CBS on Saddam’s Wacky Desire To Be Invaded

Thanks to knarlyknight for mentioning this item in the comments. From FAIR (yeah, I know): The “Great Mystery” of Iraq’s WMDs?

A January 27 report on CBS’s 60 Minutes attempted to answer what CBS reporter Scott Pelley claimed was a key mystery of the Iraq War: Why didn’t Saddam Hussein tell the world he had no weapons of mass destruction, and thus avoid the U.S.-led invasion? But if Pelley had been watching his own network’s exclusive interview with Hussein on the eve of the war, he would have known that Hussein did exactly that.

It’s really quite remarkable. I remember the run-up to the war, and CBS’s willingness to completely mischaracterize what happened then as part of its “news” reporting is fairly disheartening. I mean, I realize that Fox News is intentionally ridiculous in order to cater to its target audience’s hostile-media-bias perceptions, and that CNN has made a conscious editorial decision to follow Fox in order to defend its market-share. But CBS?

Oh, waiter. Can I get another media, please? This one isn’t very good.

110 Responses to “CBS on Saddam’s Wacky Desire To Be Invaded”

  1. Sven Says:

    As I was driving home from work the other day, I tried to find the Clinton / Obama Democratic debate on the radio. Usually I turn to CBS radio on AM for news, but they didn’t have a live feed from the debate. So tuning around I managed to find a partial broadcast, only to quickly learn that it was actually screaming idiot Michael Savage’s show. After a couple minutes of hearing the debate, he began screaming at the two of them and cut to a caller who wrongly started ranting about Obama being a Muslim. Sigh…

    I did manage to tune in on the internet when I got home. Apart from the peaceful nature of the debate, the one part of it that got my interest was Clinton’s response for her Iraq vote prior to the 2003 invasion. She claimed her vote was necessary to leverage having weapons inspectors return after Saddam had “kicked them out” back in 1998. Her explanation sounded credible enough to me, and is how I remembered it myself. Then I did my own research to refresh my memory. It seems that Bush isn’t the only one who would like to rewrite history. Saddam never kicked the inspectors out. In 2003, they left under orders of Koffi Annan. In 1998 the inspectors left voluntarily. In both cases they left knowing that a U.S. attack was imminent. Saddam had nothing to do with the either decision, yet many people, including Clinton, still insist he was the one who kicked the inspectors out.

    I’ll be voting for Obama on Tuesday.

  2. Sven Says:

    I found these differences in news reporting between 1998 and 2002 interesting:

    The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them.

    – Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98

    To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago.

    –John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02

    The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and–as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning

    –Katie Couric, NBC’s Today, 12/16/98/

    As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons inspectors after kicking them out four years ago.

    –Maurice DuBois, NBC’s Saturday Today, 8/3/02

    The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to cooperate–a report that renewed the threat of U.S. and British airstrikes.

    –AP, 12/16/98

    Information on Iraq’s programs has been spotty since Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.

    –AP, 9/7/02

    Immediately after submitting his report on Baghdad’s noncompliance, Butler ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq.

    –Los Angeles Times, 12/17/98

    It is not known whether Iraq has rebuilt clandestine nuclear facilities since U.N. inspectors were forced out in 1998, but the report said the regime lacks nuclear material for a bomb and the capability to make weapons.

    –Los Angeles Times, 9/10/02

    http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2509

    Yeah, I think we need a new media.

  3. TeacherVet Says:

    It seems that the “spin” in both directions was dictated by unawareness of facts combined with an irresistible desire to print something/anything, right or wrong. Legitimate reporting often doesn’t seem to meet the desired goal of sensationalism unless it’s intermingled with biased opinion, making it impossible to discern which data is factual. Because of that it has led us, the consumers of news, to be equally guilty of forming biased opinions and perceptions of media reporting, dismissing some possibly factual material as simply opinion. Even numbers, raw figures reported as “fact”, are distorted to such an extent that news consumers must decide whether to accept or reject them.

    I agree that we need a new media, but it will never happen; people in every part of the political spectrum now reject anything that doesn’t fit perfectly into their own idealogy.

    RE Obama: I happen to like his personality, and the slight possibility/hope that it might be of benefit if he tries to use it in an effort to bring some unity to this country. I don’t believe for an instant that he is a Muslim, and certainly not an active part of the radical element, but I am concerned about his associations with them. In particular, his recent dealings with Raila Odinga (about 18 months ago).

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon212.htm

    Yeah, I know, Ryter will probably be summarily dismissed as a credible source because he has a history of being critical of Gore, Kerry, both Clintons, Edwards & Richardson – but also of Bush, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, McCain & Paul. Also, I’ve read some positive spin on Odinga in some media outlets, but at least give the last third of Ryter’s article a read before rejecting it, and please share opinions that might assuage my partisan suspicions.

  4. Sven Says:

    I read you link TV. I do not dismiss Ryter because of any history of his, as I’ve never heard of him before. I dismiss him from his very first sentence where he claims Obama is a Muslim, as he does throughout his article. Yet you claim not to believe for an instant that he is a Muslim? As to the Odinga references, are you claiming Obama is somehow responsible for the violence in Kenya? The whole article: ridiculous. Sounds like what I was hearing from Michael Savage. You must be a fan.

  5. TeacherVet Says:

    Sven, I quite obviously discounted the first 2/3 of the article, with my only expressed concern being Obama’s close friendship with Odinga. And no, I never inferred that Obama was in any way responsible for the violence. Odinga appears to be, and I was hoping for some “unspun” info to counter the charge that Odinga was directly responsible for the murderous rampages.

  6. knarlyknight Says:

    Sven, Fascinating compilation of quotes, thx. My memory must be faulty as I seem to recall the weapons inspectors leaving and returning to Iraq more than once in the 1998-2003 timeframe; but in the end were satisfied that the sites they examined did not contain and had not contained WMD – and were not sanitized or otherwise “cleaned-up” prior to their arrival – as the warmongers wanted everyone to believe.

    TeacherVet, thanks for providing another example of why we need a new media. A few observations, but first, what kind of loon picks a pseudonym like “Jon Christian Ryter”? Pseudenym aside, what’s with his desperate attempt to label Obama? There are many shades and nuances of people in this world. Ryter seems to believe that people fit into whatever group they were born and raised, and anyone who strays from that is a spy or otherwise dishonestly representing himself. He must be locked so securely into his Christian paradigm that he really has no concept of the kaleidescope of human existance, or the possibility that ONE person might exhibit characteristics of many parts of the spectrum of thought, because Jon Christian Ryter certainly functions in one ultra narrow wavelength.

    There are people who have no religion and barely the capacity to philosophize. There are people who do not understand religion and wonder a lot but believe others when they are told they need to have faith, and they follow what the people around them say. There are people who have religion, philosophize, and look for signs to reinforce their faith, find these signs in miraculous coincidences, and follow their faith. There are others, who have rejected one faith to join another that appeals to them more. Then you have people, perhaps like Obama, who are highly intelligent and have been exposed to different faiths over time in a positive way and can recognize the good in people that so obviously transcends whatever beliefs they currently hold or once held, and such people, perhaps like Obama, know that what matters is what is inside a person’s heart. To such a person it is totally irrelevant as to what prophet or what paricular church is “politically correct” at any particular time; and it is people who think that this is a big issue – people like “Jon Christian Ryter” who are truly the ones to be wary of because their goal is not to raise a greater understanding and tolerance but rather to spread suspicion, fear with the ultimate prize being a harmful label that will help to drag down the object of their gaze. The objects of their gaze are often people in the spotlight who display a different, or in this case (Obama) a far broader band of light than they will ever be able to comprehend.

    The idea that any single person can possibly be more than a single label (Jew, Islamofascist, Baptist, Athiest) is heretical to fundamentalists of any denomination, and is very disconcerting to racists and people who insist on pigeon-holing a person in order that they may be more easily judged. Such people always want to know “what team is he on?” and can barely fathom the idea that an individual might actually be for all the teams, the spectators and everyone involved in the sport – and they certainly have no conception that there is more to life than that sport.

    It is an easy assumption to make that this guy Ryter has a simple schema in mind, something like this: Devout Christian= white felt hat; Christian=nice straw hat; Muslim=dirty straw hat; devout Muslim=black hat. Maybe I’m wrong, I couldn’t bring myself to pay very close attention to what he was saying because it all seemed so irrelevant.

  7. knarlyknight Says:

    jbc,

    “Oh, waiter. Can I get another media, please? This one isn’t very good. ”

    Now that was funny.

  8. TeacherVet Says:

    Knarly, all of that to convince me of what I’ve already said I believe? I don’t care about the brief influences on Obama that disappeared before his elementary school years, and I don’t care about his pseudonym – it’s no more important to me than the reasons we choose our own pseudonyms (usernames).

    A couple of years ago I took a Comparative Religions class at our local community college, taught by a friend of mine, a true African-American (an American citizen, born in Kenya) who happens to be Muslim. I appreciate the analytical thought process that went into such a well-written response, but it was unnecessary, and it was irrelevant because it didn’t address the questions about Odinga or Obama’s political alliance with him.

  9. TeacherVet Says:

    “his” pseudonym = Ryter’s

  10. Sven Says:

    TV: Obama and Odinga are cousins, yes. But I’m not sure there is any more of an “alliance” between them than with his other cousin: Dick Cheney.

  11. NorthernLite Says:

    Sven: Exactly.

  12. TeacherVet Says:

    Evaded nicely; congrats. The failure to respond speaks volumes.

  13. knarlyknight Says:

    PreacherVet – sorrry, didn’t intend to be a choir singing to the preacher.

    NL – Any idea how many degrees seperates Obama from Kevin Bacon?

  14. knarlyknight Says:

    The Preacher thinks you evaded. Perhaps he can first answer how many degrees seperates Bush from Hitler.

  15. NorthernLite Says:

    knarly, I see no need to defend Obama from an absurd attack by a partisan person.

    I also heard that Obama’s cousin’s sister-in-law’s babysitter’s secretary might have worked on Iraq’s WMD program in the 90s.

  16. NorthernLite Says:

    Besides, we have to get used to it. Obama is being “swift boated” already:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=jhEPNOusKv4

  17. enkidu Says:

    I read that link screetcher vet provided and it was utter tripe…
    ugly, thinly disguised racist balderdash, easily disproved, partisan bs.
    Honestly, does anyone here – except you yMom – think tv would link to anything else? Where do you think he gets his ‘information’? anyone?
    And I wasted some valuable time skimming some of those other ‘articles’
    In a single word: garbage.

    I recall that when I debunked tv’s breathless claims of “we found the WMDs” I used sources like the BBC, IAEA, DoE, GAO and non-political US gov sources. Not “Bob’s Big Barrel o Nutjobbery” or fauxnewz (hard to tell those two apart really).

