Stop the War Coalition Protests Bush

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Just who are these people protesting President Bush in London? Are they your average everyday British citizen, exercising his right to free speech and free opinion? If that were the case, I would say, as President Bush has - RIGHT ON! Go for it! Speak your mind! That is part of being free - the Iraqi people can do that now too!

Unfortunately, it is NOT your average Nigel on the street! This is who is behind these protests - the same bunch that protested the war in the spring, and some of the same bunch that cause violence at the G-8 summits and IMF conferences around the world. Professional protesters, professional hatemongers, professional anarchists. The Stop the War Coalition organizers are a collection of members from the Socialist Workers Party led by Paul Foot. During the Gulf war, Mr Foot’s Socialist Workers Party actually called for victory for Saddam over the United Nations Coalition. The International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) group touts a goal of, “building an anti-war movement that connects the struggle against war on Iraq with the fight for social and economic justice and civil rights at home”.

The "Stop the War Coalition" behind the protests includes former member of Parliament George Galloway on its steering committee. Galloway was expelled from the ruling Labor Party for having told British soldiers in Iraq they should disobey orders to fight. Galloway, who visited Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 2002, was labeled the British representative of "Baghdad Central." He has sued Britain’s Daily Telegraph newspaper for reporting evidence that he had been in the pay of the Iraqi government.

Other individuals on the steering committee include Mohammed Aslam Aijaz of the London Council of Mosques, Lois Austin of the Socialist Party, Lindsey German of Socialist Review, John Haylett of the British Communist Party newspaper Morning Star, Mark Hoskisson of Workers Power, John Rees of the Socialist Workers Party, Carlos Rule of the Socialist Labour Party, Tanja Salem Al-Awda of the Campaign for Palestinian Rights, and Wolf Wayne of the Green Socialist Network and Socialist Alliance.

Note: This LINK is to a conservative web site, but all you have to do is Google "Stop the War" and "socialist" and you will get a ton of hits.

[CCTAU 3,287]

I was in Scotland the night they did all the protests. There weren't really a lot of them. I felt it sad that many had their little children with them. I bet if you asked those little children if it was OK for one man to kill a bunch of his friends, even they would see the point. Many had flags like "Free Palestine" and other sloguns about nuclear this or that. Sad that such a few get more air time than the many.

[rexbo 104]

I was in London the first weekend of the war, in March, expecting mass demonstrations everywhere. For 4 days I was walking all around London, Picadilly, Trafalger Square, Buckingham Palace, past Downing Street. Throughout that whole time, I saw ONE demonstrator, some nut walking by Downing Street with a gas mask on.

Thankfully, the chances of him needing that gas mask are much less with the actions that Bush and Blair have taken. Imagine, right now, if Saddam were still in power, if the UN, France and Dean had gotten their way and left him there. Anyone is absolutely insane to think that Saddam and the Islamic terrorists would not be knocking each other's door down to get together for their huge attack on the West. Whatever the situation was in March, with regard to WMDs and Saddam's connection with Al Queda, it was inevitable, destiny, that the 2 evil forces were going to come together to strike at the civilized West. If Britain and France had had the balls to take out Hitler in 1938, they would have been slaughtered in the press by the international community, but they would have prevented the deaths of TENS OF MILLIONS of people.

[TrueTiger 0]

That sucks to see little children involved in things like that.

WARR EAGLE

BEAT BAMA

[Tiger Al 0]

Thankfully, the chances of him needing that gas mask are much less with the actions that Bush and Blair have taken.

Even if your fantasy of chemical weapons WERE true, there are still two problems. One, chemicals have a shelf life. They don't remain useful indefinitely. Weapons experts have said that even if he still had his chemical agents, they would've been useless. Two, in addition to having the chemicals, you must also have a means of delivering them. Iraq's capabilities in this area were long gone through the efforts of UN inspectors.

Curiously, if Iraq was the big, bad boogyman that Bush has convinced you that it was, you would think that when Colin Powell was rattling his sabre at the UN before the war that the rest of the Middle East would've signed to rid the area of such an imminent danger.

