Sexing Up Disasters

burma is low on the democracy totem pole for the neoconzix

they have enough on their hands with the iraqis and the feisty afghans

(would take them decades to learn that what they peddle is a new raj under the guise and their nakedness and greed reeks)

came across this title _The Next Countries to Invade_ in a bookshop....was too rushed (to get to DC!!), so did not have a chance to check whether it was a tongue-in-cheek affair or an answer to Chandra's (DC guy) prayers about the more such invasions to "fix up the world"

BTW, has anyone, including Winter, has read _Shock Therapy: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism_ by Naomi Klein? Is it any good or is she talking about stuff we already know about?? Anyone please?

"Now I am left scratching my head wondering how it is that America could invade Iraq on a raft of sexed up charges that were later proved to be false, can deny the truth of the suffering of the Burmese people?"

Yeah! They should have invaded...what's it called, "Myanmar" they way they did Iraq. Stupid Americans! They never help anyone...selfish bastards! The world would be much better off without that greedy lot.

Ciao, Guido

sorry for this delayed response guido...you asked me this on another board

neocon married with zionists = neoconzix

Wow, I just want to tell you it's been a hard day. And I've been thinking a lot about the Burmese poeple and U.S. policy.

I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for writing such an honest, in touch with reality, heartfelt post.

It is such a releif to know someone else cares, and isn't just "sexing" it up.

Thank You

Guido # 3,

reflexive nationalism, "my country can do no wrong", if only as a foil to stimulate discussion.

Guido # 3,

your reflexive nationalism, "my country can do no wrong", is useful here, if only as a foil to stimulate discussion.

Everyone is busy enough protecting themselves from imaginary troubles to worry about real ones.

"my country can do no wrong".

Are you quoting me CS? Please provide the context and quote. And if you're not citing me, please don't put words in my mouth.

Ciao, Guido

Temporal,

"neocon married with zionists = neoconzix"

I'm sure that's a useful definition...somewhere. Thanks for clarification.

Ciao, Guido

Guido,

You are right. not a direct quote, so I am putting words in your mouth. Just visualizing what your sarcasm could denote:

""Stupid Americans! They never help anyone...selfish bastards! The world would be much better off without that greedy lot."

my fault! you did not say the words I imputed to you....but it's a well-known quote, hence the scare quotes.

Forget about America, I think we (India) should bomb the Myanmar regime out of the planet. Hopeless fools!!
War is the only solution to many problems...bomb bomb bomb bomb..............

chandra, you sure seem to be in a vile mood today!

Dianne,

You start your article with:

Last week the US Navy ships, frustrated by the stonewalling of the military junta to bring aid to the estimated 2.5 million Burmese, slipped quietly out of the waters off cyclone ravaged Burma. Tailgating their ships were the British and the French fleets.

The Burmese dictators make their own people suffer, the foreigners with the aid get frustrated with the stonewalling of the Burmese dictators, and America is to blame? Something doesn't smell right here.

I'm no fan of the American State Department or its dumb administration, but it's the Burmese dictators who should be condemned, not the Americans. They were getting stonewalled, got tired of getting stonewalled, and walked away from an untenable situation.

The only effective way to force the Burmese dictators to give in would be to bomb the living daylights out of them. The only way these scum will do anything decent is if they are mouldering dead, and someone decent can act in their name.

If the Americans, British or French went to war over this, getting rid of the Burmese regime after the fashion of the European powers 175 years back, you'd be jumping up and down screaming imperialism and waving the Geneva Convention around.

What do you want, madame - toasted ice?

mark this in the history books.

ruvy and I are in agreement here.

sorry diane, but I am sensing a theme in your writing. maybe I am imagining it, but there seems to be an undercurrent (sometimes much more obvious and sometimes more subtly) of america-bashing in most of what you post here.

I think there is a very real need for criticism of american policies on a lot of fronts. but to me it seems like you're doing it to pander to readers, not to make a solid point.

one thing I have noticed since i was one myself, is that americans overseas have trouble finding the middle ground. we either become rabidly pro-american and cannot stand a word of criticism to be uttered about our beloved homeland, or we turn hyper-apologetic and hyper-critical.

America, as you charge, has not "denied the truth of the suffering of the Burmese people" What makes you think that? Where is your evidence?

You cannot have it both ways. You expect the US to fix the ills of the world, but then whine when it does. Yes, we go in ham-handed and bungle the whole thing when we do it. Yes, that should be criticized. But you're playing both sides against the middle here and it's not working.

If we were going to get the aid in we would have had to invade. it was and still is a very ugly situation.

SS:

""one thing I have noticed since i was one myself, is that americans overseas have trouble finding the middle ground. we either become rabidly pro-american and cannot stand a word of criticism to be uttered about our beloved homeland, or we turn hyper-apologetic and hyper-critical.""

You can say that again!!! It happens to desis abroad too, albeit as a minor infection....

America is among the largest importer of Chinese goods. So we can go the the grocery store and save $20.00

We buy enourmous amounts of goods from China, in return China is the largest arms supplier to Burma. Making Burma the 12th largest military in the world. So, we (I'm American) do indeed fund the regime in Burma, we fund their campaigns of genocide against the Karen, we fund thier systematic use of mass rape against women and children, we fund forced labor, we fund arbitrary imprisonment.

It was American plicy that was the reason China's economy grew at the fastest rate (and still growing) than any other nation in History.

That is a fact. Look it up. And it is American money that goes through China, so they can make the weapons that are then sold to the Burma junta.

We also help create the motivation for these killers. The miltary can not govern, so Burma is one of the poorest nations in the world, going into the military means steady pay and escape from miltary abuse for that individual and their family. And for many on the bottom, it is like prison and impossible to get out. For the Officers, they are making even more money through personal projects that they use their inferiors for.

America is a land of comfort - with a never ending desire for more. We are not willing to do without for the safety and security of others.

Yes, I understand we have helped the poor in China begin to rise out of poverty, but we have benifited as well. Every day Americans purchase Chinese goods that in the end help to supply the Burmese military with weapons of war and oppression.