    I don’t think Obama has done anything other than call for peace in Kenya.
    I sincerely doubt you can prove me wrong tv, but do fly off the handle like you always do!

    I think it would be great to have a President who grew up in a muslim part of the world. Maybe he could help repair some of the incalculable damage that dumbya has done to America (and the world). On the other hand, I will support Hillary if she gets the nod. She’d do a better job than St McCain or Willard.

  18. knarlyknight Says:

    Wait a second, is somebody trying to suggest that Obama’s ancestors came from Africa? That’s ridiculous.

  19. TeacherVet Says:

    My, but we just hate partisan people, don’t we? Methinks many of you see in others the things you most despise about yourselves.

    inkydude, why don’t you (again) bring up your tremendous victory in the Great WMD Debate of aught 5? Then, perhaps, no one will notice that you also evaded the question… Or, was “I don’t think Obama has done anything other than call for peace in Kenya” a response? I agree with the “don’t think” (for yourself) disclaimer, but when did he make such a call? Maybe a .007 second google search will reveal someone with the opinion you wish to share.

    Of course you will support Hillary, or Garfield the Cat, or anyone over a Republican candidate… because you’re a… bi-partisan, Independent non-tool!

  20. NorthernLite Says:

    Yeah knarly, quit being so partisan. I’m sure you try to take a post about how shitty the pre-invasion media was and turn it into an absurd debate by tossing around accusations that Obama started the conflict in Kenya and could possibly be a Muslim. The nerve.

    “We’re concerned about AIDS inside our White House – make no mistake about it.”

    George W. Bush
    The White House, February 2007

  21. TeacherVet Says:

    NL, who accused Obama of starting the conflict in Kenya?

    Should I apologize for responding to Sven’s mention of Obama, even to dismiss the notion that he might be a Muslim?

  22. knarlyknight Says:

    So if Obama gets elected, is he or is he not going to invade Kenya? And why the hell isn’t the main stream media reporting that story? It’s their liberal bias that they are trying to conceal along with covering up Obama’s plans to pounce on Kenya the first chance he gets.

  23. knarlyknight Says:

    Want to see how a real Obama scuttler works? Forget about that Ryter loser with his slander by association with Muslims and Odinga garbage, and take a look at Tarpley’s Macciavellian skewer:

    www . rense.com/general80/sosob.htm

  24. NorthernLite Says:

    shcb, are you there?

    I am curious as to your thoughts on all these conservative personalities (Limbaugh, Culter, Larson, etc) who are aggressively attacking McCain.

    I think (and certainly hope) that the John McCain’s, Rudy Giuliani’s and Arnold Swarzenegger’s are the future of the republican party, so it’s interesting to see all these hardcore conservatives attacking one of their own so viciously. I really would like to know what you think about all this.

    Anyone who talks about the environment ain’t all that bad in my books, and so far McCain is addressing it even more than the democrats. You have been pretty silent on the republican race so far. So whatcha thinking?

  25. shcb Says:

    Sounds fun, I’ll write something tonight, I’m not that enthused with any of the Republicans in this race so I haven’t had much to say, but I’m always willing to voice my opinions as you are painfully aware.

  26. enkidu Says:

    tv – so the BBC, IAEA, DoE and GAO are leftist commie partisan information sources? But your extremist bs link is reasonable? What’s next chief? A discussion of your postings at stormfront? The humorous allegories posted at little green footballs?

    I’m a life long Independent/NA voter and you Rs are killing your brand – the last 20 years of ‘conservatism’ has left me with no decent R candidates to vote for. btw – I voted for dumbya’s father (the first time). This election is going to be a blowout of epic proportions. Just look at the numbers of Rs retiring from the House and Senate, the turnout of D voters and the abysmally awful R candidates – after watching McCain dry hump dumbya for 7 years, he lost my vote (plus the country does not want to be in Iraq for a hundred years John, and bombing Iran? very bad idea)

    shcb – I’d love to hear it!

  27. NorthernLite Says:

    shcb, cool. I know we rarely see eye to eye on things but I do enjoy reading your posts and appreciate the different perspective.

  28. TeacherVet Says:

    Yes, inkydude, you actually used some legitimate sources in a single post a few years ago (although the partisan bias of the BBC is certainly an exception), following which I acknowledged your tremendous victory. Again, and again, and again, congrats.

    Now, can you address the issue I raised…

  29. enkidu Says:

    the issue is… that you fill your head with extremist rancor?

    Sorry, I don’t have time to rebut the nonsense in your link.
    Need to spare a few minutes to walk down the street, request a Democratic primary ballot and vote to nominate Barack Hussien Obama (no, dear rwnj, he isn’t some sort of crypto-muslim! you are to laugh! keep up your nutjobbery! funny)

  30. Sven Says:

    TV: you yourself discount 2/3 of your propaganda link. You drop Odinga’s name, while also saying Obama is in now way responsible for the violence in Kenya, but seem to want to know what significance we’d give to their relationship? My response: not much. What significance are you trying to give it? I’m not following. Thanks.

  31. TeacherVet Says:

    As I originally suspected, you folks attacked the messenger and ignored the message. Let’s see if I can capture the gist of your responses:

    Sven is upset because someone desecrated the name of Obama, and unable to see past the very first sentence.

    NL thinks someone accused Obama of starting the violence in Kenya.

    Knarly says he couldn’t bring himself to pay very close attention, then expounds on parables about sports and hats.

    InkyDude thinks Odinga has something to do with WMD.

    Don’t like Ryter? Try NPR:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17761574

    Or Merinews:

    http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp;jsessionid=BE5A55579767C283423494F23E28DB92?articleID=129037

    Or the Ron Paul War Room (although you won’t like it because it suggests a reason the MSM has not pursued the story):

    http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=4228

    Or the beloved CNN:

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/12/31/kenya.elex/index.html

    The election results are in dispute because they contradict early exit polls and pre-election day polls – sound familiar, anyone?

  32. Sven Says:

    TV: way to not answer my question. I’m not upset in the least, I’m just not following your convoluted messages. On the one hand you are posting a link that you yourself admit you don’t believe 2/3′ds of. I believe even less than that, although I did actually read it well beyond the first sentence. You say you don’t believe Obama is responsible in any way for the violence in Kenya, yet you keep bringing up Odinga, and posted several more links about him. I get it. Odinga = very bad man. And he’s Obama’s cousin. So what?

    The only link in your last post that even mentions Obama is the one from the Ron Paul propaganda site. CNN, NPR, Merinews do not even mention Obama anywhere. So instead of having us sift through links that you yourself say are 2/3′ds B.S., why can’t you just come out and make whatever point you are trying to make? Or maybe you can’t?

    Here is a link back at you:
    http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/obama_urges_path_of_peace_in_k.html

  33. TeacherVet Says:

    Obama claims a close friendship with Odinga, he traveled to Kenya to campaign for him in August 2006, and he echoed Odinga’s condemnation of the election results and of the government itself. None of that seeming to be in doubt, I was examining the character of the man with whom he has chosen to draw an alliance.

    Read that again. I was not examining Obama’s relationship with the violence in Kenya, nor was I examining Obama himself. For that reason, the sources I cited address Odinga’s character and leadership role in encouraging the violence, with little or no significant mention of Obama. If you view such an examination of Odinga’s political struggle as an attack on Obama then I guess my question has been answered, although it’s not the answer I had hoped for.

    Odinga ran on the “social democrat” ticket – a name that is uncomfortably similar to the Social Democratic Party of Germany that, espousing Marxist principles, sought nationalization of major industries and state planning.

    In your link, Obama is calling for an end to the violence in Kenya, while continuing to support the man who instigated and encouraged the violent ethnic cleansing. Is that the point you were trying to make?

    Odinga’s history and character development are discussed quite thoroughly at:

    http://jukwaani.proboards49.com/index.cgi?board=jukwaa&action=post&thread=1178507833&page=1

    The last dozen or so paragraphs, in the “Quest for Power” and “Luo Nyanza” segments, synopsize the true nature of the man with whom Obama casts his lot. If Obama chooses such a despot as a continuing ally and friend, can his judgment be trusted without question? Since the alliance is unquestionable and quite active, surely it would behoove Obama’s supporters to clear Odinga’s name (if possible), and that is the challenge/question I issued.

  34. shcb Says:

    NL,
    Just by coincidence David Harsanyi had this piece in the Denver Post, the Post is the more liberal of our two papers and David is a token conservative on the editorial staff

    http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_8166327

    I think that piece gives you a good idea of what most conservatives think of McCain, so I’ll move on to my thoughts. Coulter and Rush do shtick, Coulter more than Rush, I’ve always thought Limbaugh believes strongly everything of substance he says, he just pads 20 minutes of substance with 2 hours of “I’m the greatest”. Ann however really likes to tweak those she doesn’t agree with, now she believes her core values but she has found a way to become wealthy beyond her wildest dreams by giving liberals the business. So I take whatever they say through that filter. I mean do you really think she is going to support Hillary who got an American Conservative Union rating of 8 in 2006 to McCain’s 65? The only way she would support Hill is if it would hurt Clinton’s chances (which it probably would).

    One of the problems with voting the party line like I do is it takes a lot of the fun out of elections, I know who I will be voting for 20 years from now, the Republican. But this bunch hasn’t spun my propeller at all, I have never liked McCain, I respect him but I think McCain Feingold was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever. Not only that but I have always thought he did that legislation to make amends for the Keating Five scandal (the only Republican in the bunch), and that is a bad reason to stomp on our first amendment rights. Rudy is too liberal (so is McCain in some ways), Paul is a kook (batten down the hatches here comes Knarly:) , Thompson just wanted a trophy or go along with his wife, and Huck was all platitudes.

    What is worse is I don’t know any Republican I would suggest that is any better. I’ve always liked our old governor, Bill Owens, he is a lot like a white version of Obama. He is good looking, articulate, quick witted, and doesn’t have too many skeletons in his closet, a little marital issue, but he and the little lady are still together. I’ve never had any personal dealings with him but my brother in law clinches his teeth and shakes his head when Owens’ name is mentioned. I’ve never gotten into specifics with him other than the trash rumors, I’ve mentioned Mike Rosen a few times, the scuttle butt is the marital problems involved Rosen’s ex, Jenny. I digress.

    There are times in politics and life for that matter that you just aren’t going to win, maybe it was something you did, maybe it is just the way things are. But I’ve never understood this thought process that to loose is somehow good. I am hearing this from the crowd you mentioned, even Harsanyi talks about it. They somehow think that if McCain wins it will be bad for the conservative movement because he isn’t “pure” enough so it would be better to loose. I’ve found people who say things like that just plain hate to loose so they delude themselves into thinking that loosing is somehow better than winning. I’ve never seen that to be helpful, if it was your fault, fix it. If it was just circumstances beyond your control, well, they were beyond your control, telling yourself it was something other than that just makes you loose focus and makes it harder to win in the future.

