BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 03:45 AM

Oh, no, Doug -- it's bulletproof, for sure. :>)

I guess there as many ways to not know things as there are to know things, huh?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 02:25 AM

Amos says, "DougR, actually, my data about the history of the Intel and the Hill does not come from the Internet. It comes from Bob Woodward, etc., etc." So big deal! Bob Woodward has a direct line to who our intelligence service does not have? If it's available to you, isn't it available to your congressman? Your senator?

There is not point in repeating what I have already posted on the subject, but I note that no one has offered a credible argument against my POV. If you can, have at it!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 01:32 AM

Troll:

A number of more reasonable approaches have been discussed along the history of this thread. Conferral, PR campaigns, and a lot more HumInt to start with.

It is possible we are being fed good intell from the ground over there and Bush is just wanting to act the know-best and not tell anyone about it. But he'd be a lot more convincing and a lot better trusted if he did.

Sending in inspectors would be a good start. UAV and U2 flyovers would be a good support line. MASSIVE PR campaigns done with intelligence and a sensitivity to the people being addressed, who trace there descent back before the rise of the Norsemen, would be in order.

My sense is that Bush or whoever is operating him is up to his ears in a self-fulfilling loop, a self-intiated and self-designed vicious self-reinforcing circle. I don't care for it at all.





A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 12:18 AM

Everyone seems to have an opinion for or against (mostly against). But other than "no war" I have seem no viable solutions suggested to deal with the problems presented by Saddam. His history of military adventurism is pretty well documented.
So how about it, people? Instead of vilifying each others viewpoints can we now present some ideas on just what we should do vis a vis Saddam?
I await your input.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 11:21 PM

Whew, Amos! You're gonna get a reputation if you keep being that lucid and reasonable.

My California Senators seem to hitch up and decide voting strategy. On controversial issues, one votes yes and the other no. Next vote, on the same kind of controversial issue, they swap positions. It makes it hard to get too mad at one and kick her out... and makes both seem like opportunists. (Which I'm sure they are. Aren't all [successful] politicians?)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 09:42 PM

Right on, Amos...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 08:35 PM

Actually, DougR, my data about the history between the intell community and the Hill does not come from the Internet. It comes from Bob Woodward's history of the CIA during the Sandanista-contra troubles, and personal interviews with people who were involved.

These data have little to do with Iraqs current status of threat. Nicole has offered a line of reasoning which stirkes me as quite rationale in her assessments; but her assessments, like yours, are based on viewpoint, since you are both trying to extrapolate from a dearth of hard facts. You extrapolate by crediting authorities with better data than you have, or so it seems to me; she extrapolates by estimating how things work. Either way, we are outside the palisade of certainty.

Now our respected Commander-In-Chief is standing somewhere along the same gradation between ignorance, half-ignorance, and actual knowledge, which has a lot of way-stops along it. He is speaking as though he has enough facts to arrive at a high degree of certainty. But he has not seen fit to provide facts, other than the same ones that have been out there since before the election with very few exceptions.

If that is all the data he really has than he is arriving at a very bellicose conclusion based on little data which is why some people feel he is a war-monger. And he is rejecting what may well be much more viable alternatives, exrtrapolating from the known facts, which is why some people accuse him of being stupid.

If he has a much higher grade or amount of information, then I would ask--for the ninth time -- why he feels so strongly that he cannot articulate the data he has, at least indirectly. I understand the sanctity of sources. But somehow I do not believe that is the explanation behind his failure to make a factual caser for armed intervention.

It isn't so much that his path will lead to the use of weapons and the waste of millions of dollars better spent improving water. It is that people will be wounded, torn apart, killed, and deprived of their husbands, children, wives, parents, and grandparents (collateral damage of this sort may be unacceptable, but that doesn't make it avoidable!).

T-bag: The reason I keep on here talking, even though I "won't be going" is because unlike some of your peers, I give a shit about other humans than myself, or those just like me. There are a lot of brownskinned lads and lasses on both sides of the ocean who are going to be eating lead and discovering that death is not a cartoon figure, you dig? And for no good reason that I have yet seen. What do you care, anyway? You're not speaking up about it one way or the other.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Rodger
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 07:56 PM

An open letter to T-Bag:

Shut up, wannabe. Yeah I know it's you, bro. Let 'em talk as much as they want to. We got our own to work for.

yours,

RS

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 07:27 PM

Yeah, Guest (troll) is very much onto the real deal. Bunch of rich white guys who wouldn't know war from a touch footabll game in their backyard, get together, do their secret handshakes from their college fraternity days, huff and puff for a few days acting as if they *actually* know anything, which they don't... and then send the working class off to slaughter and be slaughtered....

Normal....