Mean while we talk about democracy and have even made the occassional effort at the United Nations Security Council to push for more united action against the regime - KNOWING full and well that China will always VETO.

Furthermore, just how ugly do you think it will get if there is intervention? Where is your proof of this? From all that I have read all the ethnic "armies" are united against the junta and are for the NLD.

I contend that there are other ways of removing a regime. I contend China has such influence.

Maybe this sounds too simple, but free and fair elections were held once, and over 90% voted for Daw Suu Kyi. How are they not united?

The problem is that the junta would not go out without a fight. And that is where China comes in. If only China understood and a democratic Burma would be an economically prosperous Burma, and therefore in China's economic interest.

But in the mean time. Don't say that the United States doesn't look the other way. We are in fact active participants.

Richard... what are you suggesting? halting all trade to China? if so that is a very idealistic approach.

I agree that we should boycott chinese products, but mainly because: 1) they have little to no quality assurance and we suffer the consequences and 2) general human rights violations in china.

but if you think the US is going to do anything formally, you're nuts. it's a tangled web, and our rather shaky (at best) economy is too wrapped up in it for that to be a tenable option.

in an interconnected global world, you cannot just suddenly turn your back because a country's policies suck. if that were the case 1) no one would play in the sandbox with the US anymore and 2) we'd need to be whole hell of a lot smarter.. the whole lot of us.

Richard... what are you suggesting? halting all trade to China? if so that is a very idealistic approach.

I agree that we should boycott chinese products, but mainly because: 1) they have little to no quality assurance and we suffer the consequences and 2) general human rights violations in china.

but if you think the US is going to do anything formally, you're nuts. it's a tangled web, and our rather shaky (at best) economy is too wrapped up in it for that to be a tenable option.

in an interconnected global world, you cannot just suddenly turn your back because a country's policies suck. if that were the case 1) no one would play in the sandbox with the US anymore and 2) we'd need to be whole hell of a lot smarter.. the whole lot of us.

smallsquirrel,

No, I don't think it's idealistic. And no, I don't think it could ever happen. I'm just pointing out that we (the U.S.) play a very important role in the suffering of the people of Burma.

I'm not anti-capitalism. But I am anti-capitalist morality (or rather financial amorality)

I am well aware we are in far too deep to just get up and walk away from the table.

But I do believe strong multi-national diplomatic pressure to encourage China to change their approach on Burma. The problem there is even if such diplomatic efforts were made, I don't think we would have much leverage - nor do I think the "superpowers" of the world would make a serious effort.

And yes, I agree with you 100%, we need to be a lot SMARTER. Difficult problems call for inventive solutions. But I also beleive finding those inventive solutions is a Necessity for the good and the future of our country.

I know it sounds extreme, but I contend that that is the nationalist born American response and nothing more than turning a blind eye to the consequences of our actions and policies.

Are you saying just because something is going to be difficult, it isn't worth doing?

I know I sound crazy. But I also feel I'm right.

Take a smaller example; If your brother was calling you every week asking for money and always had a diffent excuse (phone bill, rent, car insurance), but you knew that his wife had a drug problem, and hence also knew that what money you gave him for "bills" was going to supprt his wifes drug habit, how long would you continue to give your brother money? I don't see any differnce.

But I am well aware, that I have grown to take a very "unconventional" view towards this problem.

I contend that in an ever-growing interconnected global economy, we are going to have to address these matters at some point.

How many generations of people have to suffer, die, be exploited and tortured in ways most Americans will never understand before we do find a inventive and effective way to deal with it?

I totally agree with Richard on one point: all governments/states pretend to be critical of Burma and other countries but in reality nobody really gives a shit as long as they are open for business. They make the right hypocritical noises as long as the media feeding frenzy is on, but their self-righteous whining is over when the spotlight has moved on to another catastrophe. It's all a big con-game to pressure other countries for more business concessions etc. The same with the so-called lists of the countries violating human rights etc. Of course they are violating human rights, but these lists and shrill denouncements are simply tactics to make them follow a particular command. As long as they do it, everything is fine as zillions of dollars are at stake. simple commonsense

If the Americans did not care about Myanmar, they would have established a strong diplomatic relationship instead of where they are now. Trying to link trade with China with Myanmar is immature.

Small squirrel it is not just the US who has ties with the junta in Burma, my own country has just signed a huge trade deal with China. Israel and Australia also help train Burma's security personnel. Please don't take this personally, after all it's not you that is living under this regime. Please try to see beyond what is personal to you and see the wider issue of humanity.
Chandra, Americas care about the oil and gas reserves in Burma to the tune of $2.7 million buks a year via Chevron and Total. The Haliburton company (whose former chief executive was Dick Cheney) backed the Yadana pipeline and even the good old BBC whose recent 75% buyout of the travelers 'bible' the Lonely Planet who defends breaking the tourist boycott of Burma.....
the list goes on but then you could just as easily inform yourself as I have done.

Speaking of Lonely Planet, I was once on a BBC program, they told me I would be talking about one thing but I found myself talking to a Monk and a Nun? And at the same time trying to raise issues about Burma. Such is live radio I guess. Anyways I tried to mention how much of the tourism dollars goes into the regimes pocket when the Monk and the Nun both said "No, It is o.k. to visit Burma", there was nothing I could say. I wasn't going to debate a Mon and Nun over the radion. It was strange.

And Oddly enough, Lonely Planet was amont the top donors to the Mae Tao Clinic in their most recent report. - Just an odd fact I'm throwing in there.

Chandra,

It's all related. I follow the philosophy of Daw Suu Kyi and Vaclav Havel, we have to be Responsible for our actions, not just talk about the causes we believe in.

Correction: amont should have been among

And also to Chandra,

Let me reiterate that I am well aware that what I'm saying is unconventional and highly unpopular. But I believe it to be more in tune with the realities of the world we live in.

I also believe that I am just saying what others think as well, but can not say because they would become outcast of sorts among those who are in a position of influence - which would do no good. It's a catch-22.