    As far as McCain being all environmentally politically correct, he’s just that. Clinton was the 32nd most liberal Senator last year, now she is 16th, Obama went from 10th to 1st. McCain is as friendly to the environment as anyone, but the over the top AlGore impersonation is for your enjoyment, it’s no more real than Carrol O’Connor was really like Archie Bunker. Politics as usual.

  35. Sven Says:

    TV: There is no evidence that Obama has an “alliance” with Odinga. Saying he has one does not make it so. He has travelled to Kenya many times, yes. But he has never endorsed Odinga that I’m aware, although I’m sure Odinga would love to have the endorsement. Giving a speech about the corruption in President Kibaki’s government, as he did in August 2006, does not amount to an endorsement for Odinga. No doubt he would wish nothing but peace for his father’s homeland, but you would hold that against him. You seem to be cherry picking propaganda from within your man Ryter’s propaganda while discounting the rest of it.

    But thanks for reminding me why I rarely post here anymore. These discussions never lead anywhere but a circle, and seem to be a waste of time.

  36. TeacherVet Says:

    Sven: “But he [Obama] has never endorsed Odinga…”

    The photo in the original link has a captian under it that is in direct conflict with that statement, and Obama’s campaigning effort for Odinga is well documented. You’re right; discussions are a waste of time that never lead anywhere but a circle when reality is denied or ignored.

    No, I certainly don’t “hold [it] against him” that he wishes for peace in his father’s homeland – a silly, unfounded statement – but saying he did not campaign for Odinga does not make it so. Later, according to all news accounts, he took the time during his own campaign to call Odinga following the Kenyan election – unless, of course, you say otherwise.

  37. knarlyknight Says:

    Sven,
    I’ve appreciated your posts and admired your patience in eliciting wtf TV was screeching on about. Thx.

    shcb, it takes courage to say the things Paul has said, and if he is so nuts how come he been the representative from Texas for some 18 years or so? There’s a difference between (a) dissenting from the elephant herd when the herd has wandered far off into the desert and your dissent is an attempt to get the herd back to the party’s principles that lay on the savannah, and (b) saying nuty things that undermine liberty at home and turn allies into skeptics …
    (NL, it’s time for another Bushism).

  38. Sven Says:

    TV: I’m not saying he never met him. I’m not saying he never called him, urging him to sit down and meet unconditionally with the other leaders of Kenya. An opportunistic photo of an encounter with Odinga and Obama at the together at the same place and time does not amount to an endorsement. Otherwise, I guess you think Donald Rumsfeld endorsed Saddam Hussien as president of Iraq. After all, they even shook hands!

  39. Sven Says:

    an actual news source that isn’t 2/3rds or more propaganda:

    http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/blog/2008/01/the_kenya_conne.html

  40. shcb Says:

    Knarly,

    Paul is probably the most honest of the candidates, I think he is pure in his intentions and his commitment to his cause, that is why he is un electable. The crazy part comes from courting people from the 911 conspiracy crowd. Now don’t send a list of links, I’ve read them, and I’ve made my decision on the matter. Does Paul really believe the government perpetrated 911? I don’t know, he never seemed real committed to the cause, I think he was just gleaning money from the conspiracy nuts, his primary source of contributions is the internet and who spends more time on the net than 911 guys? Answer: guys who have been married 30 years bada bing! While I agree or at least sympathize with many of his ideas, they are just to libertarian and too protectionist for the general public to embrace. Now that doesn’t mean he can’t have a long career in local or regional politics, just not national. His ideas probably resonate with the local crowd. Pat Schroeder spent a quarter century as a Representative from the 1st district in Colorado, she gained national prominence and even ran for president but she was just too liberal for the national stage, but the people of Denver proper loved her, but she wasn’t even electable to the Senate so partisan were her politics.

  41. NorthernLite Says:

    I wonder if TeacherVet also had a problem with George W. Bush hosting the Taliban in his home state of Texas prior to 9/11.

    Me thinks not.

  42. NorthernLite Says:

    shcb, thanks for letting me know your thoughts. That editorial was pretty timely.

    For the record, I support as many conservatives as possible to stay home and not vote. :)

    I too think that many are using the “it’s better to lose than to go against our convictions” as a cop out. They know the odds are they will lose even if Rush himself ran.

    And I really do believe that Americans have had enough of the extreme right-wing. They see where it got them. McCain is the republican’s best chance at winning.

  43. shcb Says:

    These things are cyclical, one of the strengths of our system is it is a two party system, this forces the debate to the center, while you and I are screaming to turn the ship 60 degrees to the port or starboard, the general population is asking for a two or three degree turn and politicians are pretty much forced to obey their masters (and that ain’t you and me).

    One of Erma Bombeck’s books was named, “The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence (because your neighbor’s septic tank is leaking)”. The public is clamoring for a turn to the left now but in a few years they will see that is no panacea either, and will be yelling at the Captain “three degrees to the right!!!”

  44. shcb Says:

    McCain is the best chance of a win, Imagine I just ate a lemon, that is the face I am making.

  45. adam_blust Says:

    Back on point, if Saddam had made more of a show declaring that he didn’t have WMDs, that would have just been spun that he was lying, of course, and therefore even more deserving of invasion, capture and public hanging.

  46. shcb Says:

    All he needed to do was actually allow inspectors to inspect unimpeded as he had agreed to do after we defeated him. He says all the old stuff was destroyed unilaterally by Iraq, that wasn’t part of the deal, inspectors were to be present during the destruction of any weapons. The aluminum tubing, whatever it’s purpose, was on the banned list. If it was to be used for the missiles that the Iraqi’s say it was going to be used for, they were on the banned list. And on and on and on. If you want to see how this process was supposed to work study the disarmament of South Africa.

  47. enkidu Says:

    shcb – interesting reading
    sorry to hear your partisanship trumps your citizenship tho…
    party line is a sorry way to vote (at least from my Ind/NA perspective)
    If I may be so bold, I suggest that you vote for the best candidate for America. (Obama in my opinion, Hillary a decent second)

    as to Saddam’s not giving unfettered access as the reason for war… come on, they had enough access to be pretty sure he didn’t have anything drastic he shouldn’t have (recall Powell’s lies before the UN? mobile bioweapons labs, anthrax, nukes, etc etc all demonstrably lies or extreme exaggerations/wishful thinking). The reality is the w regime trumped up their case for war.

    I would be curious what the crowd here thinks of this article on Canadian healthcare myths (I have experienced Canadian healthcare myself as my wife is Canadian – the nation, not the… o nm)

    http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i

    Personally I think we could do even better than the Canadian or Euro healthcare systems. I like Hillary’s plan better than Barack’s. Just color me Canadian or something ;-) Mostly I am tired of my company’s health premiums going up 20% or more every single year. It is insane.

    And speaking of insane: what is next tv? a discussion of your in-depth analysis of the last third of the Protocols of Zion? No one wants to take your rwnj bait.

  48. NorthernLite Says:

    enkidu,

    I would say that analysis is pretty much spot on. Probably should be mandatory reading for every idiot who describes our system as “socialized”.

    Bottom line: I and my family have never been let down by our system. I have had nothing but pleasant experiences dealing with my family doctor (whom I chose myself). Sure the system can be improved, what system out there couldn’t be?

    One thing I would add is that since we all contribute to our system we all have a stake in each other’s health. So what we’re seeing a lot of these days is promotion of leading healthy lifestyles. Our smoking rates are going down, children are being taught earlier about the consequences of living an unhealthy lifestyle, pop and chips removed from school vending machines replaced by juices and crackers, more physical education classes and so on.

    I wouldn’t give our system up for anything; I believe a country’s quality of life is directly related to the health and well-being of its citizens.

  49. enkidu Says:

    one stat you don’t hear much re: yesterday’s primaries:

    In the 19 states where both Democrats and Republicans had elections yesterday, there were 73% more Democratic voters than Republican voters – 14 plus million for Clinton and Obama to 8 plus million for John McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

  50. Steve Says:

    I work for a large corporation. My health plan didn’t let me choose the doctor I wanted, so I pay for him out of pocket. Only one other person I’ve talked to in that office does the same thing, and he works for the same company as me.

    I want national health care so I can choose my own doctor instead of some faceless dork at an insurance company constraining my choices.

  51. shcb Says:

    Inky,

    To vote a straight party line in the general election is merely being pragmatic, it has nothing to do with being a good citizen. It has only to do with having an understanding of the American political process. But if you want to vote for the best person for the job, please do. Much as NL would like conservatives to stay home I encourage you to please, please, please vote for anyone other than a Democrat.

    Back to the subject of the thread. I have been so foolish, I thought that when we were discussing the decision making process that led up to us invading Iraq this time we were limited to events and information available before we invaded. I didn’t realize we were to use information and events available after the invasion. That makes things so much simpler.

    Why Sadam Made It Look Like He Was Lying

    The reason is simple, he was making boatloads of money off the food for oil program. This was a despotic dictator’s dream, he was using his enemy’s money to bribe his enemy so he could get a kickback from, you guessed it, his enemy. To top it all off he had people under his thumb that were by all normal measures more intelligent, more powerful, and better dressed. How? He bribed them, and not just a few lowlifes, we’re talking the son of the top dog at the UN, home of those purer than God himself inspectors, the Sec State of the Vatican, Shaker al-Kaffaji, the guy who financed Scott Ritter’s film about there being nothing that goes bang in Iraq. But we’re saving the best for last, the head of the Oil for Food Program, according to Wiki, if he lived frugally for ten years on his oil stocks only selling 1% per year at $65 a barrel and then sold the rest when prices hit $103, he would have been darning his socks all those years only making 7 plus change million per year, but the struggles would have all been worth it ‘cause he can afford new shoes with the 6.2 billion, yes with a b he would have in the bank.

    So why make people think you are lying when you say you have no weapons when you know you have no weapons? Because you have to have the inspectors inspecting, if Stom’n Norman’s predecessor rides over the hill like George C Scott, the gig is up. If the inspectors can say conclusively there are no weapons the sanctions are lifted and people will actually want value for your product.

    This is so much easier, I see why you guys relive history this way.

  52. knarlyknight Says:

    Enk, I agree with NL the mythbusting on Cdn Healthcare is spot on, especially the part about Dr’s being low stress, the ones I know have plenty of time for golf and the Dr’s I had over the years were always generous with thier time in listening to my complaints (I hear shcb chuckling at that)

    shcb, your diatribe about Ron Paul was a pathetic attempt at Swiftboating, he has publically stated he does not believe 911 was an inside job and has not, repeat has not, courted the 911 truth movement in any form. What he has done is spoken honestly about irregularities in the 911 Commission Report something that Keen and Hamilton have also alluded to in their statements. Seems like these are moot points, but they needed to be made because it just highlights how easily you fall for such lies about Ron Paul.

