Bush's Iraqi Platitudes

[RandFan]

This of course, would not be the first time the US media has totally blown the image of an enemy leader way out of proportion- e.g. Noriega and Milosevic.

It's the fault of the U.S. Media?

 

[peptoabysmal]

Pepto, January 1991 was before Desert Storm, wasn't it? If so, I thought Saddam had been rendered quite impotent internationally shortly thereafter. From there on, all he really had in his cards was puffing and ranting to the neighbours at the USA, and some shady but well-known back-door deals for oil. Nutless, in short.

What do you think he intended to do when he got his nuts back? Share with the squirrels or start cracking?

 

[Year Zero]

Zero,

There has been a lot of false propaganda about Iraq, the invasion of Kuwait, etc. However much of the claims have stood up to scrutiny. I have read claims that the Kurds were gassed by Iranians and other alternative theories. Also there is evidence that mass murder ended long before we invaded.

Skepticism and critical thinking demands a willingness to look at the evidence. Can you provide more than the name of a book?

He cites the sources in the book. Also the book is not simply one man's work- it is a compilation of many people including Pat Buchanan, Eric Margolis, and others. It is also only one of two volumes. I have seen some of Wanniski's assertions confirmed by other independent sources, one of them literally when I was in high school(this was regarding the first Gulf War). I have also seen several of his claims confirmed independently by the words of people like Scott Ritter. I do a LOT of research on this so I am never limited to one source or one author.

I like Wanniski's interview particularly however, because he organizes a lot of different issues into one shortened piece, is very detailed about the sources, and tackles the claims in logical order. What he does is condense the various claims about Saddam; for example, he shows us the ridiculous fuzzy math that has been used for over a decade regarding Halabja. The numbers of Halabja have run from hundreds to well over 5,000 in one claim- and he names the people who made these individual claims. More importantly, he points out the utter lack of evidence with the use of eyewitnesses, international organization reports, and of course the Pelltiere report.

It is not certain exactly what happened at Halabja. What certainly DIDN'T happen however was an Iraqi gas attack aimed at murdering civilians. The strategic situation around Halabja at that time simply doesn't support the idea that they would be using gas in that manner, especially the more lethal forms that were alleged to be used.

 

[Year Zero]

It's the fault of the U.S. Media?

Uh yeah, it IS.

 

[RandFan]

He cites the sources in the book. Also the book is not simply one man's work- it is a compilation of many people including Pat Buchanan, Eric Margolis, and others. It is also only one of two volumes. I have seen some of Wanniski's assertions confirmed by other independent sources, one of them literally when I was in high school(this was regarding the first Gulf War). I have also seen several of his claims confirmed independently by the words of people like Scott Ritter. I do a LOT of research on this so I am never limited to one source or one author.

I like Wanniski's interview particularly however, because he organizes a lot of different issues into one shortened piece, is very detailed about the sources, and tackles the claims in logical order. What he does is condense the various claims about Saddam; for example, he shows us the ridiculous fuzzy math that has been used for over a decade regarding Halabja. The numbers of Halabja have run from hundreds to well over 5,000 in one claim- and he names the people who made these individual claims. More importantly, he points out the utter lack of evidence with the use of eyewitnesses, international organization reports, and of course the Pelltiere report.

It is not certain exactly what happened at Halabja. What certainly DIDN'T happen however was an Iraqi gas attack aimed at murdering civilians. The strategic situation around Halabja at that time simply doesn't support the idea that they would be using gas in that manner, especially the more lethal forms that were alleged to be used.

Well thank you for that. Your quotes aren't proof of anything but they are reasons why people might want to read the book and follow-up. I'm interested but I'm skeptical.

I read claims in 2003, and discussed them on this forum about the gas attacks. For awhile it looked like there was reason to believe that the Kurds were not gassed by Saddam but then someone came up with a point by point refutation of the claims. I was pretty sure that whole notion had been put to rest. Well, I guess it will have to be sorted out again.

 

[RandFan]

Uh yeah, it IS.

It doesn't make a lot of sense. Is NPR part of this Cabal to mislead the American public?

 

[RandFan]

In an NPR interview the charges against Saddam are presented and the evidence outlined. I would encourage anyone interested in hearing the evidence from both sides to listen to this interview.

FWIW, I've never found NPR to disseminate propaganda, false or otherwise. Of course it is possible.


Go to the following link and click on the "listen" button.

War Crimes Court for Saddam?