What's new???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 07:26 PM

Dunno, Doug. I can't tell if he's complaining about people who are trying to stop a war, start a war, or just complaining that someone over 25 has an opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 07:03 PM

Uh Oh. A troll has struck. How did we sustain a thread as long as this one without attracting at least one before this one?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Mr whites Out IV
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 06:49 PM

Just what the hell do all you old farts care? Yur asses aint gonna go Anybody can tell none of you is under 25 and don't start whining about yuor kids going like that WUSSIWIG rich. The yuong the poorand th darker brothers are gonna go not you talkers.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 05:43 PM

Two quotes from Teribus "...they've lost Afghanistan, where are they likely to go?"

Maybe Montana? You don't need a faraway country and lots of equipment to carry out a devastating attack. A few people enthused enough to die, and some box-cutters were enough on September 11th. (And has there been any evidence that any of the people directly involved had ever actually been to those Afghanistan training camps? They got their most significant bits of training in the USA.)

"Besides your hypothesis ignores the possible reaction from Israel." That was precisely my hypothesis - I was suggesting that the idea of Iraq using weapons of mass destruction against an Israel bristling with nuclear weapons was not very plausible; and that seems to be what Teribus thinks too, but for some reason also seems to think I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 05:33 PM

Amos, my friend: Or perhaps I should begin with, Amos, my distinguished friend from the state of California, since that's how the Senators handle it, you state in your post of 1:39 P.M. today: "Senators and Congressmen have always had a hard time getting clear dope from the Intelligence community."

Yet, Mudcatters present as "facts" stuff they read on the Internet and are convinced that what they read is unaltered truth! You are making my point!

The information Nicole supplied to me from the Internet is readily available to anybody with a computer. I would be shocked to learn that the office of every Senator and Congressman is not equipped with computers. Why, oh why, don't the legislators rely on those same sources to defeat legislation they do not wish to have passed?

You probably are dying to know why I think they don't. Okay, I'll tell you. BECAUSE IT IS NOT CREDIBLE!

Any United States Senator could have used the information Nicole supplied me to completely demolish any chances the president might have had to gain the powers he was seeking via the Resolution. But no Senator, no Congressman did.

Why?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 05:18 PM

"There is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of Western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the US. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of Western countries." - George Orwell (in 1945), quoted in a letter to The Spectator

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 04:48 PM

Dear MoveOn Member,

Over the last five days, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) and our friends in Congress fought a pitched battle against a hasty and dangerous war resolution. Senator Byrd fought with every tool at his disposal, from an array of parliamentary tactics to his pocket copy of the Constitution. Joined by Senators Kennedy (D-MA), Sarbanes (D-MD), Durbin (D-IL), and Boxer (D-CA) in outrage, he launched a furious filibuster, demanding that our elected representatives give this issue the lengthy and deep consideration it deserves.

In the House, Representatives Doggett (D-TX), Lee (D-CA), Kucinich (D-OH), and Pelosi (D-CA) took a stand against House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO) and worked unstoppingly to deliver a defeat for the authorization of force. In doing so, they risked political retaliation from both within their party and outside of it, but they spoke out anyway.

Early yesterday afternoon, the House voted 296 to 133 in support of the President's resolution. Surprising nearly everyone, a significant majority of Democrats stood with Pelosi and Doggett in opposition to the resolution.

And around 1 in the morning last night, the Senate voted to support President Bush's proposal, 77 for to 23 against. Senator Byrd said, "I have fought the good fight. I might as well talk to the ocean."

For those of us who are worried about a war on Iraq -- worried what it will do to our country, our future, or our world -- this is a dark day. Our Congress has been stampeded innto supporting a unilateral, pre-emptive war that could set the Middle East on fire and turn the world against us. In the immediate aftermath of this decision, it's easy to feel, like Senator Byrd, that we might as well have talked to the ocean.

But that is just plain wrong. This vote hurts, but without our work it would have been much worse.

Let us not undersestimate what we're up against. In the Bush Administration, we have a cadre of men hungry for war. Iraq has been on the agenda since President Bush and Vice President Cheney were on the campaign trail. When September 11th happened, the President immediately tried to link it to Saddam. No dice. When anthrax brought our capitol to a halt, the FBI was dispatched to find connections to Baghdad. Nothing surfaced.

The President has demonstrated that he is willing to use every Machiavellian trick in the book to force our country to war. He hasn't hesitated to use our national tragedy to push his agenda. He hasn't hesitated to play off the fear of Americans. He hasn't hesitated to take advantage of this election year to divide and conquer his opposition. When the President of the United States, a man with the loudest megaphone in the world, chooses to use such tactics, he is an extremely formidable opponent.

Make no mistake: the President did everything he could to make this vote a unanimous one. He failed. And the dissent in Congress will resonate throughout our country.

The New York Times today interviewed Representative Susan Davis (D-CA), from southern California: "Ms. Davis's San Diego district includes thousands of active and retired military personnel in the West Coast's largest Navy base, many of whom, she said, may not be happy with her decision to vote against the president's wishes. But having agonized over her decision until a few hours before the vote, she said she was persuaded by a large number of calls and e-mail messages from voters who were deeply uneasy about the prospect of a new war that could be fought with terrible weapons." That was us.