I donot buy this logic that a relationship with China impact Myanmar. If one were to use this logic, there would be no world trade and mo movement of people. Tell me one country that is a saint on this planet? I think the US is doing enough as far as Myanmar is concerned. I am unhappy with India. We have been sucking up to this nation even though they continue to play games with us. Bomb that regime out of the planet!!!

"Now I am left scratching my head wondering how it is that America could invade Iraq on a raft of sexed up charges that were later proved to be false, can deny the truth of the suffering of the Burmese people?"

You know, this solution makes perfect sense. Instead of people dying slowly of starvation put them out of their misery and bomb 'em. The suffering is over in a second.

I believe the situation in Burma is way too complex , and with too long roots to be solved by cutting ties with China and possibly sending the world economy into a tailspin. In fact, that might lead to even more dire straits for the average Burmese, even more malnutrion, starvation and death.

If China doesn't believe democracy is good for itself, and holds on to Tibet despite world public opinion, what does it care about poor little Burma? This is a pipe dream that can never happen, and since it will never happen, we can conveniently forget other possible solutions, chasing after this idealistic fantasy.

Yes, no one cares about Burma. Despite its coup and its miliary junta it continues along, perhaps because the Burmese people can see no option for which to fight.

Change cannot (and should not) be imposed from the outside. Well meaning intervention often ends up being the bull in the china shop as we've seen in Iraq.

The world has a short memory. If Burma wasn't sexy enough in 1962 when Ne Win led his bloody coup,what are the odds now?

The change has to come from within, from the united Burmese people. The outside world can support the Burmese, they can write, agitate, and petition. But unless the Burmese themselves unite, keeping aside their ethnic and regional differences, no change can happen.

The world should continue sending aid even if the junta manipulates the news to make it seem like they are the ones helping. Even if part of that aid gets through, it's better than nothing. Tragedy is something the people of Burma have lived with for decades. They will survive, and hopefully something will make them finally demand a change, and to take action for themselves.

what really gets this old goat here is why is everyone uncritically criticising the united states government? they are already dealing with the enormously difficult task of establishing democracy and peace in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their forces for good and against evil are stretched way too thin. I believe it is evil for people to put up other worthy candidates for the do-good instincts of the american government, until the exising projects have been safely completed. As the cliche goes, one thing at a time....please give the american govt. a break, will you?

Winter:

"how it is that America could invade Iraq on a raft of sexed up charges that were later proved to be false"

I don't recall any reference to sex before the invasion....unless you mean those harrowing images from Abu Ghraib....that was hardly about sex, even though the men were naked.

however, how does it matter if the intelligence was fixed and twisted to pave the way for the invasion? In the end what matters is the the lofty goal of transforming the entire middle east into a beacon of democracy. Since that is happening in Iraq at a spectacular pace, everything else is besides the point.

I can't decide if you are being sarcastic commonsense or not. It matters because innocent lives are being lost every day, pardon me for having a human reaction to that! Obviously Richard is right I am being "unconventional" and it is making me unpopular.
"The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that's the essence of inhumanity."
George Bernard Shaw

can we get off this "unpopular" business? discussion and debate are not about being popular or not. I have no idea why you're being so defensive, diane. seriously. people agree and disagree all the time. that is the point of this forum!

but your charge of complete apathy is simply not founded. just because the US does not react the way you want it to, you cannot say no one cares. please read what jawahara has written above.

I just get tired of people saying "oh it's so easy, you just do XXX" and if XXX is not done you're a horrible, ugly monster. the world doesn't work that way. it's not that easy. I don't say that as an excuse, but as an explanation.

and again you cannot have it both ways. should the US be involved in everything or not?

d. sharma-winter,

since successive american governments have never ever done anything that was not aimed at making the world a safer, better and a happy place, how does the issue of sarcasm even reach the radar screen? and particularly since the power of the american government in the global theatre is no more (and admittedly no less)than any other government, why must we be forever suspicious of their sincere commitment and actions, through history, to save this wretched world from imminent disaster? I would rather not be such an obviously ungrateful wretch. At least in Iraq they had elections and the same too in Afghanistan. Those who cannot handle such breathtaking developments by pointing to such distractions as the loss of lives etc. forget the orgy of bloodletting that led to and followed the seige of Bastille and the birth of democracy. As Ms. Rice said, in reference to another conflict, we are witnessing the "birth pangs of democracy in the middle-east". Are we surprised that it's a bit painful? Do we really expect gain without pain? It pains me that for some people, and it is unfortunately a strong trend, despite the public relations officer hired by the current US govt. to put things in proper persepctive, people the world over are indulging in gratuitious americophobia. Sad how twisted minds can twist reality at whim. And imagine how many dollars were wasted on the salary of the public relations officer in chief before she had the good sense to resign? Pretty sad....

Well said, ss, and sometimes, caring comes not with an earnestly bleeding heart but with a sarcasm and causticness (is that a word?) that heightens the sense of tragedy in situations such as these.

And may I reiterate what ss said, about this being a forum, which means an exchange of ideas. Otherwise it might be called, You're Right or Let's All Agree or Let Us Count the Ways in Which the Writer was Right...a tad unwieldy but perhaps someone more creative than me can come up with something shorter and more catchy.

Jawahar:

""causticness (is that a word?)"'

caustic; causticity: cutting; the quality of cutting sarcasm

not to be confused with the hindi "paushtic" = nutritious.

"paushtic ahar": a thet hindi word, now under threat by eurocentrics who prefer english. means "nutritious diet"

"caustic ahar": cutting, sarcastic diet; an effective cure for constipation

winter:

""The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that's the essence of inhumanity."

thou confuseth "different" with "indifferent". "indifferent" folks do not engage with those to whom they are indifferent. this is different from indifferent; one hopes you are entirely indifferent to different ideas on different issues.

JawahrA:

"Change cannot (and should not) be imposed from the outside. Well meaning intervention often ends up being the bull in the china shop as we've seen in Iraq."