  53. knarlyknight Says:

    Did anyone else notice shcb has a new conspiracy theory about Saddam?
    As if Saddam didn’t hold his entire country by it’s balls ever since he achieved power with the CIA’s assistance, noooooo, he needed the oil for food program so he could make more money. You’re getting kookier every day shcb.

  54. shcb Says:

    But it’s a good story, and I think it is certainly possible. Nothing jumps out at you as being implausible? I played fast and loose with one “fact”.

    You are right about one thing this would be a conspiracy.

    I remember a time when Paul was at least not dismissing you 911 guys, he was giving you guys hope there was someone important listening.

  55. knarlyknight Says:

    Important people are listening, and some of them are scared.

  56. TeacherVet Says:

    Apologies for the delayed response – I’ve spent days and nights with my mother-in-law in the hospital, with no access to a computer.

    Sven, that (your link) was exactly what I had initially requested and hoped for. After having discounted any belief that he is a Muslim (and with no mention of any blood relationship, which I seriously doubt), I expressed concern about his associations with radical elements, then asked for opinions that might assuage my partisan suspicians. I still think it was a fair request, and Edwin Okong’o supplied it. Thanks for the link.

    Since some seem to insist on a discussion of possible blood relationship: To my knowledge, Obama has neither agreed with, or voiced an objection to, Odinga’s claim of a cousin relationship. Regardless, any blood relationship is of no concern or importance to me.

    Oding’o says, “But given Odinga’s controversial background and the continued violence in Kenya, his attempts to invoke Obama’s name may undermine Obama’s campaign in the U.S.” He adds that Obama’s “political opponents in the U.S. will no doubt find a way to use it [any blood relationship with Odinga] against him.”
    …[snip]…
    “In the intensity of America’s presidential race, any mud that can be thrown at a candidate is fair game. The candidate’s themselves may decide against going ugly, but there is never any doubt that their supporters will pull no punches and the close relationship (Raila insists) between Hon. Odinga and Sen. Obama is proving fertile ground for his opponents, both among the Democrats and from the Republican Party.”

    I am suspicious of the motives behind any NPR link, but after reading several Okong’o articles, I find myself respecting his apparently nonpartisan opinions. He seems to have a better analytical grasp on both Kenyan and American politics than most of us have developed.

  57. knarlyknight Says:

    As for your conspiracy theory about Saddam doing what he could to continue the sanctions so that he could profit from the oil for food program, nothing jumps out at me as being too implausible EXCEPT FOR PREMISE OF THE THEORY. Yes, it’s plausible that leaders will be opportunistic and do what they can to profit from any situation, including an oil sales program designed to give the country enough foreign currency to purchase critical medicines and food supplies, but Saddam stood to profit far more from a robust and prosperous Iraq than an impoverished Iraq that had great difficulty obtaining even sufficient food and medical supplies. That you are so hell bent on condemning the oil for food program due to corruption while virtually blind to the corruption under US government contractors today suggests that you are not actually concerned about corruption but instead hold a huge grudge, a lot of regret and deep dissappointment that the 600,000 or so children estimated to have died as a result of the Sanctions could not have been more.

  58. shcb Says:

    Knarly,
    The falsehood is that the head of the program stole 6 point whatever billion, he actually took about 3.5 million, according to Wiki anyway. He got 11,000,000 barrels of oil vouchers, his portion of the graft was the 3.5m. I simply multiplied the 11m barrels times the price of oil, both facts were correct but put together they were completely wrong. What should have jumped out at you is that if someone individually steals 10% of a 65 billion program, it will probably be more newsworthy than a Wiki footnote, .005% not so much. This is the tactic your side employs on an almost daily basis.

    The 600,000 children number for instance, I’m skeptical, do you know how those numbers were tabulated? In a few minutes of research I did find some interesting stats, 62% of Iraqi’s are under 25, 40% are under 15 compare that to Alabama (it was quick research) where 21% are under 15. Don’t know what to make of that yet but it is interesting.

  59. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb,
    Thanks for the clarifications. I should have written that “nothing jumps out at me as being too implausible but I am not terribly familiar with the program and only skimmed what you wrote.”

    So you are skeptical that 600,000 Iraqi children died as a result of the sanctions. Why am I not surprised. I don’t know much about that either, but I did see a clip where Madelaine Albright was asked whether the 600,000 dead children was to high a price to pay and she replied that she did not think that that was too high a price. She did not bother to question the figure, but perhaps you are smarter than she. For the sake of argument, lets say the figure is more than ten times too high. That would mean the sanctions resulted in about 50,000 child mortalities. Tha is about the same number of total deaths as you and yours have expressed the utmost of moral outrage about (although approx ten years after the fact) the Iraqi regimes using poison gas against rebellious Kurdish towns and villages.

    Besides sharing in blame for those child deaths (50,000? 600,000?) as a result of the sanctions, America now has the direct blame for the deaths (collatoral damage and otherwise) that has resulted from rebellions against the US occupation (which requires permanent military bases throughout the region to maintain).

    As to why there are so many young Iraqi’s we can speculate: it is partly due to the ravages of war (especially the combat deaths of fighting age males not so much with America but more to do with their war against Iran which had enormous numbers of casualties); more recent problems getting to a drugstore or a doctor for birth control without getting shot; not being able to locate birth control supplies due to rationing and such items being considered non-critical (?) supplies under the oil for food program; and generally high birthrates among the Shia who need babies as re-inforcements should thier battle to remove America from their country turn into a very long one.

  60. knarlyknight Says:

    While we are dishing out blame I need to add (for completeness) that Saddam obtained the poison gas used against the Iranians and Iraqi Kurds from America.

  61. TeacherVet Says:

    Knarly: Iraq’s 1,200 page Weapons Declaration listed the Eastern and Western countries that exported chemical and biological weapons to Iraq. By far, the largest donors were:

    Singapore (4,515 tons of VX, sarin, & mustard gas)
    The Netherlands (4,261 tons)
    Egypt (2,400 tons)
    India (2,343 tons)
    Germany (1,027 tons)

    Iraq also declared that it received more than 200,000 munitions for delivering those chemicals – from:

    Italy (75,000)
    Spain (57,500)
    China (45,000)
    Egypt (28,500)

    The U.S. is far down the 1st list, and completely missing from the 2nd.

    Your statement infers that the U.S. was the sole doner of poison gas in Saddam’s efforts against the Iranians. In truth (and for completeness):

    (a) What percentage of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons came from the U.S. for use against the Iranians? – and-

    (b) What evidence exists that only those weapons obtained from America were used against the Iranians and Iraqi Kurds?

  62. knarlyknight Says:

    TV,
    Thanks, I was not aware of that.

  63. shcb Says:

    TV,
    That is an interesting little tidbit of info. On the day/evening General Petraeus was giving his report I was driving with our controls engineer (American) and our warehouse manager(Dutch)(both very liberal) from Rotterdam to Oudenbosch, Marc was translating the news reports adding his own editorial comments. We go round and round good naturedly knowing each other’s political leanings. At some point one of them mentioned that we had given Iraq the poison, I wish I had this information then.

  64. knarlyknight Says:

    TV, shcb –

    You might want to refer to Ethics 101.

    Although it might feel better to be in a group that does evil compared to doing evil all by yourself, sharing in the evil does not lessen one’s responsibility for the crime.

    Sharing in a Murder does not absolve a person from, nor in any way lessen that person’s responsibility for the Murder.

    Perhaps review of the Nuremburg decisions are in order for you two “gentlemen”.

  65. shcb Says:

    “Nations don’t have permanent friends, they don’t have permanent enemies, only permanent interests”

  66. NorthernLite Says:

    Well, since we’re throwing out quotes…

    “Arbolist … Look up the word. I don’t know, maybe I made it up. Anyway, it’s an arbo-tree-ist, somebody who knows about trees.”

    George W. Bush, USA Today, Aug. 21, 2001

  67. knarlyknight Says:

    NL,

    LOL; and your quote has at least as much relevance to the preceeding issues as does shcb’s!

  68. shcb Says:

    Knarly,
    One thing I’ve never understood about liberals is this instinctive need to immediately transfer blame to the good guys. If a policeman shoots someone the first thing you hear liberals yell is

    Q. Why were so many shots fired? A. there were 3 cops each fired 4 times, they didn’t take the time to hold a meeting to determine who would do the killing (if they had, it would have been the bad guy)

    Q. Why was he hit so many times? A. Because the cops were actually good shots.

    Q. The man killed was black, was this racially motivated? A. Love this one, we have instances here in Denver, notice plural where libs were screaming this at the top of their lungs for two days until the police release the name of the policeman, and he was black as well, they still persisted, wanting to know if the black cop is still somehow racist maybe he had been brainwashed by the white officers he works with, not kidding.

    No matter what happens it is always the United States fault, when the cowards were cutting off folks heads live at five, killing service men in the Khobar Towers, killing over 200 in our embassies, you could always find a little liberal wringing his hands lamenting that it must be something we’re doing or have done to them. You guys here are just as guilty, any time a story comes out about a soldier that has run to Canada to hide from his duty and has concocted a story of rape and pillage the scope of gin-gis-kan you’re all over it, but bring out those crickets when he is found to be a fraud, same with police stories.

  69. enkidu Says:

    shcb – your post is one of the most ridiculous bundles of rwnj nonsense I have ever read… want me to write up the equivalent for Rs?

  70. NorthernLite Says:

    I don’t think you’re in much of a position to lecture on critical thought and reasoning, seeing how you already know who you’re going to vote for 20 years from now.

    I think they have a word for people like you, Sheep.

  71. shcb Says:

    just an observation, I’m sure I fit most all conservative stereotypes except for those that relate to religion.

  72. shcb Says:

    actually, NL critical thinking is why I know who I will vote for in the future, in the general election, I vote the man more so in the primary, but he still has to be electable, for practical reasons, not emotional, sounds like critical thinking to me.

  73. TeacherVet Says:

    Knarly’s “guilt by association” post from 11:42 yesterday begs a response.

    The sources of Iraq’s arms purchases from 1970-1990, in order of value:

    Soviet Union (61%)
    France (18%)
    China (5%)
    Brazil (4%)
    Egypt (4%)

    Other sources (listed by number of armaments, not value) included Germany, The Netherlands, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Spain, Hungary, Austria, South Africa, Switzerland, Canada, Romania, Italy, the U.S., England, Denmark, Jordan, & Yugoslavia.