Day to Day, December 15, 2003 · NPR's Alex Chadwick talks with NPR's Christopher Joyce about the long list of war crimes charges facing Saddam Hussein, and what kind of court the former dictator of Iraq will be tried in.

 

[Year Zero]

Well thank you for that. Your quotes aren't proof of anything but they are reasons why people might want to read the book and follow-up. I'm interested but I'm skeptical.

I read claims in 2003, and discussed them on this forum about the gas attacks. For awhile it looked like there was reason to believe that the Kurds were not gassed by Saddam but then someone came up with a point by point refutation of the claims. I was pretty sure that whole notion had been put to rest. Well, I guess it will have to be sorted out again.

I too believed an initial "refutation" of that claim but then when I went over all the evidence surrounding the event brought up by Wanniski I could no longer say that the mainstream story is true. It is possible that someone might refute the claim that Iranians gassed the Kurds; there seems to be hardly any evidence that anyone was "gassed" in Halabja. Wanniski cites claims from the UN Refugee organization that could not find any evidence of chemical weapons being used on the Kurds- more importantly, the refugees never claimed to have been gassed or to be fleeing from a chemical attack. There have also been numerous Iraqi defectors or veterans who were in service around Halabja and never heard anything about gas being used(weapons like these aren't used flippantly).

 

[peptoabysmal]

Hey Pepto, it's not what they did, it's how they did it. Get it? Or is that still too complicated?

Can you discuss information that is objectively verifiable, if that's not too complicated? Who did what?

 

[Year Zero]

In an NPR interview the charges against Saddam are presented and the evidence outlined. I would encourage anyone interested in hearing the evidence from both sides to listen to this interview.

FWIW, I've never found NPR to disseminate propaganda, false or otherwise. Of course it is possible.


Go to the following link and click on the "listen" button.

Is there a way to get that in text format on here? As far as I have heard Saddam's charges are all related to the suppression of insurgencies. While brutalities no-doubt happened, throwing the term "war criminal" around is careless. International Law tends to leave a lot of room when suppressing an internal insurgency.

I would not accuse NPR of disseminating propaganda, only of being lazy. That is 90% of the problem with the Western media- profit-driven news means less real journalism, it means accepting press-releases without question and not rocking the boat.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Zero,

There has been a lot of false propaganda about Iraq, the invasion of Kuwait, etc. However much of the claims have stood up to scrutiny. I have read claims that the Kurds were gassed by Iranians and other alternative theories. Also there is evidence that mass murder ended long before we invaded.

Skepticism and critical thinking demands a willingness to look at the evidence. Can you provide more than the name of a book?

RandFan, here is a page with some excerpts of the book (as small PDF files):
http://www.neoconned.info/neoconnedexcerpts.html

After looking at a few of them, I wouldn't waste my money. Your mileage may vary. One thing noteable about the book is that it uses kooks from both ends of the political spectrum to make it's point.

 

[RandFan]

I too believed an initial "refutation" of that claim but then when I went over all the evidence surrounding the event brought up by Wanniski I could no longer say that the mainstream story is true. It is possible that someone might refute the claim that Iranians gassed the Kurds; there seems to be hardly any evidence that anyone was "gassed" in Halabja. Wanniski cites claims from the UN Refugee organization that could not find any evidence of chemical weapons being used on the Kurds- more importantly, the refugees never claimed to have been gassed or to be fleeing from a chemical attack. There have also been numerous Iraqi defectors or veterans who were in service around Halabja and never heard anything about gas being used(weapons like these aren't used flippantly).

Did you listen to the link? There apparently is an enormous amount of documentary evidence.

 

[RandFan]

Is there a way to get that in text format on here?

You can't play streaming audio?

As far as I have heard Saddam's charges are all related to the suppression of insurgencies. While brutalities no-doubt happened, throwing the term "war criminal" around is careless.

According to the link there is substantial evidence. I'll type a partial transcript.

I would not accuse NPR of disseminating propaganda, only of being lazy.

Why?

That is 90% of the problem with the Western media- profit-driven news means less real journalism, it means accepting press-releases without question and not rocking the boat.

But this seems to me to be what you are doing. You've read a book. Ok. I've read in depth books that deny the Holocaust.

I don't see how your book indicates every single news outlet. I have found NPR to be damn critical of the claims of George Bush. I listen to NPR in large part because they are not lazy.

