you want my opinion.
I mean what would you recommend they get for their actions, fire-starting merit badges?
That was the whole point of the negociations : that the resolution wouldn’t allow the US to attack Irak if it didn’t comply with the inspections and that a new decision of the security council would be needed to use force against Irak if it appeared not to comply. That’s also the content of the resolution, so Russia and France got it their way, and I’m really not sure why you guys are discussing about Bush “success” and the UNSC compliance on this issue. The US had to accept to water down their resolution according to the wishes of the other members of the council to get it voted.
I don’t know if Bush administration is presenting this vote as a success of the american diplomacy, but here it’s essentially considered as a failure. A failure to gather any support for their original resolution and for their hard line stance.
Of course the French are going to spin it that way. Of course, the resolution was written in such a way that it would give the French and Russians cover to say that they got what they wanted, and for the Americans to say the same. That’s the way diplomacy works.
The fact is, the language of the resolution has everything the Bush Administration wanted, from hard deadlines, no compromises, ‘out-of-country’ interviews, the ability to inspect the ‘palaces’, AND the specific wording that would find Baghdad in ‘Material Breech’ of the resolution if they do not agree to all conditions. Those words are important, because they are generally seen as a trigger to allow military force. And I don’t believe Bush left the power to declare military force with the Security Council - he promised to ‘consult’ with them first.
’
december said “However, Somerby didn’t say that that Graham was innocent. His site is really about criticizing media coverage. So, your cite didn’t even claim to prove your allegation.”
I’ll certainly concede that, I posted it hastily as I happened to read it a mere 1/2 hour before opening this thread. I suppose I just find it hard to fathom that anyone believes all the injections on Bush’s watch were justified. Hope springs eternal I guess.
Back to the OP:
"“Around the world,” according to the BBC is the U.S., U.K., France and Israel. "
Chumpsky sort of misrepresented the article. It has favourable quotes from more than that. From the article:
The OP’s target is slightly off. Since you are being fooled by US spin that this is an unadulterated victory you feel you must attack it. Leaders from around the world are expressing support, the ones who voted for it can hardly condemn it.
It seems to me that this resolution gets the ball rolling on weapons inspections without giving a green light to automatic bombing.
UN text so every one knows what we’re talking about:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articleshow?art_id=27687676
Not so, Sam. The promise to consult is just that, a promise to consult. It carries no more weight than that. Bush has stated again and again, if he doesn’t get what he wants, America “and its friends” (whoever the hell they are) will do it anyway. And what the hell is a “material breach” anyway?
And here the dreadful question nobody wants to ask: what if Saddam bin Laden has disposed of his weapons. He can always make them again later, everybody knows that. Why shouldn’t he? Can you imagine the propaganda victory if he does, in fact, allow the inspectors to look anywhere they want and they find nothing!
Impossible, we are firmly assured. Never happen. But what if it does? We look like the biggest bunch of rabid war mongering maniacs ever. Who then is seen as the biggest threat to world peace? What could possibly fit Saddams dreams better? He has nothing to lose he cant replace. Why shouldn’t he?
Not possible. The Japanese cant sail 10,000 miles undetected. Besides, thier pilots are all near sighted and bandy legged, and they wouldn’t dare. Not possible.
Of course the French are going to spin it that way. Of course, the resolution was written in such a way that it would give the French and Russians cover to say that they got what they wanted, and for the Americans to say the same. That’s the way diplomacy works.
The fact is, the language of the resolution has everything the Bush Administration wanted, from hard deadlines, no compromises, ‘out-of-country’ interviews, the ability to inspect the ‘palaces’, AND the specific wording that would find Baghdad in ‘Material Breech’ of the resolution if they do not agree to all conditions. Those words are important, because they are generally seen as a trigger to allow military force. And I don’t believe Bush left the power to declare military force with the Security Council - he promised to ‘consult’ with them first.
’
So you’re in favor of regime change then, Elucidator?
Cause that’s what it sounds like. Let’s face facts. The problem is Saddam Hussein himself. As long as he remains dictator of Iraq he retains the ability to use Iraq’s wealth to cause trouble. Dictators with ready cash are going to be more and more of a problem for the free world. So what are we going to do about it? Compare the US to Nazi Germany, like our hysterical friend Chumpsky? Or maybe, just maybe, we can agree that dictatorships are a problem. That, I don’t know, it would be better if people didn’t have to live under dictatorships. And that the mere presence of dictatorships is a threat to peace.
I am indeed in favor of a regime change. I simply propose we start with the most powerful country in the world. By a happy coincidence, we are empowered to do exactly that.
We do not now, nor have we ever given a rats ass about “dictatorship”. What we care about is stability, Instability makes investment difficult, upsets trade, makes our spreadsheets unpredictable.