    The U.S. sold Iraq 117 helicopter (value $200,000). The helicopters were demilitarized, without weapons systems – so they were technically not considered weapons sales. Those were the only direct U.S.-Iraq military sales, amounting to about 0.06% of Iraq’s conventional weapons imports from 1970-1990.

    The U.S. also “provided” some of the “dual use” technology (computers, engines, etc.) that helped Iraq expand its missile program and radar defenses. The U.S. Commerce Department, in violation of procedure, gave licenses to companies for $1.5 billion in dual-use items to be sent to Iraq, of which more than $1 billion were trucks… that were never delivered.

    Ted Koppel of ABC Nightline helped fuel speculation that Bush 41 “initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help” to Iraq. He “reported” his “It is becoming increasingly clear…” statement in 1992 on ABC Nightline, based on other speculative “reports”, and his speculation was supported by “reporters” from the New Yorker. The speculation was never proven, but it has evolved into “fact!” over time, including the false statement by Michael Moore (repeated by Knarly a couple of days ago) in his “documentary”, Fahrenheit 911 – and has been used as “[false] factual fodder” for years since.

    I’m ready for a crash course in Ethics 101… anyone else wish to enroll?

    btw, I also know which party I’ll be supporting and voting for in 20 years, and I’m equally certain which party Obama, Hillary and millions of their most devout followers (Sheep?) will be supporting and voting for in 2028.

  74. TeacherVet Says:

    I have a pertinent addendum to that “guilt by association” response, but since it is more inflaming – certain to invoke angry responses of defensive denial – I’ll delay posting it.

  75. shcb Says:

    TV,

    Since you seem to be up to date on this subject, I heard once that we didn’t supply many arms to Sadam when he was fighting Iran, but we supplied intelligence in the form of satellite images and such. I don’t remember who said that, it was maybe 6, 7 years ago.

  76. TeacherVet Says:

    shcb, I really don’t remember that happening, but if Walter Kronkite, Ted Koppel, Dan Rather, Michael Moore, et alii “reported” it as a possibility… it’s certain to have been repeated as fact.

  77. shcb Says:

    no this was someone on the right, they were making the point that you are making, that the left makes it seem we were Sadam’s arms supermarket when we really had a very small part in that war compared to the rest of the world. I was skeptical even though the guy was on my side since I had always heard we gave him so much.

    The commentator I am referring to was also making the point that Sadam could get arms anywhere, but he needed our technology, and that he couldn’t get anywhere else. From our standpoint, we didn’t want to look like we were choosing sides so we were happy to help him there since it is easy to hide satellite photos in the diplomatic bag, but hard to hide shiploads of helicopters.

    I would say you have effectively killed this thread, I doubt they will have much to say, Knarly will probably give us some 911 links.

  78. shcb Says:

    tell me about your dog saving your wife

  79. knarlyknight Says:

    wow, I step away for 24 hours and the rwnj’s go bonkers.

    #1, we were talking about poison gas, you know – the stuff that your country produces more of than any other country in the world – that and other WMD’s which were provided to Saddam. Remember WMD’s? That was the main reason your country invaded Iraq and has spent nearly a TRILLION dollars turn the cradle of human civilization into a social, economic, radioactive hell (take a look at the increase in deformed babies due to DU).

    #2, we were talking about the sanctions that brought the living standards and life expectancy of a formerly prosperous Iraqi population dramatically lower, resulting in the deaths of … what’ll it be today shcb? 10,000? 50,000? or the generally accepted figure of 600,000 unnecessary deaths of children? The point is, it was not very nice. Attempts by the international community to ameliorate the unnecessary suffering of millions of people (including the unnecessary deaths of thousands of children) by letting Iraq to sell a fraction of it’s potential oil production for some FOOD & MEDICAL SUPPLIES is a big scandal to shcb. SHCB has characterized it as a very bad thing because there was corruption in its administration.

    But shcb doesn’t mention the current corruption on a far greater scale related to the permanent occupation of Iraq by his country. Obscene earnings by Halliburton and KBR and Blackwater’s etc. might be considered good things by shcb because that corruption and awarding of no-bid contracts is an American theft (of his and his grandkids own tax dollars primarily) and is therefore not corruption but rather it is simple government sponsored capitalism, known in other countries as economic fascism. For more on that, just ask the big Dick why he lied about having no financial connection to Halliburton and then years later sells millions in Halliburton stock.

    #3 TV can’t even characterize my post of 11:42 correctly. It had nothing to do with guilt by “association”, LOL, it had everything to do with guilt by wrongdoing. Whether the wrongdoing was illegal, I don’t know, but it seems to me that if America supplied Saddam with poison gas and knew he was using it in war against Iran then that is aiding and abetting war crimes, and probably conspiring to commit war crimes.

    #4 shcb, in our last post you mention how nice it was providing the Iraqi’s with satellite images of Iranian troops during that war. At the time I would have supported that, not so sure in hindsight. Maybe it would have been better if the Americans allowed the Iranians to win the war and take over the disputed regions over which they were fighting – or take over all of Iraq for that matter! Peace in that region then, might have meant more stability now. Batten down the hatches, here comes the shcb rant about Iranian islamofascists wanting to take over the world.

    #5 Did someone mention helicopters? I have no problems in the trade of helicopters or computers either. But there is an element of responsibility inherent in such things.

    It’s like if you sell the guy across the street a carving knife: it’s a good thing if you get a good price and you know he needs it for his restaurant, it’s an unfortunate thing if he ends up using it to kill his spouse, but it is an evil thing if you sell it to him even though you know or have a suspicion that he will use it to kill a neighbour who both of you don’t like because she lets her vicious dogs bark all night (or if you know he is going to kill his adopted Kurdish children with it.)

    For more on this topic you can read the following timeline (see the rest at: http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html) but here’s an excerpt for ONE YEAR (1983) that relates to helicopters out of a long history of US meddling in Iraq:

    1983
     A [State Department] SD report concluded that Iraq continued to support groups on the SD�s terrorist list.[5]
     Iraq reportedly began using chemical weapons (CW) against Iranian troops in 1982, and significantly increased CW use in 1983. Reagan�s Secretary of State, George Shultz, said that reports of Iraq using CWs on Iranian military personnel “drifted in” at the year�s end.[6] A declassified CIA report, probably written in late 1987, notes Iraq’s use of mustard gas in August 1983, giving further credence to the suggestion that the SD and/or National Security Council (NSC) was well aware of Iraq’s use of CW at this time.[7]
     Analysts recognized that “civilian” helicopters can be weaponized in a matter of hours and selling a civilian kit can be a way of giving military aid under the guise of civilian assistance.[8] Shortly after removing Iraq from the terrorism sponsorship list, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters.[9] Later, and despite some objections from the National Security Council (NSC), the Secretaries of Commerce and State (George Baldridge and George Shultz) lobbied the NSC advisor into agreeing to the sale to Iraq of 10 Bell helicopters,[10] officially for crop spraying. See “1988″ for note on Iraq using U.S. Helicopters to spray Kurds with chemical weapons.
     Later in the year the Reagan Administration secretly began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons.[11] Reagan personally asked Italy�s Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq.[12]

    I don’t know if the sources above are any good, but I will GUARANTEE 100% that they are more accurate than what TV provided recently (i.e. the person who hides behind the pseudonym Jon Christian Ryter.)

    #6 voting for the Republican candidate 20 years from now; shcb has done a good job of demonstrating that his critical thinking skills are superior to sheep. Or has he?

    So, Sheared Head Cowboy, what if 20 years from now the Republicans ignore your voting for the best candidate in the primaries and instead nominate some fundamentalist radical, a Muslim or even someone who wants to return all American troops to American soil, abolish the Federal Reserve (a private corporation), you know what I mean, someone like this: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/ ? Well, you’ve already told us that you how you will be voting in 20 years so no need to respond to that.

    Baaaaaaa.

    #7 Why bother? I’d rather hear about how his wife was sooooo bored she nearly killed herself but then she discovered that his dog made a far better lover than he. Please, do tell…

  80. TeacherVet Says:

    Whoa, what a tirade.

    #1 Again, the U.S. was so far down the list that it was only mentioned as an after-thought in most articles, and we sold Saddam no actual WMD – precursors, yes – WMD, no.

    #2 (a) Permanent is a pretty long time! :-) (b) At what point do earnings become obscene? (c) Just curious, but how many of those 600,000 unnecessary deaths can be attributed to Canadian military involvement in Iraq?

    #3 “Although it might feel better to be in a group that does evil compared to a group that does evil all by itself, sharing in the evil does not lessen one’s responsibility for the crime.” That statement of response from you obviously refers to the minimal role the U.S. played in supplying Saddam with CW (precursors), and it infers guilt by association.

    #4 Hindsight is a wonderful tool – used often! I’m quite sure it will come in handy again after the “permanent occupation” has ended.

    #5 You dismissed the content in Ryter’s article because you didn’t like his pseudonym. Following the same rule of logic (combined with the comparative lack of trust you infer with your own link), I am compelled to dismiss all the data in the link – I don’t trust anyone who hides behind pseudonyms like Hurd (sounds too much like a rumor), Pythian (sounds reptilian), or GentleSon.

    Seriously, Hurd’s article uses two sources almost exclusively – the opinions of one Mark Pythian and Bruce Jentleson, both known only for their respective books with titles that infer extreme partisanship. Following the examples previously set forth, partisan opinions are to be dismissed.

    Carving knives, vicious dogs, adopted Kurdish children… all in one sentence… no response.

    #6 It’s always easy to recognize when you are frustrated by an inability to form a logical response – the use of “cutisms” like Sheared Head Cowboy, followed by a “what if” imaginary scenario. Shcb: What if the entirety of planet Earth is buried under water as a result of an Inconvenient Truth, with all of humanity eradicated? Will you still vote Republican in 2028? Please respond quickly – the waters are rising…

    #7 I’ll relate the dog story tomorrow in a separate post so Knarly can more easily ignore it.

    shcb – Maybe I can help to resuscitate the thread tomorrow with the “pertinent addendum” mentioned in the 1:24 pm statement.

  81. TeacherVet Says:

    I blew the quote from you, Knarly, but not intentionally – sorry. It should have read, “…compared to doing evil all by yourself…”

    I guess I should start using Notepad or something, rather than trying to proofread in this little box.

