Chickens are Coming Home to Roost

Re: # 33

HP:

I would disagree with you.

iraq under saddam had no chance to come under jihadis. Saddam ruled with an iron hand and didn`t tolerate muslim fundamentalism either. the country was weakened but the republican guards/iraqi army was capable of dealing with any jihadi. Only when this bulwark was demolished the jihadis now have a chance to usurp the state.

in afghanistan, al-qaida didn`t take advantage of taliban weakness, but the taliban themselves invited and tolerated them (as the ideologies were more or less the same). in case of saddam it would have never happened.

Hence bush continued to lie regarding 911 connection, WMD to the belt of democracy.

if iraq under saddam was going to come under jihadis then it would have made bush`s work simpler.

Re: # 33

Well said.

Haroon on Saddam and Bush

As Iraq becomes Vietnam, he blames the seemingly unstoppable insurgency on Al Qaeda and other Islamic militants, whom he has just compared to Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. But his own analysts peg their number at only a few hundred out of an estimated 10,000 insurgents.

He blames Iran and Syria and won`t rule out waging war on either or both. Yet suspected foreign militants caught in Iraq since April add up to a grand total of 312. Of them, the highest number, 78, hail from Egypt, about which he remains silent, as also about the other American ally, Saudi Arabia, whose apprehended citizens outnumber Iran`s, 32 to 13.

He crows about bringing democracy to Iraq but plans to veto a U.S. Senate vote ordering him to bring Guantanamo Bay and similar other holding pens under the rule of law.

mirmir:

do forgive beej. for a person who patronizes others in regards to their emotionalism, he certainly lets his own blind fervor get in the way of ``logic and common sense``.

--he tends to assume that activists are either communists or communist sympathizers indeed as you say in the vein of a mccarthy. he ignores the fact that martin luther king jR. was an activist AND a vociferous critic of communism. i am always amazed at the incredibly narrow definitions some folks have of being an ``act-iv-ist``

--his words would suggest a ``my country right or wrong`` attitude, and again he assumes that being critical of a country`s policies or president is indicative of a) a communist/communist sympathizer, or b) an anti-national. last i heard the united states had not made a full slide into fascism. last i heard, it was okay to raise questions in a democracy. and last i heard, it was okay to question policies of a neighboring country especially if those policies impacted them.

--judging from his thinly veiled stereotypical remarks here and on your board, he appears to be ignorant and have a low tolerance for mexicans/latinos/chicanos. i mean what are these ``hot-blooded`` mexican, and speedy gonzales allusions about?!

whatcha gonna do?!

oh, and one more thing, once the beej is disgusted with one`s stance on something, he tends to do something very closely approximating ``stalking`` that one on other boards with personal attacks. he`s already done that with certain writers and interactors. but so have other interactors as well. if all we can do is capitalize on personal attacks rather than arguing issues, then at some point one learns to ignore such attacks, kinda like a distant buzzing of a bee, or one doesn`t.

*this bee has flown*

Re: # 30
Ana...
Yes, people who use personal attacks rather than reason seem to pop up everywhere, but I honestly thought that McCarthyism was dead - apparently not. I finally figured out how to use the ``filter`` option (thanks to the Chowk staff for making this option available) that lets us block folks like the Beej out. The ``bee`` has flown from here as well. mirmir

Ref # 18...

``And then of course there are the communist sympathizers like mirmirs who are fine with illegals breaking all rules of border crossings, who want the US to pump and pump money into the UN, who could NEVER run a democracy and a clean judiciary in their own countries themselves – but have the audacity to turn around and start bad-mouthing the US – simply because they can get away with it. It is not the first time I have seen such an utter lack of logic and common sense!``

Say what???? Where do you get this stuff, Mr. (Bee)J. McCarthy? mirmir

Ferozk:

My comments were in regards to your post #5 in which you said:

``There is a legal prionciple called `sovereign immunity,` which will prevent Vice President Dick Cheney and anyone associated with the Bush administration from being prosecuted.``

In my last post (#17) I reproduced a news story from Yahoo!News in which one of the observations was, ``And what if the unthinkable happens and Cheney is indicted?`` So indictment of Dick Cheney is not off the books and is a possibility.

Thanks for your long post (#26) but I was not really concerned with the niceties and fine points of law. I was a government (local government) official (apolitical) myself and knew I would be protected for my actions within the law and taken according to the departmental guidelines. On one occasion, I did very politely refuse to carry out a direct verbal order from my Deputy Director giving her my reasons for it. She understood and didn`t force me. She got the thing done some other way.

The intent of the article was not to raise a political discussion between pro and contra Muslims and their interests. Those who are writing on these issues have completely mis-read the article. The basic issue was if Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and other officials had crossed the legal boundaries by outing Valerie Plame. In our boundless passion for our religious affiliations, we seem to have lost sight of objectivity. Every issue is not about ``us`` versus ``them.`` Particularly the issue highlighted in the article was not about it. It is about what a powerful administarator can and cannot legally do in the discharge of his/her duties.