We dont give a shit about “human rights”, unless that should interfere with the sacred entreprenuerial spirit, the inviolable right of the people to make our tennis shoes. Decent lives and wages for our own people? Well, ok, as long as that doesn’t get in the way of “competetiveness”. Otherwise, screw you, my fellow Americans, Vietnamese are cheaper, Mexicans don’t care what kind of poisonous crap we dump in thier water. After all, we’ve already taken a dump in thier water before it even becomes thier water!
Okay, I’m not up enough on the latest news to weigh in on the U.N. resolution and I really don’t feel like arguing whether or not Bush is equivalent to Hannibel Lector (because I hate having to agree with the likes of Sam Stone and D.C.U., but I can’t let this side argument go unrebutted…
Remote possibility? What are you talking about?!? Some of those folk in Illinois were only exonerated after some journalism class took up their cases as a class project. The guy in Texas who was the subject of the documentary “Thin Blue Line” was probably only released because of the interest in his case generated from the movie. Before that, most of the appeals on these case were going nowhere! It takes naivety to the extreme to believe that all the cases of people sentenced wrongly to death have been prevented given the random way in which so many have been uncovered before the ultimate sanction was carried out!
And, to say noone proven to be innocent has ever been put to death is complete tautology because usually the only evidence people who argue this seem willing to accept as proving this is evidence that causes them to be exonerated and thus not put to death. How convenient!
There was an interesting case in Virginia where someone was put to death a few years ago where there were lots of questions about guilt. Now, with modern DNA techniques, a prime piece of physical evidence could be tested to see who was right. Death penalty opponents have pointed out that this is an ideal case to test the “noone innocent ever gets executed” theory. Alas, the state refuses to do the test or to release the evidence for testing. Apparently, they just don’t want to know!
Bush’s statement wasn’t just an overstatement, it was an overstatement of confidence bordering on either idiocy or extreme dishonesty! This doesn’t make him “bloodthirsty” in my mind but it does cause one to question his character and judgement!
Chumpsky.
Why on earth should the US fund countries that despise them and everything they stand for? Continuing to send aid to a country that publicly sides with your enemies is stupid.
As far as the Saudis kicking out the Yemenis during the Gulf war, that was simply common sense. They did the same with quite a few Palestinians. It had very little to do with bowing to US pressure and a lot to do with being uncomfortable with thousands of enemy civilians running around during time of war.
Do try and let reality seep in to your head, at least occasionally.
Testy.
I don’t know what polls you are looking at. From what I have been following in the press, such as it is, anywhere from 30-40% is against the war regardless of the U.N. rubber stamp. The remaining 60-70% are split between those who want to go to war no matter what, and those who will support the war with the U.N. blessing.
Thus the importance of the U.N. resolution.
This resolution was absolutely necessary for the U.S. war. Without it, support for the war would have been far below 50%. As it is, well, we will have to see.
I have never had any illusions about “unilateralism.” The U.S. has always been unilateralist, only seeking a U.N. blessing when it needs to cast its foreign policy in a moral glow. Notice how, now, when they talk about attacking Iraq it is “the world,” not the U.S. who is “demanding Iraq give up its weapons of mass destruction,” begging the question of whether or not they have any.
You are quite right about the left and its cries for multi-lateralism, which I thought was quite foolish. The U.S. has always been able to get enough states behind when it needed to, by threats, bribery, extortion, or whatever means it had at its disposal. There was never any real doubt that Bush would be able to get his U.N. resolution. By framing the debate around whether or not the U.S. should go to the U.N., many on the left lost the debate before it even started, what there was of it.
Now, if Iraq makes the slightest misstep, the U.S. will use it as an excuse to launch a war. There seems to be no way out of it, and U.S. politicians and pundits will praise their glorious leader for acting “multi-laterally” and “making the U.N. relevant again.” This is truly Orwellian, since the U.N. was formed in the first place in order to prevent aggressive wars, not to give powerful states a cover to start wars.
Also, it is quite clear that this resolution was crafted so as to make it impossible for Iraq to comply. The intention is to get the resolution passed, and then have Iraq refuse to comply, justifying the invasion. The same trick was used by NATO with the Rambouillet Accords, in order to justify bombing Serbia. In that sickenging little adventure, Serbia agreed to every point in the accords, except one, that “NATO” (meaning the U.S.) would have the right to enter any part of Serbia at will, thus destroying their sovereignty. The same language was used in the initial drafts of the resolution. Some of this language has been removed, but there still remain some requirements that I don’t think any country would agree to, such as the right of member states to remove scientists and their families from Iraq for questioning.
The administration is seizing upon the increased fear and militarization of society to launch its program of world-wide domination. The New American Century envisaged by Bush’s handlers, and welcomed by the Washington Consensus, is at the heart of the new and improved, more aggressive imperialism. The goal, euphemistically, is “preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles,” in other words, total domination.
George Orwell wrote, in 1984, “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face–for
ever.” The future is now.
I agree with Jshore completely. The math is hard to refuse - if 11 essentially random incidents revealed innocent people on death row, then it is highly likely that some innocent people have been executed.