  82. knarlyknight Says:

    TV, I was mostly speaking to the sheared head crazy baaaaaaa. Your response dissappointed because of so many misunderstandings and simple dismissals – that did nothing to encourage me that there is any point attempting to communicate with you. I will apologize for the dog joke though, that was a total waste of electrons/time. You missed the whole point about the civilian (ahem) helicopter sales (ahem), US means of getting weapons to Iraq, and full knowledge by the State Department of Iraq’s intention to commit war crimes. Maybe this will wake you up:

    Using its allies in the Middle East, Washington funnelled huge supplies of arms to Iraq. Classified State Department cables uncovered by Frantz and Waas described covert transfers of howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons to Baghdad in 1982-83 from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait.Howard Teicher, who monitored Middle East policy at the US National Security Council during the Reagan administration, told the February 23, 1992, LA Times: “There was a conscious effort to encourage third countries to ship US arms or acquiesce in shipments after the fact. It was a policy of nods and winks.”

    Actually the whole article is pretty good: http://counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html

    Not sure what you are talking about when you ask how many of the 600,000 unnecessary child deaths are the result of Canadian military actions in Iraq. Maybe it’s a half million child deaths due to the UN sanctions against Iraq that began in early 1990′s, not 600,000 (I lost count) …maybe my saying that it was 600,000 got you confused with the other number , the one that shcbaaa thinks is bloated you know the one that some distinguished medical journal has published that is supposed to be the number of dead Iraqi’s as a result of the USA (& coalition of the easily coerced) invasion – is that what confused you?

    If you mean something else, perhaps you could first tell me how many Canadians are currently serving in Iraq and then I would be pleased to do a simple prorationing of the numbers and give you an estimate of how many Iraqi’s have died at the hands of the Canadian military. I am not aware of any Canadian military operations in Iraq.

    I won’t bother to dissect the rest of TV’s comments sentence by sentence, but I will offer one example. He dismisses Mark Pythian because he is supposedly known only for an extreme partisian book.

    Take a look, Mark Pythian, PhD, other degrees and rest of his Bio here:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20010513085039/http://www.wlv.ac.uk/shass/cv/phythian.html

    If he is partisian then it is a partisianship against UK and American arms sales, and this appears to be one of the cases where the “opinions” that this fellow holds are as a result of where his research has taken him rather than he other way around:
    http://www.infocollective.org/mark%20pythian%20abstract.htm

  83. knarlyknight Says:

    TV, I was mostly speaking to the sheared head crazy baaaaaaa. Your response dissappointed because of so many misunderstandings and simple dismissals – that did nothing to encourage me that there is any point attempting to communicate with you. I will apologize for the dog joke though, that was a total waste of electrons/time. You missed the whole point about the civilian (ahem) helicopter sales (ahem), US means of getting weapons to Iraq, and full knowledge by the State Department of Iraq’s intention to commit war crimes. Maybe this will wake you up:

    Using its allies in the Middle East, Washington funnelled huge supplies of arms to Iraq. Classified State Department cables uncovered by Frantz and Waas described covert transfers of howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons to Baghdad in 1982-83 from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait.Howard Teicher, who monitored Middle East policy at the US National Security Council during the Reagan administration, told the February 23, 1992, LA Times: “There was a conscious effort to encourage third countries to ship US arms or acquiesce in shipments after the fact. It was a policy of nods and winks.”

    Actually the whole article is pretty good: http://counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html

    Not sure what you are talking about when you ask how many of the 600,000 unnecessary child deaths are the result of Canadian military actions in Iraq. Maybe it’s a half million child deaths due to the UN sanctions against Iraq that began in early 1990′s, not 600,000 (I lost count) …maybe my saying that it was 600,000 got you confused with the other number , the one that shcbaaa thinks is bloated you know the one that some distinguished medical journal has published that is supposed to be the number of dead Iraqi’s as a result of the USA (& coalition of the easily coerced) invasion – is that what confused you?

    If you mean something else, perhaps you could first tell me how many Canadians are currently serving in Iraq and then I would be pleased to do a simple prorationing of the numbers and give you an estimate of how many Iraqi’s have died at the hands of the Canadian military. I am not aware of any Canadian military operations in Iraq.

    I won’t bother to dissect the rest of TV’s comments sentence by sentence, but I will offer one example. He dismisses Mark Pythian because he is supposedly known only for an extreme partisian book.

    Take a look, Mark Pythian, PhD, other degrees and rest of his Bio here:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20010513085039/http://www.wlv.ac.uk/shass/cv/phythian.html

    If he is partisian then it is a partisianship against UK and American arms sales, and this appears to be one of the cases where the “opinions” that this fellow holds are as a result of where his research has taken him rather than he other way around:
    www . infocollective.org/mark%20pythian%20abstract.htm

  84. knarlyknight Says:

    TV, I was mostly speaking to the sheared head crazy baaaaaaa. Your response dissappointed because of so many misunderstandings and simple dismissals – that did nothing to encourage me that there is any point attempting to communicate with you. I will apologize for the dog joke though, that was a total waste of electrons/time. You missed the whole point about the civilian (ahem) helicopter sales (ahem), US means of getting weapons to Iraq, and full knowledge by the State Department of Iraq’s intention to commit war crimes. Maybe this will wake you up:

    Using its allies in the Middle East, Washington funnelled huge supplies of arms to Iraq. Classified State Department cables uncovered by Frantz and Waas described covert transfers of howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons to Baghdad in 1982-83 from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait.Howard Teicher, who monitored Middle East policy at the US National Security Council during the Reagan administration, told the February 23, 1992, LA Times: “There was a conscious effort to encourage third countries to ship US arms or acquiesce in shipments after the fact. It was a policy of nods and winks.”

    Actually the whole article is pretty good:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html

    Not sure what you are talking about when you ask how many of the 600,000 unnecessary child deaths are the result of Canadian military actions in Iraq. Maybe it’s a half million child deaths due to the UN sanctions against Iraq that began in early 1990′s, not 600,000 (I lost count) …maybe my saying that it was 600,000 got you confused with the other number , the one that shcbaaa thinks is bloated you know the one that some distinguished medical journal has published that is supposed to be the number of dead Iraqi’s as a result of the USA (& coalition of the easily coerced) invasion – is that what confused you?

    If you mean something else, perhaps you could first tell me how many Canadians are currently serving in Iraq and then I would be pleased to do a simple prorationing of the numbers and give you an estimate of how many Iraqi’s have died at the hands of the Canadian military. I am not aware of any Canadian military operations in Iraq.

    I won’t bother to dissect the rest of TV’s comments sentence by sentence, but I will offer one example. He dismisses Mark Pythian because he is supposedly known only for an extreme partisian book.

    Take a look, Mark Pythian, PhD, other degrees and rest of his Bio here:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20010513085039/http://www.wlv.ac.uk/shass/cv/phythian.html

    If he is partisian then it is a partisianship against UK and American arms sales, and this appears to be one of the cases where the “opinions” that this fellow holds are as a result of where his research has taken him rather than he other way around:
    www . infocollective.org/mark%20pythian%20abstract.htm

    By the way, if you want a little more background on this general topic, ask jbc where he got the picture from at the top of this website and what scandal it represents.

  85. shcb Says:

    Well I guess I was wrong about this being a dead thread. What happened in twenty years if there is a true goofball nominated? Simple, there is always room for exceptions, but I don’t think there will be the need. Also I will be voting for the conservative candidate, it the Republican party is no longer the home of conservatives I may be voting a straight Paul ticket (named after the late great founder). You guys seem to have the arms aspect covered, let me clarify the children’s deaths.

    I don’t know how many children have died of starvation. The 600,000 number seems high. In so many cases by the time a statistic become a bumper sticker it rarely resembles the original intent. And if that statistic was cherry picked to begin with, well… This statement says these children starved to death, it probably originally said something to the effect of “died from the effects of war, starvation, poor medical treatment, injuries sustained from war etc” starvation is how it was truncated. The next part that jumps out at me is “by sanctions” which sanctions, we have had sanctions on Iraq since at least before the first Gulf war, maybe before that, that’s almost 20 years. I’m sure any kid that has died at the hands of terrorists or Sadam is included in that number, which brings me back to libs blaming the good guys for stuff the bad guys do. I just don’t put much stock in that number without a more thorough explanation of how the number was calculated. If it has similar characteristics to the 650,000 dead since the start of this war in terms of how the numbers were derived, well, I’ll just ignore it as a useless piece of information. To be fair if you are right about military arms being sold to third parties to be imported into Iraq, that should be included in TV’s numbers, but of course that is hard to determine because you also have to determine if we were using them as a direct middle man, or if the other countries had chosen sides and were selling Iraq stuff we produced on their own. And in the murky world of covert activities that is hard to do. I’m sure a lot of the stuff the European nations were selling was American, was it arms they didn’t feel they needed, was obsolete, or were they just a pass through.

  86. enkidu Says:

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r42oejmpkgw

    here is don von rummy in ’83 shaking Saddam’s hand while delivering money, weapons, and intel (we gave them satellite imagery so they could vector their WMDs against the Iranians)

    tv wants to prove we are just innocent lambs defending FREEDOM!!!!®™©
    what ever you say chief

    600,000 dead humans is 600,000 dead humans – the loss of any child is more sorely felt but at least the rwnjs now admit we killed (up to?) 600,000 by invading (needlessly btw). I would guess the number is north of 100,000 but south of a million. How many would bad evil man Saddam have killed if we hadn’t invaded? Less than that number for sure.

  87. shcb Says:

    But this discussion is more about rhetoric and reporting than justification.

  88. shcb Says:

    This is also about where to place blame for whatever lives have been lost. If Sadam and the rest of the Arabs would conduct themselves as civilized humans none of this would be happening. You guys place blame wherever America has an interest or presence without regard for why we are there. Ask yourself this; if we stop fighting, will they stop killing us? If they stop fighting will we stop killing them? The answer is no and yes.

  89. TeacherVet Says:

    Having learned that a critique of the source(s) is prerequisite to acceptance of the message, I’ll oblige that mandate now. Prefacing statement, identifying the sources:

    (2) Norm Dixon, writer for Australia’s (1) Green Left Weekly, wrote the linked article, (3) “How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons.”

    (1) The Green Left Weekly is published by Australia’s Democratic Socialist Party. As a conservative I could leave it there, but I won’t. The paper’s latest publication reports results from a poll (everyone drop to the floor, facing Mecca – now!) by Opinion Research Business (ORB) “confirming” that the death toll from the Iraq war is 1.03 million. Absolutely laughable details of the polling technique, with a sample of 2,400 face-to-face surveys (no doubt door-to-door visits, armed with pencil and paper), and giving causes of death. The “Kicker” – “ORB had released similar data last September indicating that 1.2 million had been killed.” Hallelujah! 170,000 Iraqi citizens have been resuscitated, but we can officially update our figures from 650,000 (the figure arrived at from another polling company). At that rate, only six more polls to go before there are no Iraqi casualties.