And when Senator Byrd was speaking out on the Senate floor, he knew we stood behind him. When Representative Pelosi spoke out against the House leadership, she knew that we were with her. Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota is in the political fight of his life against a candidate hand-picked by the White House to defeat him. But even though it could damage his re-election campaign, Senator Wellstone voiced his conscience. Our work helped to make that possible.

Our impact can be felt far beyond Washington, D.C. The American people are a lot smarter than politicians think, and support for this warmongering is paper thin. With each dissenter, with each dissenting vote we will gain the support of more of our fellow citizens. President Bush may now have the legal authority for a war, but thanks to the concern we've voiced in the media and in our representatives' offices, he does not have the mandate of his constituents.

This vote will not stand. We will keep fighting this thoughtless war in every way we can. We will fight it over the next weeks and the next months, in Washington and at home.

For now, though, we should take a moment to reflect on the hard work we've put in, on our successes and our failures. Remember: we're not talking to the ocean. We're turning the tide.

Sincerely,

--Eli, Wes, Carrie, Joan, Peter, and Susan
MoveOn.org
Friday, October 11, 2002

P.S. The pressure we've put on Congress has been overwhelming. Over the last two months, we've met with Senators' offices in every state. We've mobilized a team of volunteer lobbyists who worked with over 400 Congressional offices. We've written over 3,600 letters to the editor on Iraq. And we've made, at the very least, a staggering 143,000 phone calls to Congress. With countless emails and a petition with over 200,000 signers, we've communicated a deep and broad concern to our elected representatives.

Here's what Senator Byrd had to say about the grassroots feedback he received:

"I have heard from tens of thousands of Americans ˆ people from all across this country of ours ˆ who have urged me to keep up the fight. I am only one Senator from a small state, yet in the past week I have received nearly 20,000 telephone calls and nearly 50,000 e-mails supporting my position.

I want all of those people across America who took the time to contact me to know how their words have heartened me and sustained me in my efforts to turn the tide of opinion in the Senate. They are my heroes, and I will never forget the remarkable courage and patriotism that reverberated in the fervor of their messages." (From http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_newsroom/byrd_news_oct2002/rls_oct2002/rls_oct2002_3.html)

P.P.S. Below is a list of the Senators and Representatives who voted against a war on Iraq. If you feel like calling some of them to thank them for taking a stand, it will certainly be appreciated.

Senators who voted against the resolution:

Akaka (D) -- [phone]
Bingaman (D) -- [phone]
Boxer (D) -- [phone]
Byrd (D) -- [phone]
Chafee (R) -- [phone]
Conrad (D) -- [phone]
Corzine (D) -- [phone]
Dayton (D) -- [phone]
Durbin (D) -- [phone]
Feingold (D) -- [phone]
Graham (D) -- [phone]
Inouye (D) -- [phone]
Jeffords (I) -- [phone]
Kennedy (D) -- [phone]
Leahy (D) -- [phone]
Levin (D) -- [phone]
Mikulski (D) -- [phone]
Murray (D) -- [phone]
Reed (D) -- [phone]
Sarbanes (D) -- [phone]
Stabenow (D) -- [phone]
Wellstone (D) -- [phone]
Wyden (D) -- [phone]

A full roll call list for the Senate is available on our website at:
http://www.moveon.org/senatevote.html

A full roll call for the House is available at:
http://www.moveon.org/housevote.html


Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 03:53 PM

This *modern day* Gulf of Tonkin Resolution will play itself out, Doug, and I pray that Saddam backs down, which he may do. Either way the message has been sent out to the world that unilatreialism and preemptivism are jstifiable forieng policy options. The world is a little more dangerous today that in was yesterday, my friend.

But do keep in mind that Saddam may dig in and if he does it's gonna take a lot more than huffin and puffin to blow his house down...

And all this has come about on suspicion and supposition. Hmmmmmmm? This is definately a step backwards for mankind...

But, hark, as long as we still have a 1st Ammendment they'll be a lot of us resisting Bush's the march to insanity, thank you...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 03:10 PM

However sad, it must be taken for granted that everyday citizens will not see the evidence if it exists, unless independant journalists dig it up. I'm sure they can trot out some satellite photos or something -- everyone KNOWS we have satellites photographing everybody; no intelligence loss there.

Even if you accept the arguement that revealing hard evidence would put intelligence efforts in danger (which is impossible to judge without seeing the evidence itself), high ranking government officials share this information with other high-ranking government officials of countries that are our allies when trying to create a coalition.

So why haven't our allies seen the evidence and declared their support, as they did after 9/11? Is it that we haven't any hard evidence to present, or is it that we haven't bothered to present it to them? I suspect the former -- the evidence that justifies a "JUST WAR" (a Catholic doctrine I don't agree with anyway) isn't there. We can suspect any number of things until we are blue in the face, but suspicion alone is not just cause for mass murder.

I'm sorry to say this, but the fact that Britain has agreed to support the US means nothing. I do wish the British leadership would stop being a US patsy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 01:39 PM

BELIEFS

"As long as people believe in absurdities
they will continue to commit atrocities."