Yes indeed! Look at what happened in South Africa with all the sanctions and what not! Before apartheid was dismantled, combined internal uprising and external sanctions, whatever you might say in a fit of political correctness, at least there was law and order. Now? Rampant crime AND black on black violence. It's no longer black and white. So, since Burma is suspended in a vacuum (sp?) and has no ties with the outside world, it would be best not to pressure any govt. to cut of any external ties, since the do not exist. And if these non-existent ties are cut off, they would only hurt the poor and the starving in Burma. Just as Mrs. Thatcher used to say about the apartheid regime. In her coached, fake upper-class Enlgish accent "Noe, Noe, Noe!! Sanctions will only hurt the innocent people. I will not budge an inch". And she was right, that iron-lady, even though she is losing her marbles now and some inhuman people refer to her as the original mad cow.

Winter:

"There is no doubt," said Matt Fry, "that the desire to bring good, to bring American values to the rest of the world and especially in the Middle East is increasingly tied up with American military power."

I am still astounded that the questioning of American values and its value for the rest of is still legal! I mean, why can't the International Court at the Hague, simply make it illegal to question the unquestionable? Say what? The US does not recognize the International Court at the Hague? Not entirely accurate, as it does so, when it suits them as in, when they want to spread benevolence and non-dictatorships in the rest of the world, such as Saudi Arabia. I hope to live in a world when anyone who questioned American values would be hauled up in court and charged with global treason

Jawahra,

The above was a "well meaning intervention" although it did not come across as such. Of course direct intervention is always a problem but cutting off trade ties has always been advocated and it works to disabuse any regime of the delusions of limitless power.

"I hope to live in a world when anyone who questioned American values would be hauled up in court and charged with global treason"

you have gone waaaaaaaaaay off the deep end here.
way off.
so far off I cannot see you anymore.

you've become very obtuse in your latest comments. the combination of sarcasm and semi-lucid points are not working here.

SS,

I fear you are right! While cycling to work this morning (work would be posting on DC full-time, as everyone on DC well knows), I slid and my head hit the pavement. No helmet. Something nuts and bolds got maligned. Or is misaligned the word i'm looking for? anyways, i have this strange wacko-let - chest thumping worhisp thy naiton fascist bi-polar disorder. Alas, it seems to be beyond my control. Like the computer codes, i can think only in terms of polar opposites. However, i have found a way to blame you for this absurd predicament. Your comment:

"I have noticed since i was one myself, is that americans overseas have trouble finding the middle ground. we either become rabidly pro-american and cannot stand a word of criticism to be uttered about our beloved homeland, or we turn hyper-apologetic and hyper-critical."

laid the framework for my mental state and may even have contributed to my bike accident, even though I have no empirical proof for it. Strange situation to be in: a bit simultenously being forced to watch a horror movie in which I happen to be simultaneously acting in. As if i am possessed by both ends of manichean dichotomies. Yet, even this shall pass. Thanks for your concern though. If I sound like I'm off the deep end, it's because I am off the deep end. Although if I could actually write that, it wouldn't be entirely true.

Jawahara "instead of people dying slowly..bomb 'em instead" exactly what already happened in Iraq where ten years of sanctions left half a million children dead. These children were not born when the Gulf war began, they died for lack of medicine and from cancers caused in part to the uranium enriched weapons used by Britain and the US during the Gulf War. A bloody good reason to wear a burqa in this part of the world, I would say! Anyway no sooner do they lift the sanctions than they invade the country on a raft of sexed up charges of WMD. Since then more than half a million more children have died, which makes Ms Rice's comment of 'birthing pains" quite insulting. The next generation of children will not be born, this is a stillborn generation.
http://www.unicef.org/har08/index_iraq.php

The Burmese people rise and rise again but they are put down by weapons provided to the Burmese junta by India as well as other countries.
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/12/07/india14778.htm

SS The US led coalition invaded Iraq fully aware that claims of WMD were false. These facts have been reported even in the most conservative media in the US and Britain.

Common, you are obviously too far away from the bombs exploding daily to see what a farce your idealistic view of democracy means to the average Iraqi.

My thoughts are this. If the Coalition of the willing could invade a nation of people already crippled by the previous ten years of sanctions, even though they knew there were no WMD and despite the calls of the U WHO? then what the hell stopped them from getting into Burma to help those people?
Maybe there is something to do with cyclone survivors in general? Anybody remember cyclone Katrina? My mother always said "charity begins at home."

winter:

""Common, you are obviously too far away from the bombs exploding daily to see what a farce your idealistic view of democracy means to the average Iraqi."

Winter, you have obviously decided that serious issues brook no sarcasm and witless irony

diane, I think I will just come back when you've come down from your soapbox, entertain a larger scope of reality than just your own, decide to have a real discussion, and stop treating me (and others)like some moron who just crawled out from under a rock. most of us here have traveled the world and seen much of what you describe. we're not a bunch of school kids.

I think what gets me the most is that you are trying to convince us that you have the most right perspective because you are the most emotional. that does not fly with me.

PS, if you think the burqa is so excellent, how bout you wear one for the next 5 years and get back to us all about it.

Actually ss i was merely stating the facts. The first thing I did already when the sand storms began here was rush out and buy a burqa. I am sure you will correct me (as you have done before and no doubt will do again) but I thought I set out to write about how the media reports on disasters and responding to what I thought was sarcasm!!! You mean you are serious????
so does this mean that ss does stand for secret squirrel and not the secret service???

cs #2;

For my money, Steve Horwitz, an economics professor at St Lawrence University, has the beefiest reply yet, largely contained in the two (long) questions, excerpted here, he would ask Ms Klein if provided the chance:

1. ... How do you reconcile the main thesis of your book with the historical evidence that government has grown and markets have been made less free in almost every crisis of the 20th century? Moreover, wasn't FDR's attempt to pack the court and his signing legislation that was later found to be unconstitutional evidence that he tried to force policies on the country by subverting the democratic process?