    (2) Norm Dixon labels himself, and his party affiliates, as Marxist. Enough said again, but again, I’ll continue. He has written many other articles for the Green Left Weekly, two of which were “The Worst Terror Attacks in History” (Hiroshima & Nagasaki) and “How the CIA Created Osama bin Ladin.” He is the antithesis of a neutral source, and any conservative would take anything he writes with a train-load of salt. Those things having been said, I examined the article with more than a little skepticism. Or, as shcb might say, now that I know where he sits, I’ll examine where he stands.

    (3) In the linked article, Dixon begins with a reference to a NYT 2002 story in which anonymous (of course) U.S. “senior military officers” accused the Reagan administration of everything but burping Saddam’s two little boys. I don’t buy the story for many reasons, and as Dixon admits, neither did the world press.

    The third paragraph is so disjointed with interjections of platitudes and subjective presumptions that it defies comprehension, but it is intended as the prefacing basis for the articles. In fact, one must accept all those presumptions (although stated as “fact!”) to accept the stuff that follows.

    The entire article is a denunciation of U.S. support for Iraq in their efforts against the Iranian Communist regime (Dixon’s term, used in another article in support of Iran’s ideals in the early 1980s) – which is not in dispute, and which I believe was justified at the time. It consists of his opinions from his leftist viewpoint with no attempt at balance or completeness. He slings out lots of facts and figures, while avoiding “the rest of the story” (Sorry, Mr. Harvey).

    The article is based almost solely on opinions (my perception) in left-leaning print media, plus a quote from Sen. Sam Gejdenson (D), presenting only one side of the picture by repeating allegations chronicled in those papers. Indeed, he alludes briefly to some classified documents (not unclassified, mind you) that the source mysteriously obtained, but seemingly only as a brief “name-dropping” technique to lend some credibility to his story.

    He should have used the phrase “It is believed that…” more often – in fact, before every one of his positive assertions. And, his statement that “…there is no doubt that the U.S. government knew Iraq was using chemical weapons” invoked a laugh. Really, no doubt? He consistently states “givens” (facts!) that are supported only with assumptions and guesswork… but it’s great propaganda.

    Any acceptance of the “facts” in the article must include acceptance that Dixon and the Green Left Weekly have the ability to present a true, honest, complete, and neutral portrayal of those facts – and I simply don’t/can’t buy it. Dixon is farther to the left, by his own self-description, than Limbaugh, Hannity, and even the despicable Coulter are to the right.

  90. knarlyknight Says:

    Sheared Head Country Baaaaaa:

    The answers are not no and yes, but rather they are yes and yes (excluding the few psychopathic Americans who might go postal and blast a few Muslims and excluding a few psycho Muslims who might go postal and blast a few Americans.) If Americans left Iraq the fighters over their would not follow the marines home, they would thank Allah for ridding their sacred lands of the non-believers. But you have your opinion, and TV has his, and all are amply set out above. I can’t be bothered to read TV’s latest, I might get around to it in a few days, but TV’s Feb 9 one prior to this last one was of such low quality it’s really hard for me to justify more than a few second.

    Anyway, I realize where you get your fears of Islamofascist from, every news report on the subject you get is so conflated to invoke your fears. Just like the original false flag terror attacks (and the follow-ups of 9/11); and now the NY Times is reporting on a FALSE FLAG TERROR CONFERENCE!!! LOL, I bet you or TV will have some wonderful explanations for this story, but I’m about finished with this thread and these rwnj’s.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/us/07muslim.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

  91. TeacherVet Says:

    I posted my “pertinent addendum” response going on two hours ago – it contained two links, so must have been held up in “review queue”.

  92. shcb Says:

    Boy you can pick ‘em Knarly, the author of the NY Times piece is the same guy that had the hit piece against security in the case of the six Imams being removed from a plane in Minneapolis. He made it seem they were being targeted by agents because of their religion, what he failed to mention was; they we praying and chanting loudly before boarding and had switched seats once boarded to the configuration of the 911 murderers. Two in the front row of first class, two in the middle and two in the last row. A configuration that allows control of all exits.

    Tell you what, you let me put a conservative professor in every liberal lecture hall in America to balance the bias there and I’ll lobby for an Arab in the AFA lectures.

  93. TeacherVet Says:

    The two links I guess I’ll post again, but separately. The brief comments and questions that accompanied them can wait until the original post arrives. The first one:

    http://theproles.blogspot.com/2008/01/canadian-generals-in-iraq.html

  94. TeacherVet Says:

    Since the second link won’t seem to post, here’s a piece of it (from Activist Magazine, very much a leftist group)

    On 25 March 2003, during the “shock and awe” bombardment of Iraq, then US Ambassador Paul Cellucci admitted that “… ironically, Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel… will supply more support to this war in Iraq indirectly… than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there.”

    Cellucci merely scratched the surface of Canada’s initial “support” for the Iraq War, but he had let the cat out of the bag. As then Secretary of State Colin Powell had explained a week earlier, “We now have a coalition of the willing… who have publicly said they could be included in such a listing…. And there are 15 other nations, who, for one reason or another, do not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition.”

    Canada was, and still is, the leading member of this secret group, which we could perhaps call CW-HUSH, the “Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping.” The plan worked. Most Canadians still proudly believe that their goverenment refused to join the Iraq War. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are some of the ways in which we joined the fray…

    Escorting the US Navy:

    1,300 Canadian troops aboard Canada’s multibillion dollar war ships escorted the US fleet through the Persian Gulf, putting them safely in place to bomb Iraq.

    Leading the coalition Navy:

    Canadian Rear Admiral Roger Girouard was in charge of the war coalition’s fleet.

    Providing war planners:

    At least two dozen Canadian war planners working at US Central Command in Florida were transferred to the Persian Gulf in early 2003 to help oversee the war’s complicated logistics.

    Commanding the war:

    In 2004, Canadian Brigadier General Walt Natynczyk commanded 10 brigades totalling 35,000 troops. He was Second-in-Command of the entire Iraq War for that year. When Governor General Clarkson gave Natynczyk the Meritorious Service Cross, her office extolled his “pivotal role in the development of numerous plans and operations [which] resulted in a tremendous contribution… to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and… brought great credit to the Canadian Forces and to Canada.”

    Helping coordinate the war:

    Canadian military personnel working aboard American E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System warplanes helped direct the electronic war by providing surveillance, command, control and communications services to US war fighters.

    Providing airspace and refueling:

    Countless US troop and equipment transport aircraft have flown over Canada, to and from the Iraq War, and many refuelled in Gander, Newfoundland.

    Providing air transport:

    At least three Canadian CC-130 military transport planes were listed by US military to supply coalition forces during the Iraq War.

    Providing ground troops

    At least 35 Canadian soldiers were directly under US command, in an “exchange” capacity on the ground, participating in the invasion of Iraq.

    Funding Iraq’s interior ministry

    Canada provides advisors and financial support to this ministry, which has been caught running torture centres. Thousands of its officers have been withdrawn for corruption, and it has been accused of working with death squads that executed a thousand people per month in Baghdad alone in the summer of 2006.

    There’s more, but that gives you an idea. The site’s concluding statement:

    So the next time a proud fellow citizen tells you that Canada didn’t join the Iraq War, remind them of Mark Twain’s famous quip: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

  95. knarlyknight Says:

    TV,
    See there you go. That was a useful post, informative and not a single cheap partisian shot fired. Okay there was one but old habits are hard to break.

    So the Canadian military has been up to a lot more than they are telling us, eh. Why am I not surprised, it’s like Prime Minister Harper is taking pages out of Bush’s playbook on lying ooops, don’t want a sheared sheep Baaaaing down my back, I should say making “deceptive statements” to us Cdn citizens.

    Well actually I was aware of the small number of Canadian troops operating in Iraq as part of an exchange program with US military, there was a bit of a public discussion about that when it was first discovered by the media, but the story died quickly. I didn’t want to mention it because it seemed trivial, but when you stack it alongside everything else, well it just sucks.

    Once again, thanks for the information. I will be having a little chat with our Prime Minister first thing tomorrow morning and will be sure to bring this issue up in our discussion.

  96. TeacherVet Says:

    From the “proles” link at 5:07 yesterday:

    “Can we finally dispense with the nonsense that Canada is not complicit in word and deed in the occupation of Iraq and the murder of hundreds of thousands of people? I don’t have to tell you why this isn’t front page news, eh?”
    Good questions, and I’d like to hear an answer to the second one.

    “There are also [Canadian] economic interests in Iraq itself. The April 2007 Iraq Reconstruction Report lists Canada as the fourth largest importer of Iraqi oil. Industry Canada records that total Canadian imports from Iraq have rise from 1.06 billion dollars in 2002 to 1.61 billion dollars in 2006, making Iraq second only to Saudi Arabia as a Middle Eastern source for Canadian imports.”
    Does this possibly mean that Canadians are there – gasp – for the… oil?

    Also, “Unlike the Canadian deployment in Afghanistan, which is subject to relatively significant coverage domestically, Canada’s participation in Iraq is handled much more carefully by Canadian officials. Defence Minister Peter MacKay did not return a call seeking comment and no official statement has accompanied Matern’s recent deployment.”
    Does this infer that the Canadian government is being less than forthright with it’s citizens?

    It appears that you might not have read the “proles” link – there’s even more there that wasn’t mentioned in the earlier post, including stuff about the new Canadian general who was just sent over with our troops from Ft. Bragg, monetary contributions, training efforts of Iraqi police, continued operations of Canadian frigates operating alongside U.S. aircraft carriers that form a primary staging platform for bombing raids, etc.

    btw, what benefits are gained by both Canada and the U.S. in the “exchange” deal?

  97. shcb Says:

    Like Canada’s involvement being kept secret, I think most Democrats in congress also understand the importance of winning in Iraq and have from the start. They have been supporting it privately but speaking out about it publicly. The fun will begin if Obama is elected. I predict he will back peddle like he’s heading for the spillway. First he will say he never said when he would get the troops out of Iraq, just that he would eventually. That won’t set well with the lefties and he will have to move to plan b. Then he will do one of those Clinton bite the lip things and say how he didn’t realize how bad Bush had left the mess there and the good people of Iraq will be massacred if we leave (where have we heard that before?) but this time the press will furl their brow and slowly nod their collectivist heads and say “the man makes sense” “look how he has grown in only his first year in office” “the man should be sainted, or knighted, some kind of …’ed ”. When truth be known, he knows what he’s going to do in Iraq if elected right now, just as he knows who he will vote for in 20 years.

  98. TeacherVet Says:

    I’ve no doubt that you’re right on all counts. Late for work, more later.

  99. NorthernLite Says:

    What a coincidence, the Canadian Forces helps out our allies in Iraq, and the situation starts to improve! You’re welcome.