For God`s sake, aren`t you guys tired of this meaningless debate pitting one religion against the other. Why don`t you grow up?

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 28

Mohammad sahib, the case hinges on the legality of intent and as much as we may wish the legality away, it will only entrench itself. I need a second opinion on this, but my recollection is that it is a crime to identify a CIA operative, but it is not a crime to identify their family members. The law allows, indirectly, to name the operative without actually naming the operative and the law on this issue might be so construed as to offer a plausible deniability.

The second consideration is, what was the intention of the remark made, which identified Valerie Palmer. I do not think that there is sufficient evidence present to make the argument that the remark was made in bad faith to jeapordize Valerie Palmer`s cover on purpose. The point to remember is that Ms. Judith Miller was forced to make the confession on the identity of the person, who gave her Valerie Palmer`s name because of the laws passed by the Bush adminisration itself to force reporters to identify their sources if such sources provided material evidence in the successful prosecution of GWOT.

The basic issue, as you have stated, was if Karl Rove, ``Scooter`` Libby and other officials had crossed the legal boundaries by naming Valerie Plame. The evidence would suggest that they have not, because the law itself is murky on the issue. The law requires solid evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and not a presumption of guilt, as many seem to be hoping. I think that Karl Rove and ``Scooter`` Libby were well within the legal penumbera of the law and though they may have flexed the bounderies of the law; they did not breach such bounderies by their actions. The evidence or its lack thereof, would suggest that this was more a case of irregularity than mal-intentions on the part of Rove, Libby et al. The difference being that irregularity would suggest that the understanding on the confidentiality of the sources and the need to protect the identities of the government officals engaged in intelligence operations for the United States` government was compromised, but there was no criminal intent. Mal-intention would, on the other hand pre-suppose, a criminal intent and so far, to the best of my understanding, no criminal intent has been proven.

The basis of the case rests on the understanding of the law itself on the issue and such, that law being unclear, gives credence to the defense argument of Libby, Rove et al that there was no criminal intent in naming Valerie Palmer. Before we put on our masks of judge, jury and executioner on this issue, it would be wise to wait and see if the government actually has evidence to prove the existence of a mal-intent on part of the accused in this case. Chances are, that given the gravity of the situation, the accused will resign and will be pardoned by Bush, which will negate any future legal action against them.

Ciao

#18 Beej

``The true answer is that no matter what the US does, it will be blamed by tons of Muslims all over the world – and the farther those Muslims are located from that scene of action – the more vociferously they would object – and the more jihadis they would dispatch!``

You are so right Beej. Not too much, if any, has been written on this site about:

- How did Syria manage to kill major Lebenese political figure? What were they afraid of? Is the UN report credible? And then, why was that prominant syrian minister eliminated by Assad? Why did he call a Lebenese radio station 2 hours befor he committed ``suicide``?

- What does the new Iraqi constitution mean for Kurds and Shias? Why are Sunnis killing tons of Shias every day? Why should Shias and Kurds continue to live under Iraq of Sunnis, for Sunnis and by Sunnis? Can 70% of non-Sunnis ask for their homeland?

These are non-kosher thoughts for this crowd. They are just having collective wet dreams that Bush will leave in disgrace because some one said this to that at a certain time. They love this lawful society as long as it helps getting rid of Bush and preserves their own well being here.

They have no use for this mumbo jumbo if it impacts Kurds, Lebenese, Shias or other minorities of their dream lands.

re: SR (various posts)

I agree, with your`s friend`s historic observations on the nature of the empires. Most empires, historically speaking, have collapsed from internal problems and not from external reasons. From Rome to Britain to now United States, this pattern will be the same.

As to the ``Big Z``, he is in my opinion, one of the most farsighted political analysts of US foreign policy. What makes his analysis and opinions carry so much weight is that they are always devoid of ideological blinkers. ``Big Z`` being the protege of Kissenger is a Realpolitiker and not a wishful personality as the cabal, which is influencing Bush foreign policy.

Ciao

When the history of the Republican party is written, by Republican authors themselves, George Bush will be the person they will blame for their demise.

The USA, over the past four decades has gone through a social revolution. It is the only influential country in the Western world that has gone from Liberalism to Conservatism, socially. It is the only influential country in the Western world, which has gone from being less religious to more religious. It is, infact, going against the trend of where the Western world is going. As an example, according to Pew, 45% of Americans now want religion in the State, i.e. they are against Secularism. While 35% of Britishers feel that David Beckham has more influence on their lives than God!