               Voltaire


Senators and Congressmen have always had a hard time getting clear dope from the intelligence community. That's why the Sandanista scandal rolled as far as it did -- old man Casey was carrying out a widdle war for the Gipper, and he wasn't much interested in letting the Senate Committee on Intell know where all the cards were. It was all supposed to be about "arms traffic interdiction", when actually Casey was pushing the contras to come down and take over Guatemala, IIRC.

Anyway, a clear set of facts is glaring in its absence. Assuming that ":they must know more than we do" is always dangerous and usually flawed as an assumption. Rolling out the mass-death machine based on such assumptions is not justified to my conscience. All Bush has done is present conclusions and Saddam's history, which gruesome though it is, is not clear grounds for the wide-scale destruction of lives and body parts.

A.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 12:51 PM

Amos: Why are people here so quick to accept as facts, opinions expressed by Bush critics? I just read the critique on Bush's speech in Cincinnatti by the anti-administration, pro-Saddam, anti-Israel critics quoted in the article. It, like so many posts to threads like this, could hardly be classified, I believe, as being non-partisan in any way. The facts presented by the writers are devestating to Bush's argument! Now, if any of you listened to any of the debate in the U. S. Senate yesterday and the days before, you will have to agree that there were many senators who, had they had the information Nicole supplied me, could have used that piece to blow holes in the administration's argument. Senator Byrd, or Senator Levin, and many others would have been delighted to use that critique to defeat the Resolution that was passed by a very large majority in the U. S. Senate, and an even larger one in the Republican controlled House of Representatives. Bush wouldn't have had a chance!

Probably, were an even more extensive search of the Internet be made, even more articles from multiple "Policy Review Committees," "Think Tanks," etc. could be found that would have offered "evidence" that would have been even more valuable to the senators and representatives, voting with the minority, to defeat the majority.

I wonder why they didn't use them?

(Except we all know that all senators and representatives who voted with the majority are "misguided," "in it for their own personal gain," "wanted to help CEO's of large multinational corporations," or are "crooked," or "dumb." Right?)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 12:30 PM

DougR:

I have pointed out repeatedly in these threads that the biggest problem with Georgie-boy's assertions is that they are not accompanied by hard facts. THisi is all well and good if it is sabre-rattling he is engaged in, which I suspect.

But if it is not, I will not be party to subscribing to rolling out the death machines based on mob-rhetoric from a subliterate redneck with mor eprivelege than brains. No matter how white his shirt looks on CNN.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 11:54 AM

And where are you getting your information, Doug, other than Fox News?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 11:03 AM

Ah Ha! I knew it! Even a dumb old ex-cowboy like me knew NOBODY could have the knowledge exhibited by you three unless you had inside information. Now I feel perfectly safe from terrorists! I am confident any one of you will warn me well ahead of any danger from terrorist cells. I will sleep good tonight. Bobert: I was a bit surprised to learn all three of you are CIA though. I would have sworn Don was FBI! What led me to this conclusion? All three of you post such positive, "without a doubt statements" that if taken literally leave no room for questioning. Thanks for the input. Thank you too, for voting for your representative and your senators if they voted to give Bush his resolution. I think we are much less likely to be involved in a war now, than we were this time last week.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 03:54 AM

I see people quoting the FBI and, especialy, the CIA.
Given the records of those august bodies over the past few years, I would check if they said that the sun was shining at high noon before I believed it.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 03:35 AM

Nicole:

"The sophisticated deployment of biological weapons is a lot harder than people like to believe (Remember the cult that tried to infect a salad bar with influenza? Or how few people even got ill from weaponized anthrax letters? Not many countries could pull off a successful bio attack; it requires a ton of research and a lot of resources Saddam just doesn't have.) And he is unlikely to be able to hit the US significantly with either chemical or conventional weapons, although I can think of several nasty terrorist-like scenarios that might work with a little luck and a LOT of planning."

The first part of your contention above is true with respect to using these weapons in a "conventional" sense (They were originally conceived as tactical theatre weapons). It does take a great deal in terms of research and resources. Go along the road that the French, yourself and Bobert propose and Saddam has a sixty/forty chance of having both those necessary ingredients aplenty. Having successfully duped the weapons inspectors for a second time, the pressure will be on to lift sanctions and terminate patrols over the two existing no-fly zones.

You say that you can think of several nasty terrorist-like scenarios. Those terrorists require the same resources and material. Most important of all they need a safe and secure base to prepare and plan - they've lost Afghanistan, where are they likely to go?

You have also said:

"If Saddam had long-range rocketry, we'd know. You can't test rocketry in secret, and it's awfully hard to hide with folks pouring over daily satellite photos. We know he has SCUD capability, because he's used them before. It's reasonable to assume he still has a few stashed away at least."