  100. shcb Says:

    They’ve been there from the start

  101. shcb Says:

    and I have thanked Canada several times on these pages

  102. NorthernLite Says:

    btw, knarly, don’t get upset that we’re helping out in Iraq. Remember, we warned them of what was going to happen, hence we stayed out of the invasion. But we need to help the Iraqi people after their country was destroyed. Just like we’ve been accepting Iraqi refugees at a higher rate.

    As for helping the US in their folley, think of it this way:

    Just because your friend is retarded and was told not to do something but did it anyway, doesn’t mean you won’t help them when they are in dire need.

    Also, TV, our imports of oil have risen a whopping 400 million dollars in 4 years!?! The hell you say! It’s almost like our economy was growing over that period or something? If Iraq’s infrastrucutre wasn’t destroyed, we’d probably be buying even more from them, helping them out even further.

  103. knarlyknight Says:

    Just a few comments:

    NL – I talked to Paul this morning and he said that our efforts in the middle east were for a noble cause. If that’s what our ultra right wing minority government leader thinks, we’ll that’s good enough for me. After all, he is quite brilliant despite the appearances of those beady little eyes, weasely lips and bad haircut.

    TV – Also, Paul said that Canadian frigates in the middle east waters are there to intercept arms smugglers, terrorists and pirates. I also recall reading that over a coffee & newspaper years ago and getting a lot of strange looks by people in the coffee shop wondering why I was rolling on the floor laughing. There was no mention of operating alongside US aircraft carriers, the implied logic is that the US Navy can look after themselves but a few more frigates in the region to intercept contraband, other outlaws, and (GASP!) terrorists would be a good thing. So that’s what we were told. It does not surprise me that TV is now trying to tell me that Canadians are being lied to just like Americans are being lied to about military operations.

    TV – the one item that shows a potential gross misunderstanding (mischaracterization) is your comment about oil as a motive for military intervention. I know you were joking, but of course everyone is there for the oil – not to put in buckets and carry back with troop rotations on Hurcules aircraft as your joke would suggest, but rather to secure production rights to the oil fields, secure sales contracts at reasonable prices for a secure source of oil imports – to the detriment of competitors (Russia, China), to protect oil field and transmission facilities from sabatage, and etc.

    If the middle east wasn’t THE primary strategic region in the world, primariliy due to oil, your country and mine would show about as much interest in Iraq as we have in Kenya, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, Sudan, Panama, Indonesia or Columbia – that is move in, fix the problem (“nope, no WMD’s there!”) and more or less just leave.

    I hear McCrazy (Insane) McCain figures you will stay in Iraq for about a hundred years, is that true? Seems to me that is about the useful life of there oil supplies. Coincidence? Of course it is, silly. LOL.

  104. TeacherVet Says:

    Knarly, your explanation of Canada’s interest in the oil fields sounds strangely familiar. And, no mention of operating alongside U.S. aircraft carriers? Read the link again.

    You said, “Seems to me that [about a hundred years] is about the useful life of there oil supplies.” Every decade since the ’60s we’ve been told that the earth’s supply of oil will run out by the end of that decade, but now there’s a 100-year supply in Iraq alone? Hmmm.

    In fact, NL, most of the referenced statements attributed to me were direct quotes (cut/paste) from the two sites. It’s obviously true that the Canadian military was there beginning on day one of the invasion, so your statement that “we stayed out of the invasion” is patently false.

    Also, Gen. Natynczyk’s 12-month stint as deputy commander of 10 brigades of our troops began only a few months after the invasion. During the time frame of his leadership we lost 956 troops, including the two months of greatest casualty numbers. So, the situation started to improve because of Canadian Forces involvement?

    The first 3 paragraphs of my post from 5:34 pm yesterday pretty much says it all, but not in my words (it was cut/paste from the linked site).

  105. knarlyknight Says:

    TV,

    You just don’t know when to shut up, do you? Here I was basically agreeing with you and then you drag out that blatantly incindiary diatribe.

    100 years of oil supplies left in Iraq? Given current known and expected oil reserves and production rates, and oil prices at $100 a barrel now, that might be a good guess. In the sixties there were still major oil fields and pools being discovered on land and prices were in the $6 /bbl range if I recall. If oil prices quadruple or quintuple (again) like they did this past decade then obviously it will make sense to spend more to get more oil out of the ground so we may get another 100 years worth of supplies from Iraq. It’s really quite simple, please don’t play so stupid with your “Every decade since the 60′s we’ve been told…” straw man bullshit. Where is the oil now? Arabia, Iraq off shore W Africa, Antarctica (environmentally off limit), Arctic possibly, some deep Offshore waters, oilsands and oil shale. At $20 /bbl theeese were not considered economic reserves, at $100 a barrel they if you ignore the environmetal damage.

    As for the Cdn involvement, I’m going to forget everything you’ve said as you obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder and, ahem, your sources have proved to be pretty patheric in the past. J.R. Ryter for Christ’s sake. Instead, I’ll look elsewhere, the dispute seems to be coming to a close on the subjec t over at Wiki (not that they are always right, but I am sure they are right more than you are.)

    In a few short lines the wiki article compiled a more coherently realistic explanation than you have been able to paste together in two days of Preacher Screacher Vetting. From wiki:

    Although the Canadian government did not join the invasion force, Canada has always stood by their closest ally even if it has been kept quiet and not widely publicized. Canada’s official statement during that time was that they are involved in the War On Terror, not the invasion of Iraq.

    One little talked about fact was the Canadian Forces had been patrolling the Persian Gulf since the end of the first Gulf War, and worked side by side with other allied forces in enforcing the Oil for food program. Once the literal invasion of Iraq was over, the situation became part of the overall War On Terror.

    I’m not saying I buy this wiki stuff 100%, but I am saying I will not buy the crap that you have to sell.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Iraq_War

  106. TeacherVet Says:

    Knarly, it doesn’t matter whether you ignore anything I’ve said, since at least 90% of my posts have consisted of direct quotes, in full context, from two Canadian web sites that are far to the fringes of the left. With you having gone into attack mode, I can only assume that an awareness of the truth was painful. To that end, I apologize, but I felt that it was deserved, and I could have asked much more painful questions.

    If you’ll look back, you’ll find that I only posted all that stuff as a discrediting rebuttal to your earlier posts casting full blame for all of humanity’s woes solely on the U.S. There is plenty of blame and fault to go around, and the shoulder chips are abundant on all sides of every issue.

  107. knarlyknight Says:

    TV,
    Thanks, I like that tone better and I can see your points in that last point. I think we’ve beat this thread to death so perhaps just a couple clarifications before giving you the final word. 1) “attack mode” was a good choice of words, in former lives I probably killed more than my share of Barbarians in a battle frenzy (if I wasn’t a barbarian myself) but your assumption that the pain of the truth was probably too great is wrong. There’s no pain, I was aware of most of the Cdn. involvement at one time or another and had conveniently forgotten most of it. Cdn. military support of US Iraq operations is not much different to me than Cdn military being in Afghanistan, both are wrong-headed but not much one can do about it until the next election. Painful? Naaah, it is more a dis-belief that our leaders are so stupid as to get our military stuck in an Afghani quagmire that is so similar to what I had laughed at and condemned the Soviet’s for being so stupid as to be involved in during the 80′s. At least the poppy production is going well, heroin doesn’t seem like such a bad thing relative to the latest news from that country.
    2) Looking back at previous posts might be useful, but I won’t waste your time or mine on that. From memory, I’d generalize that the “chips” are abundant as you say and that what gets everyone heated is when anyone tries to present their own country as Holier than thou’s country. In pointing our another’s faults it often seems that one is implying that they have none of their own. I wish I could bring this all back to my earlier central theme (that supplying Iraq with WMD’s or WMD precursers in the 1980′s was an evil thing to do), which applied universally to any country. Issues about what country provided the most, or how much less one country did it than another, or how much one country used another country to funnel the exports to Iraq through another country is all just noise. Enabling Iraq to use WMD’s against Iran and the Kurds was on a scale of evil roughly comparable to that of Chemical Ali himself.

  108. TeacherVet Says:

    Okay

  109. Cassandra Says:

    I have been following the Presidental Election. I am very attentively. And what I have noticed is that thee people of “Fox News” are not “Fact Based”. They get their ratings from polling done by a computer. Now I don’t go on line to vote. So if every one is not going on the computer to vote. How in GOD’S name are they getting our oppions. Only a few people are voting one line so…. that’s not “fair nor balanced.” Now for real issue at hand.
    The media is tring to make it seem like we’re offended by being called “Lower Class” or Middle America.” What in the Fuck is this shit. Yes I am Lower Class, But I know that I don’t plan to remain, as a “Lower Class Citizen” any longer than what I have to. Nor will I get all “Boo Hoo” He/she said this or that. We as U.S. Citizen should stop whining about the words. Yes I know that Obama has stated that “Word Matter” but “ACTIONS” do too. which leads me to another issue.
    Now I use to get on Hillary, for this… I was known for pointing out that she has switched her candidacy’ supporters more times that she has changed clothes, but I can see why she keeps changing. It’s because thats what canidates must do to get the votes. Now Hillary is an old pro at this( she reminds me of a fish out of water, flopping around for air.) Now Obama he isn’t so good at this, and it shows. But none of these things have Jack Shit to do with his capabilites.
    Now if you were to ask me whom would be the canidate to handle this war… I’d say Mc.Cain knows war really well. and knows how to keep it going. Hillary knows what to do to get the vote. Obama he’d go in and find out what it is that we can do to end the war and build up our Alliance’s. but
    “Mommy, Obama called me Small Town American.”
    Thank you if you’ve read my comments down to here. You a very attentive reader.

  110. Cassandra Says:

    Well it’s me I’m back. Now what is going on here? I am puzzled by this man named Juan Williams. This man was known to me as “Hillary Clinton’s personal ass licker” If you watch his mustash it goes from black with a little gray to compleatly white….. Hummm, did I type and say ass licker, I ment pussy licker.
    Oh and lets not for get about Mayor Nutter what a crazy name. Hillary has her share of Uncle Tomms. And what about Elton John’s fagot ass. He has the nerve to call us who choose not to support Hillary, “Misogynistic” This comming from a man who’d rather have a dick up in his ass and one in his mouth. What is this world comming to.
    I am looking for my President to be the following ……..
    1) A man: Men are better at handling other men.
    2) Younger than 72 fucking years old.
    3) Someone whose able to understand the issues at hand and see thee other countries ways of life.

    Oh and did any body know this. That woman that is at Mc. Cain’s side isn’t his first wife. No he left his first wife for this woman. So he’s a cheater. But who cares right every ones doing it. I had always wounderd why she looked so fucken young. But this is how those nasty old men do it, they get rid of thee old stail stanken twiter poo and get something that is younger that they truely can’t handle.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.