The conservative movement in the USA took a lot of effort, and reached its zenith during the Regan days, and took control of the Republican party. After which it was only matter of time, till it took over the USA. Five out of the last seven US Presidents have been Republican. And only a President of Clinton`s calibre was able to make a dent for the Demcrats.

23% of the voting population of the USA are Christian Evangelists. And 42% of the population consists of Christian Conservatives. Hence any Republican candidate only has to compete for approximately 66% of the vote, While the Democrats have to compete for nearly 100%.........

The Republicans reached a point, through the social conservative revolution, where they controlled the House, the Senate, the Executive, and are about to control the Judiciary. Something unprecedented in the last century of the USA.

All they now needed was a President who did not mess anything up. He just had to be average. Even slightly below average would have worked. Not make any stupid decisions, and just work 9-5. Like the Quarterback whose team is so powerful that it will win, even if he doesn`t do anything, other than not fumbling.......

That is when George W. Bush arrived......

In six quick years, he has undone forty long years of the conservative revolution, for the Republicans. He has fumbled at every step, even when it was impossible to fumble. This is despite the fact that he had the 9/11 tragedy, to give him a huge boost. He had to do nothing after that, and Republicans would still continue to win, forever........

There is an interesting anological comparison to Canada. In Canada, conservatives can never win. The Liberals always win. In the last election, the two conservative parties joined into one. The Liberal party had an internal coup, and broke up into two. The Finance minister kicked out his own Prime Minister, and two Deputy Prime Ministers. On top of that the USA put up sanctions on beef and lumber against Canada. If that wasn`t bad enough the Liberal party got caught in a huge financial corruption scandal. On top of that the separatist Quebec party won large gains in Quebec.

Yet the Liberals still won!! And will probably win again. Whatever seats they lost, were to the even more Liberal NDP.......

This is what the situation would and should have been in the USA for the Conservatives and Republicans. In a USA, where 2 out of every 3 citizens claims to be conservative, the Republican party should be undefeatable. However, Bush seems to have ruined it for them, in a quick 6 years.........

Re: # 21

romair:

``When the history of the Republican party is written, by Republican authors themselves, George Bush will be the person they will blame for their demise. ``

you are stating as if the republicans are going to be wiped off for good.

at the most because of these inquiries, some heads would roll, may be democracts would win the presidential election (because of GOP policies).

would all that mean republican party will be gone for good?

i don`t think so.

---

``The Republicans reached a point, through the social conservative revolution, where they controlled the House, the Senate, the Executive, and are about to control the Judiciary. Something unprecedented in the last century of the USA.

All they now needed was a President who did not mess anything up. He just had to be average. ``

Don`t you think that Bush`s policy regarding gay marriage, abortion and ``operation iraqi freedom`` propaganda had any influence in winning the House, senate majority?

---

regarding the conservative revolution, when bush won in 2004, the country was almost divided 50-50 hence i don`t think conservatives had an overwheming advantage. but with the iraq situation going nowhere more people are having doubts about his leadership.

And indeed there will be time
To wonder, ``Do I dare?`` and, ``Do I dare?``
Time to turn back and descend the stair,
With a bald spot in the middle of my hair--
[They will say: ``How his hair is growing thin!``]
My morning coat, my collar mounting firmly to the chin,
My necktie rich and modest, but asserted by a simple pin--
[They will say: ``But how his arms and legs are thin!``]
Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.

t. s. eliot. ``the love song of j. alfred prufrock``

War in Iraq is irrelevant. Saddam is gone. Iraq will stay in one piece only if Shites, Sunnis and Kurds want it that way.

I doubt Cheney or GW Bush did anything illegal. Cheney is too smart. Bush is too dumb to think of anything devious.

Urstruly #10
`` I just wanted to record my disgust on this board; otherwise, reading anything about these arrogant fukks and war criminals makes my skin crawl. ughhh. ``

I am not a big fan of Bush. But he did kick out Saddam. I know you are a big fan of Osama/Mullah Omar brigade. Maybe you shouldn`t send planes flying into high-rises.

Re#16 SR

It is extremely off-the-mark to call Saddam’s trial a monkey trial. The fact that the US is trying to actually take him through the steps of facing up to what he has done (or at least parts of it, since the full enormity may never be known) ought to be considered a GOOD precedent and the fact that victors seldom do that (especially in THAT part of the world) ought to open some eyes around there and around here.

But it won’t, because this crowd is highly biased!

Can you describe to me what scenario would be a “fair” trial for this type of character? (Chopping the head off is not an option.)

The true answer is that no matter what the US does, it will be blamed by tons of Muslims all over the world – and the farther those Muslims are located from that scene of action – the more vociferously they would object – and the more jihadis they would dispatch!

The problem with the Gills and several others on this site is that they have convinced themselves of their own “wisdom”– through repeated talking to like-minded individuals – bogus ideas can indeed inbreed in the same manner as people can and the quality does not improve by doing that. They have fully detached themselves from realities – and not just the realities of today – even their sense of history is all distorted!