No, I think Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were both right in 2001 when they each said that inspections and sanctions had eliminated the threat that Iraq ONCE posed to the region.

[rexbo 104]

Even if your fantasy of chemical weapons WERE true, there are still two problems.

I didn't say chemical weapons, I said WMDs. Are you implying that the threat of WMDs being used by terrorists is all a hoax, that there is no way that someone could kills hundreds or thousands of people with the concoctions we know Saddam was brewing in his country over the past 12 years? And don't fool yourself, if Saddam were in power right now, the world would not be resting easy and believing that he had suddenly, after 12 years, had changed his ways; that's just ridiculous, like believing in 1938 that Hitler had promised Chamberlin he had changed his ways. Oh, and an average 30 innocent people a day would still be dying in his torture chambers...

...the rest of the Middle East would've signed to rid the area of such an imminent danger...

Your kidding right? The rest of the Middle East is run by dictators and theocratic thugs, their worst fear was not Saddam, but a democratic Government in Iraq. Why do you think their State run media are blasting out such hate and lies against America?

[Tiger Al 0]

I didn't say chemical weapons, I said WMDs.

You said "gas mask." A gas mask would do you no good against a nuclear weapon. It would do you no good against a biological blister agent. It is used against chemical agents, often in the form of a gas. Hence the name "gas" mask.

Are you implying that the threat of WMDs being used by terrorists is all a hoax

I'm implying that Iraq had no WMD's to give to terrorists or anyone else.

[rexbo 104]

You said "gas mask." A gas mask would do you no good against a nuclear weapon.

Then you didn't read my entire message.

I'm implying that Iraq had no WMD's to give to terrorists or anyone else.

Right, the past 12 years were all a fantasy for Clinton, the UN and the World. Ok, fine, assuming he destroyed every single thing he had in the country in the 6 months before we removed him; it is pure lunacy to believe that Saddam was not going to start right back where he was as soon as the World turned their attention away from for him. Not only is it lunacy, it would be irresponsible. How could Bush, or any President, stand before the American people after a WMD attack on America, and explain that "well, we thought we had him in his box?"

And don't tell me I am "overreacting" about the big, bad bogeyman Saddam Hussein. If I had told you in August of 2001 that we really needed to invade Afghanistan to take out the Taliban and Osama before he flys planes into the WTC and Pentagon and kills 3000 people, you would have told me that I was "overreacting" about the big, bad bogeyman Osama. And!!! you would have told me I was breaking "international" law by invading another country before they attacked us.

[Donutboy 0]

Note: This LINK is to a conservative web site, but all you have to do is Google "Stop the War" and "socialist" and you will get a ton of hits.

True. Type in "Stop the War" and "socialist" and you get 19,400 links. Try "Bush" and "Socialist" and you get 345,000!! I guess that means Bush is a LOT more socialist than the people demonstrating against him. Of course, if you type in "Bush" and "Nazi", you get 401,000 links. I guess that means Bush is more of a Nazi than a socialist. Thanks for the exercise!!

[Tiger Al 0]

Right, the past 12 years were all a fantasy for Clinton, the UN and the World.  Ok, fine, assuming he destroyed every single thing he had in the country in the 6 months before we removed him; it is pure lunacy to believe that Saddam was not going to start right back where he was as soon as the World turned their attention away from for him.  Not only is it lunacy, it would be irresponsible.  How could Bush, or any President, stand before the American people after a WMD attack on America, and explain that "well, we thought we had him in his box?"

And don't tell me I am "overreacting" about the big, bad bogeyman Saddam Hussein.  If I had told you in August of 2001 that we really needed to invade Afghanistan to take out the Taliban and Osama before he flys planes into the WTC and Pentagon and kills 3000 people, you would have told me that I was "overreacting" about the big, bad bogeyman Osama.  And!!! you would have told me I was breaking "international" law by invading another country before they attacked us.