2. ... How do you reconcile the left's claim that [the] Bush Administration has [post-9/11] engaged in a fascist expansion of government power hitherto unseen in US history with the claim that crises lead to undemocratic free market reforms? Those would seem to be utterly at odds with each other. ... It certainly seems like crises produce a lot more government and a lot less free market reform.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/10/naomi_klein_smackdown_roundup.cfm

winter,

re: sarcasm, you are confusing ss with cs. could you take off that burqa for sec?

now you're confusing people. I haven't used sarcasm. you accused common of that.

and nice personal dig, there, but it doesn't ring true. how very mature of you to call me names because I do not agree with you. are you going to blacklist me now?

and good for you with the novelty burqa. quite different than being made to wear one from puberty. do you want brownie points for it? yikes.

done. bored. annoyed.

ss (#15)

you in agreement with this?

The only effective way to force the Burmese dictators to give in would be to bomb the living daylights out of them. The only way these scum will do anything decent is if they are mouldering dead, and someone decent can act in their name. #14


somehow i don't believe you

;)

thanks temporal. good points re: horowitz on klein.

on the other hand, the ideology of "free markets" need not be necessarily at odds with a beefy and expanded state. as in "free markets" or no bid contracts (ie. "free" ride for some companies, free for their taking while others are shut out from even bidding and have to wait for the crumbs) for companies that have retired govt or about to retire govt. officials as their board of directors. it would be hard to find any american secretary who was not either never linked to any company or is not going to be linked as soon as they resign. nothing peculiar to the US though (before Guido clobbers me with his nationalism!)....in various degrees, the logic of the modern state....

it is not just the US who has ties with the junta in Burma, my own country has just signed a huge trade deal with China. Israel and Australia also help train Burma's security personnel.

Dianne, now you're talking very differently from the way you did in your article. It appears that your issue is that all the western "civilized" countries support the Burmese dictatorship - and that the way the western "civilized" media report events in Burma reflects this.

You should just come out and say that right up front. Then, your article would not have sounded like an anti-American rant blaming them - and nobody else.

Assuming that all your assertions are true (I'm not inclined to doubt you), plenty of people have lots of blood on their hands because of the way they have helped the Burmese dictatorship oppress its people.

If you complain about the Americans in Iraq - or even how the Americans may be planning to nuke Iran's nuclear facilities - you're just joining a loud whining crowd.

But taking on the Burmese dictatorship - and all the scum who aid it (yes, including Israel's Shaba"k) puts you alone out front of the "whine and jeez" crowd of the chattering class - a good place to be.

cs:

heheh

(i was in the midst of commenting on something richard said - and guess that would be relevant to 49 as well)

so richard # 25:

Let me reiterate that I am well aware that what I'm saying is unconventional and highly unpopular. But I believe it to be more in tune with the realities of the world we live in.


:)

let me add my unconventional take also


ike called it mic (military-industrial-complex)

over the years different names ... including in some measure ...big brother, big business, conglomerates, the "commission"....but in essence the mic...

their interest worldwid is cutu ("commotion" - "upheavel" - "turmoil" and "unrest")

cutu is good for business

chechenya, kashmir, iraq, afghanistan, us-russia, china-india, arab-palestine-israel ... you get the big picture?

with cutu they can sell ...armaments and related services and add to their coffers

sorry for being tangential - and hope you get the picture

the term military-industrial complex indeed was indeed coined by the late american prez himself. this complex has ballooned to an extent unimaginable. apart from the many scholarly analyses of this, a couple of decades ago david letterman had on his show a number of ex-military contractors gleefully showing off how they used to sell screws available in K-mart for a dime, for as much as a hundred dollars a piece. national security you see. talk of screwing! of course, all this talk is labeled is conveniently labeled as "leftist rant" or worse, as paranoia, "conspiracy theory" etc., and honest journalists such as Seymor Hersh of the New Yorker are maligned, Chomsky is dismissed as a dangerous cunning linguist (sorry could not resist!)while the pillage continues, abetted by us folks as we enthusiastically endorse yet another adventure that retools politicans as defense contractors and vice versa. And there are enough journalists whose job it is produce the smokescreens (remember the fired Judith Miller of NYTimes who kept repeating lies) regular folks are warned about the dangers of not grasping the complexities of this world, of not having enough dharma, of the sins of not being vegetarians etc. etc....a whole litany of "change the subject" and pretend the world is just fine.

SS, I do not presume that you are clueless about these issues. I am just reiterating them, simply to keep them in view....not intended as "breaking news" for innocents abroad or at home. I know this is not news, but that does not necessarily make it non-news.

temp... um, well, I did not say in lock-step. LOL.
I guess I should have been more clear.

CS

The American MI complex is its greatest gift to mankind. So much freedom - Europe, Japan, Iraq etc has been achieved through the MI. Every patriotic American should be proud of the MI.

"These children were not born when the Gulf war began, they died for lack of medicine and from cancers caused in part to the uranium enriched weapons used by Britain and the US during the Gulf War. A bloody good reason to wear a burqa in this part of the world, I would say!"

OMG, this is brilliant...I didn't know that the burqa can protect people from cancers and uranium-enriched weapons. We really should alert disaster-relief agencies. In fact, I'm going to get myself a burqa right now just to be on the safe side. Phew!

As far as Burma is concerned, I'm sorry (okay, maybe I'm not but I *am* trying to be a polite hijacker) but I find more than a tinge of Western paternalism in your article and your discussion points. "Let us fix it for you, you little brown people. Go eat your rice now."

As a matter of fact, non-Western aid agencies (primarily Asian NGOs) are getting some access into Burma. Perhaps these are agencies that ones that the junta (as evil as they are) and the people feel that they can trust. The Economist reports about an aid mission from Taiwan run by a Burma-born Buddhist monk. Malaysia has also sent aid. Has some aid been turned down? Absolutely. The junta has not been transformed overnight, and during disasters of this magnitude awful tragedies do happen. That is an unavoidably sad fact. But some people are being helped.