We do know, or we have a very good indication from satellite photographs and from reports from defectors. Page 29 of the "Iraq Dossier" presented to the House of Commons shows a picture of the Al-Rafa/Shahiyat liquid propellant engine static test facility in Iraq. It shows a new engine test stand under construction. This new stand is larger than the current stand used for testing the engines for the Al-Samoud missile and larger than the one, dismantled by UNSCOM, for testing SCUD. Now there may be other explanations for the increase in the size of this facility, maybe soil conditions neccessitate larger foundations?, maybe it has a larger and better equipped canteen for the workforce?, or maybe they are building engines to increase the range of their missiles. In previous posts you, and others, have been totally dismissive of this evaluation - going by the votes in your House of Representatives and Senate your elected representatives they seem to have taken heed.

McGoH:

"Look. Israel has 200 nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them. There are no indications that Saddam is suicidal, however murderous. On the other hand he could well be nuts enough to kill as many people as he can just as a last throw, if he'd going down anyway."

You obviously have not read some of his books. Besides your hypothesis ignores the possible reaction from Israel. If they, at anytime, believe that Iraq has developed a nuclear weapon, my guess is, based on past experience, they will not hesitate - In this scenario, Saddam does not have to launch an attack, the Israelis will (remember that Iraq and Iran are the only two countries in the region still holding fast to Gamal Abdul Nasser's vow to wipe the State of Israel from the face of the earth - You might not believe that - the Israelis cannot afford to share your point of view).

Don:

"Could he support and supply terrorists? Certainly. In fact, quite probably. But that's a whole different problem. Saddam is not the only one. If determined terrorists couldn't get support—and possibly WMDs—from Saddam, there are a number of other places where they could."

As I said above Al-Quaeda has lost Afghanistan, if Iraq is cleared of WMD and the research facilities and capability, then that would be one less refuge. If the above is accomplished along with a change of regime that sends a very clear message to the other likely candidates you refer to.

The continuous assumption, mainly by American contributers to this thread, that your President is foolishly charging on with this blindly "shooting from the hip", is wrong. He is handling it very well, he is in a position to negotiate the terms of the new resolution he wants from the UNSC. I believe he will get that resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 12:28 AM

It doesn't take much to work this stuff out, Doug. Tom Clancy, who if I remember correctly was an insurance salesman before his writing took off, got thoroughly and angrily investigated after The Hunt for Red October was published. He knew a whole lot—and wrote a whole lot—about the details, tactics, and general behavior of nuclear submarines, both Soviet and American. Military secrets. "Where did you learn that?" the authorities wanted to know. Clancy had no secret pipeline to the Pentagon. He read magazines. He read books. He read newspapers. He watched television (right now, Frontline is on, with a program about ICBMs). He took notes. He thought about it. All the technical information he wanted to lend verisimilitude to his novel was there for the looking. It just happens that what he dug up was all pretty accurate. Most upsetting!

In 1945, just a few weeks after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, Life Magazine came out with an issue all about the atomic bomb. I specifically recall a two-page spread, complete with formulae and diagrams explaining how an atomic bomb works!! At the age of fourteen, I understood the whole thing. It's pretty basic physics. The only problem is some fairly simple engineering. The Russians didn't need the Rosenbergs, all they needed was a dime (yes, a dime) to buy of copy of that issue of Life.

I've been interested in writing all my life, and it's only within the last few years that I've had a chance to do some. But I've thought like a writer all my life. Ideas are everywhere. Data is everywhere. This, plus a little intelligence and imagination, then formulate a theory. Check a few things for verification, and you can come up with a lot of very accurate information.

There's a lot of information out there. All you have to do is keep your eyes open, your mind open, and look.

Don Firth
(I hope that re-establishes my cover.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 10:00 PM

Come on Nicole and Don. The jig is up. Doug has found us out. No use stringing him along any more. Okay, Doug. You guessed it, except Don is CIA, too.

Yeah, what you've been hearing from one expert after another about Saddam's inability to deliver a WMD to the US is absolutely correct. Heck, we even have a picture of him satnding next to one of his 30 year old SCUD missles with a nuclear device duct tapded to it and each has a fuse. As far as we could make of from the translaters he said, "No way, Jose" to lighting either of them for fear that if he lit the nuke and the rocket wouldn;t go he's get blown up, and if he lit the rocket first and the nuke fuse wouldn't lite then he'd be wasting a perfectly good suit case and if he lit them both then the rocket would go up and turn around and come right back at him....

So you've found us out, Doug. That was some purdy nifty investigative work on your part. Hey, we're looking for a few folks like you. Your counrty needs ya', Dougie.

Agent Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 07:48 PM

Doug, if the US and Russia aren't sure they have the capability to successfully pull off a biological attack on a foreign populace, it seems ludicrous to jump to the conclusion that a relatively poor, embargoed country like Iraq could. Having biological and chemical agents is vastly different than having the delivery mechanisms. It's like saying because someone has a pile of gunpowder, they can shoot somebody. You need the gunpowder, but you also need the gun.

Example: the guy/gal mailing out the anthrax letters. Said culprit had access to a weaponized (US) military strain of anthrax. The Russians may have better stuff, but this is pretty close to premium grade. How many people died despite the deliberate attempt to deliver the goods?