I’m also against the death penalty. It doesn’t make society safer. That’s the only possible moral justification for it. Revenge doesn’t cut it with me - I like to think that society is enlightened enough that we can afford to simply isolate dangerous people away from us rather than kill them.
Now, if you could show that capital punishment measurably lowered the murder rate, you could convince me otherwise. But I don’t know of any.
“The fact is, the language of the resolution has everything the Bush Administration wanted…”
Hardly. Remember all the talk about “coercive inspections” and about large numbers of armed escorts sent with the inspectors. That’s all gone. And a few months ago that was considered a moderate proposal coming from the Carnegie Endowment. At that time Cheney was attacking the very idea of inspections.
The fact is that the administration has moved a long way from its rhetoric a few months ago. I doubt that Rumsfeld,Wolfowitz et al are pleased with the outcome. OTOH it has been a big victory for Powell.
Did you stop reading the article at that quote, or did you continue on?
Graham offered no alibi for where he was that night. Skillern picked Graham out of a lineup. Skillern has consistently maintained that she saw Graham.
The johnny-come-lately witnessess – one of whom was Graham’s wife – were given the opportunity to testify before a judge as part of the appeal process; their testimony was contradictory, and the judge found them not credible.
Plus, there is additional evidence that has arisen in favor of the verdict:
It seems to me perfectly fair to look at new evidence of guilt in addition to new evidence of innocence if you’re going to look at new evidence at all.
And just to bring this full circle back around to Bush, let’s note that Texas law only allows one 30-day stay to be given by the governor per death row inmate. Ann Richards, Bush’s predecessor in the governor’s mansion, gave such a stay to Graham in 1993. Thus, there is literally nothing Bush could have done to stop the execution even if he had wanted to.
jshore: I’ll need a cite for your Virginia example.
Sam: You and I disagree on this point. I think the criminal justice system is about more than just deterrence. That’s probably too much of a hijack to get into, I suppose.
"The johnny-come-lately witnessess – one of whom was Graham’s wife – were given the opportunity to testify before a judge as part of the appeal process; their testimony was contradictory, and the judge found them not credible. "
Actually it looks like you are doing some selective reading and mental editting. The witnesses you talk about came forward later to try and give an alibi, they never claimed to be eye witnesses to the crime.
"Graham offered no alibi for where he was that night. Skillern picked Graham out of a lineup. Skillern has consistently maintained that she saw Graham. "
Yes one eye witness, no matter how many ways you say it.
**
You are joking right? You must really want to believe. A sworn affidavit of a hear-say death bed confession? Pathetic.
Maybe he was guilty but we’ll never know because he didn’t get a fair trial and now he is dead. Bush’s confidence in the system shows gross ignorance, real or feigned.
Jeez, one would have thought you might want to do a little research before making so foolish a statement. Just do me a favor and reconcile that with a recent poll, where 79% support invading Iraq with UN support, and 58% support invading iraq without UN support. Not that public opinion proves a cause right or wrong, but you really shouldn’t change the facts to fit your precious theory.
On another note, it’s interesting to see ultra-leftists getting all huffy about “appeasement”…
Your poll is conclusive proof that Lincoln was right.
We’ve been had. Conned, cozened, duped, flim-flammed. Lied to in bushel baskets. Its the same old crapola that always works, time after time after time. Start pounding the drums, and the brains go right out the window.
Want a little trip down memory lane? Go look up Operation Urgent Fury, the invasion of Grenada. Iraq pales in comparison to this snow job, it was a used car salesmans wet dream.
Grenada was taken over by Marxist revolutionaries, crack squads of Cuban elite commandos were disguising themselves as bulldozer drivers and building airfield, extending runways so that Soviet NUCLEAR bombers could land and take off with thier NUCLEAR weapons. The threat is clear and present, we must invade at once, our nation is in peril, etc. etc.
It was all hogwash. Utter, unmitigated hogwash, and we bought it hook, line, and sinker.
Our Leader stood in front of you and told you half-truths, innuendos, and some out right unvarnished lies. And it worked, it always does. The media whores solemnly purveyed this steaming kettle of bullshit like it was the Gospel.
Poof! Osama. Gone. Enron. Gone. The rampant plundering by some of the biggest names in Greed. Never happened.
And tomorrow? They’re gonna do it to you again.
elucidator: You have a cite showing that the Cuban military WASN’T involved?
Are you suggesting that Grenada wasn’t taken over by Marxist revolutionaries? Every description of Bernard Coard I’ve ever seen described him as a hard-line Marxist. And it was a bloody coup, not a democratic election.
Perhaps you could give me another reason why they were building a 15,000 ft runway?
If there were no Cuban soldiers on the island, perhaps you could explain why 1,200 Marines needed to call in almost 7,000 reinforcements to defeat the ‘construction workers’?
By the way, that invasion was cheered by the people of Grenada. Only 19 Americans, and less than 100 Cubans and Grenadan military were killed. And the result was that an unfriendly, despotic regime was replaced by democracy. Grenada was a great success story.