Alex Chadwick: We've heard these charges and certainly read them in news accounts but is there actual accumulated evidence that could be used in a court of law to support these charges?

Christopher Joyce: Actually there are literally tons of evidence. The Kurds got hold of 18 tons of documents. The Baath party typical of many dictatorships were meticulous bookkeepers. When the Kurds overran parts of Northern Iraq during the first Gulf War they got a hold of these documents that listed in incredible detail some of the human rights violations. The evidence has been shipped to the United States and has been gone through by Human Rights Watch and US officials. I've talk to some of them and they say that not only is there documented evidence of war crimes and genocide but also audio tapes and video tapes as well.

Let me point out that Human Rights Watch has been critical of the United States. Please see War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention

There were times in the past when the killing was so intense that humanitarian intervention would have been justified—for example, during the 1988 Anfal genocide, in which the Iraqi government slaughtered some 100,000 Kurds.

So, NPR lazy, Human Rights Watch critical of US action in Iraq AND complicit in claiming genocide. Hmmmm.....

I'm curious, what evidence would convince you that Saddam IS guilty of mass murder and other human rights violations? Or do you know that he isn't and no evidence would make any difference?

 

[joobie]

Interviewer: Did you commit atrocities?

Saddam: No.

bush: saddam was a bad man. he was a threat to the USA and apple pie. i swear it's ok we attack. and everyone in the world is gonna agree because they like apple pie. the iraqis are gonna welcome us as librators because they love apple pie too.

conservative americans: KILL KILL KILL LIBROOLS ARE BAD THEY HATE APPLE PIE

there you have it.

 

[Zep]

What do you think he intended to do when he got his nuts back? Share with the squirrels or start cracking?

What do you mean "when"? Did he ever get real power back? The guy was rendered politically and actually impotent after Desert Storm. Even Clinton spanked his ass a few times just to keep him in line!

Sadam was no more than a petty tyrant and the current local warlord at the top of a very small heap. He was a law unto himself and had more front than Mae West. Although the reality was he had little real power, and had to make back-door deals selling oil to his neighbours to survive.

Funny - you seem to equate public cant and bluster with real personal power. Hasn't your own leader demonstrated to you how wrong this is already?

 

[Year Zero]

You can't play streaming audio?

According to the link there is substantial evidence. I'll type a partial transcript.

Thank you.

But this seems to me to be what you are doing. You've read a book. Ok. I've read in depth books that deny the Holocaust.

No I have not "read a book". I continue to read NUMEROUS books on this subject, purchase documentaries, attend lectures, and anything else I can find related to this subject. I check the sources I quote to see their experience and qualifications. Granted, there are people with more credentials than someone like Wanniski, yet many of those people have independently corraborated his words.

I don't see how your book indicates every single news outlet. I have found NPR to be damn critical of the claims of George Bush. I listen to NPR in large part because they are not lazy.

Being critical about George Bush is not the same as being critical about a line of propaganda that goes all the way back to the Reagan administration.

Let me point out that Human Rights Watch has been critical of the United States. Please see War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention

Human Rights Watch has been wrong before, I remember hours spent back in 2000 explaining how their claims about what was going on in Kosovo before the bombing was total nonsense. By that time the facts released had proven me right on that. The fact that they have been critical about the war does not mean they would not repeat common myths about Saddam.

Many "left-wingers" or anti-war critics make mistakes in their criticism. For example, it's really a bit of a stretch to say we "armed" Saddam in the same way that we armed South Vietnam, Korea, or Israel. We didn't just dump billions of dollars worth of weapons into his country, nor did we provide his arsenal of chemical weapons in the manner that most anti-war personalities claim.

-The US helped arm Iraq by arranging some deals that allowed Iraq to buy old weapons from US allies in the region such as Jordan.

-The US provided a lot of electronics and dual-use weaponry and chemicals.

-The US actually prevented Saddam from getting the Anthrax he wanted. Reagan gave special permission to US corporations allowing them to sell to Iraq. Some of these companies were selling the componants of chemical weapons; but anthrax was seen as too much.

-Rather than "supporting Saddam in the 80's", this support is rather wishy-washy and cannot outweigh the near-constant tinkering and intervention into his country waged by the CIA, Mossad, and both pre- and post-revolutionary Iran.

I'm curious, what evidence would convince you that Saddam IS guilty of mass murder and other human rights violations? Or do you know that he isn't and no evidence would make any difference?