Chemical weapons are easier to deliver, and almost anyone can make them. You. Me. Short range delivery is pretty easy. Land mines, bombs, SCUDs, etc. Long range ballistic delivery requires sophisticated rocketry.

If Saddam had long-range rocketry, we'd know. You can't test rocketry in secret, and it's awfully hard to hide with folks pouring over daily satellite photos. We know he has SCUD capability, because he's used them before. It's reasonable to assume he still has a few stashed away at least.

Nuclear: you also can't test this stuff in secret anymore. It's relatively easy to build a small nuclear device (we did it in 8th grade Physics with a couple of potato pieces standing in for uranium), but again, delivery is the hard part. Overland delivery, to, say, Jerusalem, would be a cakewalk compared to getting the supplies or the completed weapon into the US.

We KNOW he can hit Israel. It seems doubtful he could really damage the US.

Truthfully, it would be easier for you or me to attack the US, Doug. I daresay you have a local dam or busy bridge you could take out with a little side trip to the hardware store and a thorough disregard for law? Or maybe just a government building? How about a busy Wal-Mart at 2pm on Saturday?

Wanna know more about missiles and other nasties, some of which relate to Iraq's capabilities?
http://www.cdiss.org/hometemp.htm Mostly non-partisan, info-only kind of site.

http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/biologocal-weapons.html Mostly non-partisan article on BW here. This site tries real hard to present all sides of the issue, but seems to lean a wee bit left in total. Good commentary and discussion of various positions, including the Iraq/US issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 06:56 PM

Don, Bobert, Nicole, thanks for your input.

I do have one question, though, of you Nicole, you too Bobert. You two appear to have a lot more information about Iraqs weapons (number they have and capability to deliver them)than I do. Do either of you work in jobs that enable you access to information not available to common folk like me. In other words, are you CIA or something? Don you have a lot more information along that line than I do too. You FBI or something?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 05:02 PM

"He who goes unarmed in paradise
had better be sure that
that is where he is." -- James Thurber

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 02:48 PM

Couldn't have said it better, Don. Saddam is neither stupid nor suicidal, and like any petty dictator he has a healthy share of self-interest and survival skills. He's not going to attack us or his allies (not that he has much to attack with), because it would make short work of not only his regime, but his life.

However, if he has nothing left to lose -- or believes so -- his ego will require him to go out with a bang.

The sophisticated deployment of biological weapons is a lot harder than people like to believe (Remember the cult that tried to infect a salad bar with influenza? Or how few people even got ill from weaponized anthrax letters? Not many countries could pull off a successful bio attack; it requires a ton of research and a lot of resources Saddam just doesn't have.) And he is unlikely to be able to hit the US significantly with either chemical or conventional weapons, although I can think of several nasty terrorist-like scenarios that might work with a little luck and a LOT of planning.

But Israel? He'll lob everything he has at Israel, 'cause he can reach 'em and it'll piss us off. I persoanlly have no desire for Israeli citizens to pay for US political mistakes with their lives and property.

Ohmigod... I'm agreeing with Tenet?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Ivan
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 02:25 PM

I'm a little (OK a LOT) late to this thread and I haven't read it all so someone may already have posted this link but just in case:
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
has a on-line petition.
I admit that Blair and Bush won't take a blind bit of notice however many names are on it but at least it gives people a chance to stand up and be counted.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 02:00 PM

Look. Israel has 200 nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them. There are no indications that Saddam is suicidal, however murderous. On the other hand he could well be nuts enough to kill as many people as he can just as a last throw, if he'd going down anyway.

After all, it was the official policy of the United States to do exactly that, though on a vastly greater scale, throughout the Cold War - Mutual Assured Destruction it was called, so why should we expect anything better from a man like Saddam?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Bobert
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 01:57 PM

Doug: While in agreement with everything Don has said I'd just add my 3 cents worth.

1. Sure he does, just as sure as a rattle snake has venom.

2. Heck no! Like the snake his range is severely limited. Sure, he could probably attempt to attack Isreal and surely get his butt nuked for his efforts. His unmaned drones fly so slow that they would be shot down before they left Iraqi airspace. His SCUD's are a mystery to him since he ain't too good at aiming them as shown the last time he tried to fire 'em. Plus since he has so few, he's afraid to pull em' out for fear of the US blowin' em' up on the ground. Man, he is in a pickle.

Yep, it's back to the Mohammed Ali's "Rope-A-Dope" trick of drawing the opponent into your space, let em' punch away, then counter. The US is not ready to fight a street brawl. I'm not saying it wouldn't win, but I am saying that the casualties would be so high and the collateral damage so devestating that it would be victory that would only produce an entire legion of folks standing in line to volunteer to give their lives in terrorists acts as revenge for a couple of generations to come...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 01:40 PM

Okay, folks...now get out your old Beatles LP's, search through them for the most throwaway cut of them all...and put it on...

"Number Nine, Number Nine, Number Nine..."