And, thanks ss, for your remark about not treating DC readers like a bunch of ignorant schoolkids. The reason we are engaging in this discussion at all is because we are interested and aware of our world.

And, as far as Burma is concerned perhaps some of us might know as much, or even a bit more *gasp* than you. In my case for instance, my mother is from Burma, and her uncle was the labor minister under U Thant and was imprisoned by the junta for many years until his death in the late 70's. One of my uncles is part of the the Burmese people's delegation to the UN.

We have a long connection with Burma and just because some of us look at the ground realities and not at some idealistic pie in the sky vision, does not mean that we are indifferent or disinterested.

Burma (like all knotty problems) in the world needs more than well-intentioned do-gooders. It needs aid...yes...not necessarily Western aid. The junta is evil, yes, but no one (no matter if you bomb 'em back to the stone age) can do anything without killing countless millions. You might be willing to pay that price on their behalf...but would an average Burmese be willing to pay for this imposed freedom with the blood of his family?

Yes, there have been many movements in Burma and they have failed. And, eventually, there will be one that will prevail.

d.sharma.winter #41

"The US led coalition invaded Iraq fully aware that claims of WMD were false. These facts have been reported even in the most conservative media in the US and Britain." Please provide your source(s).

The fact Dianne, is that all the rational players in this scenario believed (with good reason) that Saddam possessed and would use WMD. There is credible evidence that he did have them:

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/

http://sunnyeside.blogspot.com/2006/02/so-there-were-wmd-in-iraq-after-all.html

Ninety-eight percent of the US congress...both sides of the house and senate supported the Iraq invasion:

The argument that President Bush lied about the WMD doesn't hold water and has been repeatedly debunked. The same people that interrupt political rallies, by shouting this nonsense ignore the intelligence failure on a global scale...a fact accepted by the CIA, FBI, and British Intelligence.

Regardless of the accuracy or lack thereof concerning the WMD finds, UNSCR 1441, the enforcement of which is not reliant on the discovery of WMDs. Even Hans Blix said before the invasion that, according to Iraq's own paperwork, the Hussein regime was in violation of the ceasefire terms in over a dozen different ways. Since all the ceasefire terms held equal weight and validity under UNSCR 687, with no single category being listed as having priority, it does not ultimately matter which term he broke. The fact is, you can take your pick.

Concerning US led aggression that started the war; France, China and Russia all had economic motives to protect Iraq from enforcement of the UN Resolutions...it was not the US that violated half a dozen of UN687's ceasefire terms...that was Iraq, from refusing to repay Kuwait for looting damages all the way down to building brand-new missiles they were prohibited from having. Hussein started the war by invading Kuwait, got thrown out of Kuwait, agreed to a ceasefire, broke it, and got removed from power. What part of this amounts to "US-led aggression?"

Sanctions could not longer be legally applied. 1441 stated specifically that Iraq had received (and lost, after the deadline) its last chance to comply with the UN Resolutions. Sanctions require compliance to be successful. Therefore sanctions could not be applied since it would violate 1441's prohibition on giving Iraq any further opportunities for compliance.

UNSCOM was not under the Bush Administration, it was the inheritor of UNMOVIC's mission and as such was a United Nations operation. Iraq was prohibited not only from having WMDs but also from having any programs, parts, equipment or materials for making them. Having the capacity to churn out lethal biological agents, whether they kill one person at a time or a thousand, means a simple retooling gets you WMDs. Iraq wasn't even allowed to have this kind of dual-use equipment in the manufacture of NORMAL things.

The simple fact is that one cannot read 1441 and come away with the conclusion that "last chance to comply" means anything more or less than what it says. It is the commanding language, and personal opinions, either for or against, do not trump it. Regardless of whether the UNSC "remained seized of the matter", its choices remain strictly limited to: 1) go to war to enforce the ceasefire (France would vote against), 2) declare Iraq to be in compliance regardless of the fact that Blix says it's not (US/UK, and probably others would vote against), or 3) repudiate 1441 entirely in an attempt to put something else on the table (US at the very least would vote against).

Paraphrased from Wikipedia: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

You may or may not agree with invading Iraq. Good arguments can and have been made to support both sides. However, repeating unsupportable politically motivated mantra, then calling it fact, does not lend credibility to your cause.

Guido

Hans Blix did not find anything and the Americans called him back. Except Americans, nobody believed this fantastic assertion that Iraq was a threat. Anyway, invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Hopefully George W invades or bombs Iran soon. Else, this Obama guy will talk peace and nonsense and we poor folks in Asia will suffer.

Chandra:

""Every patriotic American should be proud of the MI.""

As you can well see, I am proud of it. As was Dwight David Eisenhower who was a five star general before becoming prez. When he coined the term, he was not issuing a warning from an insider's perspective; rather he was proudly proclaiming the birth of the best mechanism for spreading freedom and democracy, and the unimaginable lining of pockets of all those whose only goal in life is to spread freedom and democracy. you bet i am proud of it, just is Ike was.

As is Guido. Keep up the good work Guido. Sooner of later, the whole world will be free from delusional rants of those who have nothing better to do than biting that hand that feeds them - food and freedom.

Chandra:

""Anyway, invading Iraq was the right thing to do.""

if i were a part of the iranian govt, i would say the same. iraq is now, for all practical purposes, an almost province of iran. the ancient community of baghadi jews numbers something like 11 or so. all the liquor vendors, who happened to be christians have been elminated. to veil or not to veil is not even an issue. and i don't even mention the lives lost....a madame rice put it, "birthing pains" so, who lost the battle but won the iraq-iran war that started over a couple of decades ago...

All this talk of war is making me really hot. When are we invading and whom? My stars *and* my stripes are just dying for some action. Please let's bomb someone...anyone. I don't even care who we bomb. Please, Mr. President!