SR, before your bleeding heart goes completely ga-ga and mushy (like the rest of this crowd) over this dictator’s “courage” in saying “what gives this court the authority….” and all that other crap, please pause for a second and remember what he said when he was picked from his rat-hole – “I am Saddam Hussain, please don’t shoot!” These people can perform quite well on camera until the time to show some REAL courage comes around. The same is true of all dictators, be it Saddam, or Noriega, or Mushy! All their bravery is limited to crushing the weak. When the sawa-sher (one and quarter lion) shows up, they turn their tail into a u-shape faster than one can blink an eyelid!

Face it – most of the interactors here who are criticizing the US so vocally now were just FINE when Saddam was crushing his (majority) population. Whatever happened to the Gills of the world THEN – they were sniffing the snake?

Let’s not screw around – this screwed-up thing is all about religion – at least from THIS crowd. If there is a better explanation then that must be highly mysterious. The sad part is that this crowd is not able to swallow its own very evident religious bias!

And then of course there are the communist sympathizers like mirmirs who are fine with illegals breaking all rules of border crossings, who want the US to pump and pump money into the UN, who could NEVER run a democracy and a clean judiciary in their own countries themselves – but have the audacity to turn around and start bad-mouthing the US – simply because they can get away with it. It is not the first time I have seen such an utter lack of logic and common sense!

The bottom line is – Saddam got that country into the original lousy shape and the first war! Everything else followed. If the people of Iraq are suffering because they are being killed by the bomb-blasts and because infrastructure is being damaged – shouldn’t the logical conclusion be to blame the people who are doing the bomb blast and who are damaging the infrastructure? Then how come this crowd fails to do that?

Like the old saying goes – all thieves are cousins! I’m glad GWB has shown the guts to call their bluff.

Another advice – dump some of those “wise” friends of yours! Start with those located on this web site – if any! Good luck – I have not seen too many wise ones around here but I have been at it for only one year!

The real “turning point” needed is in your thought process – otherwise you are just taking turns and being a second fiddle at what the rest of this crowd is doing!

Sincerely,
Beej.

Re: # 18 {``...Can you describe to me what scenario would be a “fair” trial for this type of character? (Chopping the head off is not an option.) ...``}

When American forces took Naples in 1943, General Mark Clark appointed New York Mafioso Lucky Luciano as his senior civilian advisor. While Clark dined on fish looted from the city aquarium, Luciano knew what to do with anyone who got out of line. But Paul Bremer and the rest of the bumblers appointed by the Bush administration were only good at pleasing their masters in Washington, not ruling their subjects. They quickly made a mess of it. And now, by putting Saddam on the stand, they offer the old man a chance to make his case. Yes, the nation was a hellhole when he ran the place, but at least it was a hellhole for the Iraqi people, by the Iraqi people, and of the Iraqi people.

The noose is too good for Saddam. As I wrote in my earlier response: ``U.S. soldiers might have done better to treat him as Genghis Khan treated one of his enemies: pouring molten silver in his ear.`` Okay, I concede, maybe molten silver in the ears is going a bit too far. How about a lead slug an inch above the right ear? Is that allowed? It should be. After all that is how his sons were disposed off. The why not him? But no... no sir, the Anglo-Saxons have to appear to be civilized. What rubbish. Killing thousands of innocent bystanders in the process and shrugging it off as ``collateral damage`` is okay but one bullet in Saddam`s brain is not. This is absurd in the extreme.

The real problem for America is the problem of empire itself. It turns the imperial people into a race of “hollow dummies,” to use George Orwell’s phrase. They eventually come to believe what isn’t true and try to do what can’t be done. “Nation building” in Baghdad by an occupying army? You might as well try to get rich by borrowing money and increasing your spending.

The Anglo-Saxon Empire is, and always was, based on commerce. It succeeded by taking raw materials from the colonies, adding value by manufacturing, and reselling the products to the world. But the Aanglo-Saxons no longer make what the world wants to buy. Turn over any object at home or at the office and you are likely to find a “made in China,” or “made in Malaysia,” or “assembled in India,” notice. Increasingly, America’s old industries - such as G.M. and Kodak are going bust, unable to compete with Asian labor rates. America now has to borrow from foreigners to pay interest on the debt it owe`s.

The best way to win a war, said Sun Tzu, is to let your enemy defeat himself. That is roughly what U.S. forces are doing in Iraq. They are helping to destroy the great Anglo-Saxon commercial empire. And they are doing it in the predictable way. U.S. military power is now stretched out all over the globe. The flower of America’s high-tech puissance - the finest attack machine ever created - is now put to work guarding gas stations and ballot boxes. Meanwhile, the expense of maintaining global hegemony has risen so high the only way America can afford it is by borrowing money from the communists in China.