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 01:34 PM

Doug, my answer to the two questions you pose:—

1. Yes, I do believe he has weapons of mass destruction. But nowhere near the arsenal that some people would like everybody to think. I'm pretty sure he has squirreled away both biological and chemical agents, at least in small amounts, perhaps more. I do not believe he has nuclear weapons, although I think he would like to have them, and is probably rooting around for ways to make them or get them. Saddam Hussein is a tin-pot dictator with delusions of grandeur. But—he's not stupid.

2. Since he's not stupid, he is certainly aware that any overt attack on his part would undoubtedly result in a massive retaliation, with the full support and quite probably the participation of many nations. The first country to use a nuclear weapon lets the genie out of the bottle. The United States alone has a nuclear arsenal sufficient to reduce Iraq to a plain of glowing, fused green glass, should we ever be of a mind to do so. I'm quite sure Saddam is fully aware of that fact. Same with an overt chemical/biological attack. Could he support and supply terrorists? Certainly. In fact, quite probably. But that's a whole different problem. Saddam is not the only one. If determined terrorists couldn't get support—and possibly WMDs—from Saddam, there are a number of other places where they could. And when and if a terrorist attack comes, how can we be sure where it actually came from? Osama bin Laden and his ilk are what are called "men without a country." Who do we retaliate against? Germany? Canada? Florida? They have all "harbored" terrorists.

The problem with singling Iraq out as "the enemy" and dealing with it militarily is that it is an attempt to use a simple-minded solution to solve a complex problem. If the U. S. were to unilaterally wipe out Iraq or move in and replace Saddam with a puppet government of our own, we would probably engender the enmity of much of the world. But the terrorists would still be out there!.

It's roughly the equivalent of facing a problem you can't deal with easily or directly and, because of your frustration, coming home and kicking the cat. Now, it may be a very nasty cat, but that doesn't do much to solve the real problem.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 01:21 PM

I do enjoy watching the proceedings, Don. It's too bad the debate is during working hours so many people are prevented from watching them. I regard to your representatives, I sure wish there was some way the voters of Washington State could convinced to replace all of those you named. *BG*

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 12:39 PM

Well, it seems evident from listening to the debate that anything other than a rather dim bulb in the attic tends to pervade the Senate. But not all Senators suffer from this malady. Senator Patty Murray (D-Washington State) laid down one helluva speech last night. She put it right where it's at!

I voted for her. And will again. And Jim McDermott is the congressional representative from my district. I voted for him also. And will again. I'm watching Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington State) very carefully to see whether or not I'll vote for her again.

Keep track, folks. That's politics in action.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 12:24 PM

Thanks for the article Bagpuss. The headline and first paragraph of the story tells the tale. "First Strike MAY trigger Saddam's terror weapons." True. But they also MAY not. "The Telegraph" has a fifty-fifty chance of being right, as does George Tenet.

So we do nothing and wait until Saddam uses the weapons when HE chooses? The cat is out of the bag by then, isn't it? How many people will perish if he chooses to dump some biological or chemical weapons on Israel? How many Palestinians will die? I don't think there is a wall of some sort that would protect innocent Palestinians from the same germs that would be visited on the Israeli population. Do you?

It would be interesting to know the opinion of the opposers to what Bush is proposing on the following:
1. Do you believe Saddam has weapons of mass destruction?
2. Do you believe, if he has them, Saddam will use them against the U. S.and/or our Allies without provocation?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bagpuss
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 06:46 AM

Thought I'd make a change and quote a story in a lovely right wing paper The Telegraph so you don't get you knickers in a twist about The Guardian. I think you have to register to read it, so I'll print it here.

First strike 'may trigger Saddam's terror weapons'
By Toby Harnden in Washington
(Filed: 10/10/2002)


A US military strike against Iraq could prompt Saddam Hussein to unleash weapons of mass destruction that he might not otherwise use, the director of the CIA, George Tenet, has told Congress.

Opponents of war seized on the letter as evidence that President George W Bush should adopt a more cautious approach and continue the US policy of containment.

Mr Tenet said in a letter released this week that Iraq "for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical or biological weapons".

But he gave warning that the dictator might use those weapons for terrorism if faced with an imminent attack by American-led forces.

The White House denied that there was any contradiction between the letter and the Bush administration's position that toppling Saddam is imperative because he is likely to attack America at any time.

Ari Fleischer, the president's spokesman, said the CIA director "did not say we're OK".

He added: "If Saddam Hussein holds a gun to someone's head, while he denies he even owns a gun, do you really want to take a chance that he'll never use it?"

Donald Payne, a New Jersey Democrat, said the letter suggested a more cautious approach towards Iraq.

He said Mr Tenet's report suggested that an attack on Iraq "could trigger the very things that our president has said he is trying to prevent, the use of chemical or biological weapons". He added: "In view of this report, the policy of a pre-emptive strike is troublesome."

Mr Tenet's letter came as both houses of Congress prepared to vote on a resolution giving Mr Bush wide-ranging authority to wage war against Saddam's regime.