(Editors, feel free to edit/delete, but we need some comic relief. The passage below however is does have something to do with "sex" and "disasters", albeit not on a grand scale)

A passage for Umberto Eco's book _How to Travel with a Salmon_. From the Chapter "How to Buy Gadgets", comment on duty-free gadgets available on a flight)

"I am struck (but I hope not literally shocked) by Omniblanket, which costs all of $150. At the simplest level, it is an electric blanket, but it can be programmed so that the temperature varies from one part of your body to another. In other words, if during the night your back feels cold but your groin tends to sweat, you adjust the program accordingly. Omniblanket will keep your back warm and your groin cool. If you are nervous and toss and turn in your sleep, then you are just out of luck. You will roast your testicles or whatever you have in that area, depending on your sex. I doubt the inventor can be asked to make improvemnts, because it seems he was burnt to a cinder some time ago"

"It is well known that, to reduce cholesterol levels, the Americans have long since taken up jogging: they run for hours and hours until they drop dead of a heart attack. Pulse trainer ($59.95), worn on the wrist, is attached by a wire to a little rubber sheath slipped over your index finger. When your cardiovascular system is on the brink of collapse, an alarm goes off, apparently. A real achievment, if you consider that in underdeveloped countries a person stops running only when he is out of breath - a highly primitive criterion...."

"If you want to give that special person a present for his or her birthday, a mere thirty dollars is enough to have him/her sent a copy of the New York Times of the date of his/her birth. If he/she was born on the day of the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima, or the day of the Messina earthquake, that's just too bad. This gift can also be useful in humiliating people you dislike, if they happen to have been born on a day when nothing occurred."

Guido:

""However, repeating unsupportable politically motivated mantra, then calling it fact"

That fount of incorrigible factual knowledge, the wikipedia itself, has all the evidence to prove that Ike himself, as he grew old, as all of us eventually do, was in fact under the influence of the loony left and kept repeating politically motivated mantras such as "the military-industrial-complex". But we should not be too harsh on him as he was a distinguished five star general.

hey does anyone else has a copy of Eco's _How to Travel with a Salmon"?? Buy it! It will sex up any impending disaster....with side-splitting chapters such as "How to Recognize a Porn Movie", "How to Use the Coffee Pot from Hell" and yes indeed (to avoid this post from being deleted as "irrelevant" rather than "irreverent"), to take up the point raised by Jawahar, about stars and stripes, a chapter even titled, "Stars and Stripes".

editors, a thought:

how come no comment is edited/deleted for being "irreverent"?? why only for being irrelevant?

Jawahar:

""All this talk of war is making me really hot. When are we invading and whom?"'

I believe Chandra has a (tongue-in-cheek) list of the enthusiasitc invadees who have lined up to welcome the invasion. Regardless of the silly models of developmental economists that have no bearing on reality, the only model that stands the test of time is that of American lead (metal). Any country that gets bombed to the stone-age, eventually becomes an economic superpower; the more fire-power, the better results; nukes sex it up even further: Germany, Japan etc. But it takes a while thought. Vietnam is on the right track, and Iraq and Afghanistan are on the fast track to economic boomtimes.

The problem though is this: so many countries, having observed first hand, the results in Germany and Japan, are lining up, pleading to be invaded and bombed for their own good. One idea would be to ignore their pathetic, self-interested please and proceed in an alphabetical order. But which alphabet? Eurocentric or some non European language? Hmmmm, another can of worms...

"As is Guido. Keep up the good work Guido. Sooner of later, the whole world will be free from delusional rants of those who have nothing better to do than biting that hand that feeds them - food and freedom."

Thank you for the encouragement CS. We should pray that pathetic dribble, i.e. failed attempts at satire will also be eliminated along with the delusional rants.

One can only hope.

Ciao, Guido

Guido:

""We should pray that pathetic dribble, i.e. failed attempts at satire will also be eliminated along with the delusional rants."'

Thanks Guido. I know you have nothing but the benefit of DC readers in mind, but please don't think that I have any effect on them. Don't anoint me with effects that I don't have. As well, given my mental make-up, that will be quite unlikely. I mean sure, the "failed attempts" might succeed in the future, although don't hold your breath, but until then, the pathetic dribble will continue, drip, drip, drip....count them drops!

Guido:

""One can only hope. [the cessation of pathetic dribble....]

Ciao, Guido"

Yessir! the "audacity of hope" is indeed the flavor of the year....

Guido writes,

The argument that President Bush lied about the WMD doesn't hold water and has been repeatedly debunked. The same people that interrupt political rallies, by shouting this nonsense ignore the intelligence failure on a global scale...a fact accepted by the CIA, FBI, and British Intelligence.

Here, you and I agree, Guido. The Iraqis had WMD's and shipped them to Syria about six weeks before the United States invaded the country. The missiles and launchers were carried on trucks at night to attempt to avoid detection. They were stored in the Beka'a in Lebanon, and will be used - probably against us in Israel.

Looking at this strictly from "what is best for America" I'd say that the mere fact that Saddam Hussein saw fit to rid himself of his missiles was reason not to invade the country. It's really important to remember that Saddam Hussein was backed up by the United States as an "ally" in the 1980's simply because he was willing to invade Iran and fight for a whole long time there over comparatively nothing. If there was a reason to get rid of the bum, it was the possibility he represented as a challenge to countries like Arabia, that hold a huge amount of American debt, or the Gulf countries, particularly the ones that sit on loads of oil.

What has me mystified in the whole Iraq thing was why George H.W. Bush was willing to double-cross him in 1990 by allowing the American ambassador to give a vague enough answer to his request for a green light to invade Quwait - and then go after him like a mean aggressor. Saddam Hussein was an evil SOB, but he thought the American government was his ally.

I might add that it was George H.W, Bush who arranged the double-cross of Saddam Hussein. Satellite photos were taken of Iraqi positions in southern Quwait showing tanks facing latrines and barracks, but facing south. Someone at NSA was ordered to erase the barracks and the latrines from the photos so that it looked as if the Iraqis were planning to move and invade Arabia. Dick Cheney was sent, not knowing the pictures had been doctored, to sell American occupation of parts of Arabia in preparation for an invasion of Quwait. (source: The Gold of Exodus, by Howard Blum).