The same amount of evidence we would expect to prove any genocide. Autopsies, checks and balances to make sure investigations are being carried out correctly, ACTUAL BODIES, population demographic measurements. The problem is a LACK of actual evidence that he committed acts of mass murder. Compare that to someone like Pol Pot, who emptied the cities and drove millions of people into the countryside where many of them were either killed or died of any number of causes. As for specific cases, we have S21 or Toul Sleng, where around 14,000 people were killed. The evidence and records were preserved. Also, these people weren't insurgents, they were "April 17 people", those who didn't support the revolution until the government surrendured.


It's easy to say that Saddam "violated human rights", though when fighting insurgents, many of them religious fanatics, you might want to consider what they think of your own human rights should they be victorious. As he watches our army deal with the insurgency we created he will obviously get the last laugh whether he is judged guilty or not.

 

[RandFan]

bush: saddam was a bad man. he was a threat to the USA and apple pie. i swear it's ok we attack. and everyone in the world is gonna agree because they like apple pie. the iraqis are gonna welcome us as librators because they love apple pie too.

conservative americans: KILL KILL KILL LIBROOLS ARE BAD THEY HATE APPLE PIE

there you have it.

This is a non sequitur. My fake dialog was based on zero's original text in which he stated that Saddam was interviewed and that was the basis for knowing he (Saddam) was innocent.

What does the above have to do with anything?

 

[Mephisto]

According to both Kay and Duelfer's investigations, what we found mostly was a strong desire to restart the programs. This is even maybe a stretch regarding what was actually found.

Big deal, I'm sure you could find an equally accurate survey that most males between the ages of 15-65 have a strong desire to have rough sex with a Victoria's Secret model, but lack the capacity. It may be a far reach AND a bad analogy, but if anyone drooling over a VS model is guilty of rape, then a pre-emptive strike makes perfect sense.

Since when did strong desire become a crime?

 

[Mark]

Uh yeah, it IS.

Milosevic was blown out of proportion by the U.S. media?

So...what? He was really just a misunderstood huggie bear?

 

[RandFan]

No I have not "read a book". I continue to read NUMEROUS books on this subject, purchase documentaries, attend lectures, and anything else I can find related to this subject.

Well there are lot's of books denying the Holocaust. It's kind of funny because they all make the same claim that you do that there is a lack of evidence.

Being critical about George Bush is not the same as being critical about a line of propaganda that goes all the way back to the Reagan administration.

But the parsimonious answer is that all of these news outlets are either part of the conspiracy or too lazy. These at best seem to be convenient answers.

Human Rights Watch has been wrong before, I remember hours spent back in 2000 explaining how their claims about what was going on in Kosovo before the bombing was total nonsense. By that time the facts released had proven me right on that. The fact that they have been critical about the war does not mean they would not repeat common myths about Saddam.

Poor argument. Sure they can be wrong. Sure groups are wrong. Human Rights Watch certainly could have made mistakes but they don't have the political motivation to push this lie. If they did it is unlikely they would be critical of Bush since he has finally done what they asked all along. I'm sorry but your explanations are simply becoming convenient.

Many "left-wingers" or anti-war critics make mistakes in their criticism. For example, it's really a bit of a stretch to say we "armed" Saddam in the same way that we armed South Vietnam, Korea, or Israel. We didn't just dump billions of dollars worth of weapons into his country, nor did we provide his arsenal of chemical weapons in the manner that most anti-war personalities claim.

I'm not saying that they don't make mistakes. I'm showing there is little reason to suppose that everyone is part of a conspiracy, lazy or incompetent. Your arguments appear to be an attempt to avoid considering that perhaps the evidence is there. Are you really willing to consider the possibility or is your mind made up?

The same amount of evidence we would expect to prove any genocide. Autopsies, checks and balances to make sure investigations are being carried out correctly, ACTUAL BODIES, population demographic measurements.

It appears (see earlier post) that there is more than ample evidence.

The problem is a LACK of actual evidence that he committed acts of mass murder.

That YOU haven't seen it does not prove that there is a complete lack of evidence. This is just a statement by you. Human Rights Watch has documented literally *"ton's" of evidence.

Now, I haven't seen the evidence and a final decision awaits the airing of that evidence but the telling thing to me is that so many people oppose this war with such ferocity that it just doesn't make sense that these people have all been bamboozled, are part of the conspiracy or just too incompetent to realize that there is a complete lack of evidence.

*from NPR interview.