The White House is confident that Mr Bush will secure overwhelming majorities in both chambers and avoid the kind of narrow 52 to 47 victory in the Senate that his father scrambled to get in 1991.

Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat senator, who is implacably opposed to Mr Bush, has threatened to delay the vote in the Senate until next week, arguing that the resolution is a "blank cheque" for a foolish war.

The Bush administration insists that a vote is needed as soon as possible to strengthen the hand of American diplomats working to get a United Nations Security Council resolution passed.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 06:33 AM

To quote the words from an article by Allan Judd:

"..responsible governments should prepare for the world they fear, rather than the one they hope for."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 01:44 AM

Hey, Bobert, your senator is doing a pretty good job of representing your POV, don't you think?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 09:48 PM

Ya' know what makes my poor ol' Wes Ginny butt so mad these days is that in these times we need the voice of Bobby Kennedy or Martin Luther King but they ain't around no more since folks that had absolutely *no motives* decided they didn't need to be around. Hmmmmm? Sorry, I'm feeling just a tad paranoid 'cause ther's no one left with any credibility to satnd up and declare that Emporer George is without pants.

Bunch of lame crop of leaders we have when they are goose-steppin' behind *this* President.

You're right, Amos. Room temperature, at best...

Hope none of them get hurt too bad trippin' over their self-serving butts trying to show how much more patriotic they are compared to the last one who got up and did his best huff-n-puff routine.

Well, nothin' like a new *fresh* war to get a bunch of chickens all warm and fuzzy. They'll be "runnin' like pigs from gun" when the stink sets in.

But, hey, we *know* who these mindless folks are and we *vote*. Don't call off America too soon.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 07:17 PM

Amos: I would hardly call John Kerry a fan of the president. He hopes to be the Democratic candidate to unseat him in the next election.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 05:51 PM

Well, it at least oughta be above room temperature, Bobert.

Doug: you will recall I gave the speech high marks as a rthetorical staging. If the senators you refer to have changed their opinion about operations based on that rhetoric alone, it is clear they are too easily wafted by hot air to weigh very much. Or are they grateful for the new basis of honest fact suddenly made manifest in that speech? If they were already on board Mister Bush's Oil Train, let me suggest they would have applauded even if he had taken his shoe off and pounded on the table like one of his predecessors. As it was, he made all the right facial gestures, spoke with earnestness and good timing -- it was almost as though someone smart had their hand up the back of his shirt or something!!

"Hey, Chief -- those your sheep over there??"
"Sheep LIE!"

(It's an old joke about a ventriloquist practicing out in the back country. Never mind).

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 05:43 PM

Nocole: I love ya' but ya' gotta remember how them courts work down there in Texas. Especially in capital punishment cases. Lots of poor and mostlt black men have been executed for nothing more than confessions that they were beaten and abused to sign of on... Circumstantial? Flimsy? Hey, if its ggod enough for Texas, than ought to be good enough for Iraq.

DougR: Yeah, I've heard a couple of hours of the debates on C-Span radio and now have a better understanding of why America's workers are getting the shaft. Man, there are a bunch of rednecks in the House of Representatives. Well, they didn't have I'Q. tests back when the Founding Fathers penned the Constitution but I would think that an I.Q, of, ohhh 100, would make a nice qualification for the job. That would certainly clear about half of those dim-witted folks out.
Really, I didn't realize that the US had dumbed down to such a degree...

Teribus: I don't know what to say to you. "True Believers" are real hard to deal with.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 05:21 PM

Almost as unbiased as those semi-subliminal messages running across a screen while Bush does his party piece. That's sounds to me like the kind of thing you'd expect in some ricketty dictatorship, when the Great Leader speaks to his people.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 04:42 PM

Anyone tuned in to C-Span2? Interesting debate on the Iraqi situation going on as I write this. Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Mass. just finished an excellent speech I thought. It seems to me, listening to the debate, that the majority of senators do not agree with your assement of the president's speech Monday night (Bagpuss and Amos).

Bobert's senator (Byrd)is opposed to the resolution being debated because the debate is occuring so close to a national election. He wants to know why the decision to send America's young military people off to war has to be made this close to an election. Is one to assume, Bobert, that after the election it would be okay? :>)

I'm pleased to see "The Guardian" has popped up again as a source of unbiased opinion. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 01:19 PM

"By God, I wish I'd said that!"
"Oh, never mind, Oscar -- you will!"

Deliberate deception by a nation is now off-limits? The whole bloody clan is undone, Georgie!! Unless you were actually practicing deception when you said that.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 12:46 PM

"Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small."

There's a saying about one domestic appliance commenting on the coloration of another which comes to mind.

The United States has actually solemly abandoned for ever the use of deliberate deception and offensive threats? The son of the man who was head of the CIA is abjuring deliberate deception? Four thousand nuclear weapons in his arsenal and the most powerful military machine in world history, and no more offensive threats against anybody?

That's really great news.

"Hypocrisy is the homage paid by vice to virtue." (De La Rochefoucauld - not Oscar Wilde, though people tend to attribute it to him; probably including Wilde himself.)