Guido #61,

It's quite possible, probably true, that the White House ex-spokesman Scott McClellan has written a tell-all account of the spin leading upto the invasion because he is disgruntled at being eased out when he was no longer needed. However, the fact that his account is a consequence of him being pisssed-off, has no bearing on the account itself.

Guido:

""However, repeating unsupportable politically motivated mantra, then calling it fact, does not lend credibility to your cause.""

Coming from somebody who is pretending not to, but is in fact defending the Bush administration line and the incredible credibility that adminsration has, Diane can use the above accusation of lack of credibility as a singular badge of credibility.

As another famous but American put it about governments in general:

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."
~ Mark Twain

and yes, the learned man also said this:

""Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.""
- Mark Twain,

on credibility:

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
~ Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair Interview, 2003-05-28


Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
~ Ari Fleisher, Press Briefing, 2003-03-22

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And ... as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
~ Tommy Franks, General, Press Conference, 2003-03-22

"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."
~ Ken Adelman, Defense Policy Board member, Washington Post, 2003-03-23

"One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites."
~ Patricia Clark, Pentagon Spokeswoman, Press Briefing, 2003-03-22

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

~ Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, Washington Post, op-ed, 2003-04-09

CS #70

"Coming from somebody who is pretending not to, but is in fact defending the Bush administration line and the incredible credibility that adminsration has..."

How about we set some ground rules? You assume to know me and my thoughts, but you don't! You can't know me anymore than I you. So do us both a favor and desists with the characterizations. If you disagree with the content, then please say so. But do it without assuming my thought processes or who you think I am. I'll return the courtesy.

There is no pretense in my comments. I spent most of my adult life defending my nation, so perhaps its second nature to stand up for my former CINC. However, I'll speak up for anyone when it's apparent that the criticism is blatantly false, demonizing, or tired anti-western rhetoric. I also try to provide reasonable supporting opinions and facts to back my assertions. Likewise, when I disagree with the administration I will say so...such as with the current immigration and energy policies.

I am not adverse to warranted criticism. Pres. Bush has erred...as have all past administrations and congresses. Based on the evidence, it seems clear that he and 98% of congress elected to invade Iraq based on what we now understand as bad intelligence. However, reread post #41...if you can step out of the political arena long enough to view the facts in their context (the current environment at the time) when the rational action was to respond to the perceived immediate threat. There is no credible evidence to the contrary.

It is only after the fact, that armchair quarterbacks with a clear political agenda point to the faulty Intel, ignoring all the other mitigating factors and scream, "Bush lied people died". That is dishonest. And the people who readily jump on that train, are either too consumed with hate to see the facts, or just don't care.

There is a faction in America and abroad that truly want to see the US efforts fail in Iraq just to prove Bush wrong. That is how consuming the hate has become. Who would invite more death and destruction and further destabilization to prove their point? It appears many. Or do you ascribe that peace will reign in our absence?

"It's quite possible, probably true, that the White House ex-spokesman Scott McClellan has written a tell-all account of the spin leading upto the invasion because he is disgruntled at being eased out when he was no longer needed. However, the fact that his account is a consequence of him being pisssed-off, has no bearing on the account itself."

I can't comment on the book because I haven't read it; nor will I because this much is clear...he sold out his trusted friends, plain and simple. You can form your opinions from there. His "facts" of events are his views and nothing more. They are disputed by others at the White House. I might give him more credence had he donated the entire proceeds of the book.

If he had all these grave concerns, why not raise them sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration and in the heat of a presidential campaign; a perfect environment to sell his book. Yeah...he's a credible source.

"Diane can use the above accusation of lack of credibility as a singular badge of credibility."

Are you trying to make a point or just being insulting? The statement is nonsensical.

The author says she has conservative sources supporting her claims that Pres. Bush had foreknowledge that there was no WMD...and that he took us to war on false pretenses. I'm still waiting for the references.

Your Twain quotes are very clever.

Ciao, Guido

CS #71

Thanks for making my point CS. Everyone you quoted believed there was WMD. Let me add a few more:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Or maybe they were all duped by the Great Satan himself, Pres. Bush.

Ciao, Guido

Guido,

Thanks for the detailed response. Unfortunately (convenient huh??!), I have sworn off DC for a while. Just wanted to add, that despite my assinine and self-righteous tone, I don't for a moment doubt your sincerety in serving your country.

That there were enough doubts and contradictions between different intelligence estimates, that were then papered over during the rush to create a consensus of imminent threat and therefore invasion, is outlined here, in the long awaited report by the Senate Intelligence Committee. This is my point. If one is to undertake such an enormous step with such huge implications, any hint of "sexing" even a part of the intelligence to rush to invade, is quite incredible. And then of course there was the deliberate inclusion, knowingly, of false intelligence about alumunium tubes being procured from Niger etc. One simply has to connect the dots for the big picture of what really happened. Of course there will never be any memo that says "hey let's sex up the intelligence report". Mark Twain notwithstanding, govts. are not that stupid. Just because everyone seemed to believe the intelligence reports, does not mean that they were true. There were enough inconsistencies and internal disagreements, for the administration to take a deep breath and pause for a moment. But, the decision was made to invade, and now it was a question of justifying it. The investigation in Britain also point to this conclusion. The point is that there was no black and white consensus on the facts. This may not make a difference if it's a question of quelling a riot that is already underway. But to undertake such an enormous invasion with such serious repercussions, one really has to have no shred of doubt. And this, as the reports released less than a week ago, linked below, show clearly not to be the case.

Brief summaries here from the NYT, Washington Post and the Internatinoal Herald Tribune, all "liberal" papers to be sure, but not part of the loonie left. I hope you will trust the report of your own Senate Intelligence Committee. It took them 5 years to put it together, after much stonewalling from the administration over certain key documents; of course the crucial emails that were supposed to be archived were mysteriously "deleted" etc. etc. Even then, this is quite a damning report, yet, without the "smoking gun". In such a complex situtation, it is enough for intelligent people, to c