Comments on: Analysis: Rethinking The Iraq Critics

U.S. News & World Report's Michael Barone Says We Are Only Beginning To Learn About What Went On Behind The Scenes

The best thing to do with warmongers and their apologist lackies is to dump them all on an island together, somewhere a long long way from civilised society.

Let them have their wars, their little games of death and politics. They can do whatever they want to each other on their little island, but they can never again influence the rest of the world or have any power of the majority of humanity.

Then we can all sit back, get on with each other, cooperate to sort out the poverty/health/water supply/education problems and watch as our species makes advancement after advancement with the massive amount of manpower suddenly available to work on ANY PROBLEM OUR SPECIES FACES... the warmongers are unevolved humans who need to die out (or be weeded out) for the betterment of the majority.

[ioweign]

IOWEIGN, I am basing my scenario on Saddam''''s statements and actions. He told the world he didn''t have nuclear weapons (wink,wink) and even his generals believed he did. He ran a campaign that his people were starving and had no medicine while of course he was living in luxury in multiple palaces (in an attempt to get the UN sanctions lifted). Iraq invaded Kuwait twice previously. How do you think Saddam would have behaved if he got the UN sanctions lifted?

Posted by ausus at 12:16 AM : May 15, 2008

He told the world he didn''t have nuclear weapons (wink,wink) and even his generals believed he did.

And he was telling the truth about the WMDs. What his generals may or may not believe is not the question ?
How many generals has Bush gone through because they don''t share the same optometrist?

It is like Petraeus on 9/11/2007 telling Congress the surge (escalation of troops) is working but the fact is the surge and being in Iraq is not making the US any more secure.

Bush has failed to address the main reason for 911.

Would FDR remain as president if he had gone after and invaded Brazil instead Japan because Brazil wronged his daddy?

I''ll tell you WHY they had to use the WMD claim (please note: the anti-war movement did NOT frame the discussion, they merely responded to the already-framed discussion) and why the discussion HAD to be framed in the way it was. Because if the discussion were allowed to stray to matters of international law the Iraq war could NOT HAVE HAPPENED!!! Invading a sovereign nation is illegal unless in self defence. ''Regime Change'' is an illegitimate reason for invasion and a crime (see Nurenburg), although that''s the REAL reason we went - to throw out Saddam, install ''yes men'', sign lucrative oil deals and establish a military presence around the oil supply... fact! We''ve done it before many times - and we''re rich because of it.


Perhaps the revisionism so prevalent in the media is an attempt to cover up their culpability in grand crimes. They''re trying to wash their hands of the fact that THEY framed the discussion, therefore THEY stifled the truth and laid the groundwork for the crimes to be committed.

As brianbwb points out - the ''intel'' that made ''every security agency believe'' Saddam had WMD, was indeed BS and ripped off a 10 year old thesis. The thesis didn''t even directly relate to contemporary Iraq in 2002/3 - they used a find/replace to change names where necessary, so if you read it all the way through it made no sense!

The other point about the thesis rip-off that this article neatly sidesteps is that it wasn''t British Intel who presented it as evidence anyway, but politicos. It came straight from Alistair Campbell''s PR obsessed press office (from a civil servant) and was most likely OK''d by Campbell himself prior to Blair stating it as fact. Blair might not have known any better at the time he gave the original speech - he was handed a document and told to present it as truth - but he WOULD have known instantly from the backlash as millions of people shouted him down with the REAL evidence that rubbished his ''claims''... the rest''s history - just not the history these revisionist journos are attempting to paint. We know, we were there, we remember - how can we ever forget these grand crimes?

[sharncedar]

Feith was a member of a Zionist youth organization. Read his biography- it is utterly shocking that this creep, this piece of America-hating trash, this spy for Israel, was ever allowed to have power within the Defense Department. Ir is a shock, an outrage, a matter that needs to be followed by someone losing their head.

Now this freak of a foreign plant traitor has been allowed to publish a book in america to justify his attack on our country from within. We have freeedom of the press in America to a point, but there are limits to everything. A known traitor who has allegience to a foreign country above the US has no right to publish from within the US. This situation si grave indeed when an admitted Zionist is allowed to work within the government to bring us down from within.

People, if we don''t defend our government from known traitors who are members of foreign nations, we are lost. The Iraq war is a wakeup call. We spent trillions, and 4000 lives, and Feith got his Zionist aims met over our bloody dead soldiers. This must be prosecuted, we must begin to protect our country from foreign agents planted in our government.

[bmadeline-2009]

And we''re going to believe Feith? One of the evil doers? I don''t think so. This bunch has no problem telling lies and covering their own behinds.
The whole bunch should be imprisoned in GitMo and waterboarded to get the whole truth out. Let''s see how they like torture when it''s done to them.
I''d like to be a fly on that wall. What scum!

[brianbwb-2009]

"...the fact that Saddam Hussein had the capability to produce WMDs and the will to use them against us was."

Yo tool, it is not a "fact", that has been long ago been proven to be nothing more than lies, if he had the capability, why have the "existing" logistics been shown to the public to vindicate the liar in chief?

"...Every intelligence agency believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction,"

Again, more lies, Barone doesn''t say who these agencies were, and we know now that even the CIA themselves didn''t believe this, and since the Brits used pirated a thesis from the US, it is obvious they also had no real evidence with which to support such lies.

Hans Blix told the world that Saddam had no weapons, having spent 2 years searching for them, but Bush was intentionally ignorant of that, choosing to order the inspectors out. I suppose Barone would also lie about this, and say that Saddam ordered them out.

[brianbwb-2009]

"Unfortunately -- and here Feith is critical of his ultimate boss, George W. Bush -- the administration allowed its critics to frame the issue around the fact that stockpiles of weapons weren''t found."

This author must have been a comic writer. Of course the issue is that there were no weapons, you tool, and Barone also forgets that even the pentagon told Bush three days before the infamous address that his evidence was BS.

Barone also forgets that the British intel report, spewed to lend "credibility" to the Bush BS, was pirated from a 10 year old thesis by an Indian student from Berkeley University, in the US. He seems to think that those presenting the report somehow didn''t know they had pirated it.

Then he says "There was abundant evidence of contacts between Saddam''s regime and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups." Which, of course contradicts the pentagon, whose job it is to know more than Barone does, and he writes this without reference to said "evidence", or to the fact that Al Qaeda was created, funded, trained, and maintained by the CIA to be the US proxy in the Russia Afghanistan war.

Barone is either a sucker who is unwilling to admit to having been suckered, or a pro war fascist, who is profiting in some way by being a total tool.

[neoconrcrazy]

This apologist, Barone, seems to think that it''s acceptable to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives on the basis of Saddams'' "threat" to the US.

What threat? A nuclear attack?

Or, he says, Saddam''s "stonewalling" of the UN.

Is this a reason to order the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

It is without doubt, this kind of moralless thinking that has brought this great country''s principles into the gutter.

[bluestardad]

WAIT TILL WAR CRIMES TRIALS ON THESE REPIGS!

THERE IS NO DIFFERENT BETWEEN THE TRUMPHED UP REASON THE REPUBLICANS AND THEIR NEOCONS SENT AMERICA TO WAR IN IRAQ IN 2003 THAN THE NAZI ATTACK ON POLAND IN 1939!

BOTH ARE BUILT ON LIES AND DECEPTION AND THE NAZIS HAD THEIR DAY IN COURT FOR WWII SO WILL BUSH CHENEY AND THE NEOCONS FOR IRAQ!

AMERICA STAND UP OR SHUT UP!