The former head of the NSA's counter-terrorism section, Richard Clarke, devised a strategy as a result of the Hart-Rudman study findings, and presented it to President Clinton on Dec. 20th, 2000 on how to deal with Afghanistan. It was decided that, rather than give Bush a war when he took office a few weeks later, to fully brief the new administration of the problems with bin Laden and Afghanistan and let them implement them the way they wanted to. Clarke was held over and made many briefings to Condoleeza Rice and the other staff. Bremer, in Iraq now, commented that the Clinton administration was overly obsessed with Osama bin Laden. Needless to say, Clarke's information got bogged down in the Bush administration's beauracracy and only made it to his desk within days of 9/11.

So, no, if you can show legitimate reason to use military force against Afghanistan/Taliban/bin Laden, then I have no problem at all with it. That's not the case with Iraq. It was a militarily crippled country that at one time possessed WMD's. We now have American boys in Iraq doing the job Iraqi boys should be doing.

I'm not going to nitpick with you about gas masks. Your original post talked about a Brit walking around London...well, here it is:

Throughout that whole time, I saw ONE demonstrator, some nut walking by Downing Street with a gas mask on.

Thankfully, the chances of him needing that gas mask are much less with the actions that Bush and Blair have taken. Imagine, right now, if Saddam were still in power, if the UN, France and Dean had gotten their way and left him there.

[rexbo 104]

I'm not going to nitpick with you about gas masks. Your original post talked about a Brit walking around London...well, here it is:

Throughout that whole time, I saw ONE demonstrator, some nut walking by Downing Street with a gas mask on.

Thankfully, the chances of him needing that gas mask are much less with the actions that Bush and Blair have taken. Imagine, right now, if Saddam were still in power, if the UN, France and Dean had gotten their way and left him there.

Well, you nitpicked immediately after you said you weren't, I will nitpick and admit it. That was just the FIRST part of my post, the rest said:

Anyone is absolutely insane to think that Saddam and the Islamic terrorists would not be knocking each other's door down to get together for their huge attack on the West. Whatever the situation was in March, with regard to WMDs and Saddam's connection with Al Queda, it was inevitable, destiny, that the 2 evil forces were going to come together to strike at the civilized West.

Where did I say they were only going to strike with chemical weapons? I can assure you, the protestor wearing a gas mask was not protesting against chemical weapons, he was simply using the gas mask as a symbol for WMDs in general.

On to your other point; you are right, the Clinton and Bush administration missed the boat before 9/11 and didn't take pre-emptive action, and Bush learned his lesson from that and took action against Iraq. Your argument (that I think you said would have supported) that pre-emptive action against Osama and Afghanistan would have been justified, and the pre-emptive action taken against Iraq is not, is ridiculous. Looking at Osama and Afghanistan before the knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and trying to justify a pre-emptive attack would be a MUCH, MUCH harder case to make than the one against Iraq. The UN and the US had been trying for TWELVE years to solve the Saddam problem; if all of a sudden Clinton or Bush, had said "wait, stop, there is a bigger problem in Afghanistan, we need to take pre-emptive action right now", the world community would have said, "are you freaking crazy, Saddam has WMDs!?"

And you are right, we should have Iraqi boys doing the job there now, and we are working hard to make that happen. We all wish the Iraqi boys had been able to overthrow Saddam before March of 2003, but, it was not going to happen anytime soon. But, (to compare apples and oranges I am sure you will claim ) we should have had German boys kicking Hitler out of Berlin, and they couldn't, should we have waitied until the Germans took it upon themselves to do it? We certainly were strong enough just to contain Germany in June of 1944 instead of sending an Army of a million American boys in there...

[Tiger Al 0]

Your argument (that I think you said would have supported) that pre-emptive action against Osama and Afghanistan would have been justified, and the pre-emptive action taken against Iraq is not, is ridiculous.

The problem with this strawman is that action against bin Laden wasn't pre-emptive. Osama bin Laden/al Qaeda has a long history of attacking US assets, so taking military action against him wasn't "pre-emptive" at all.

But, (to compare apples and oranges I am sure you will claim ) we should have had German boys kicking Hitler out of Berlin, and they couldn't, should we have waitied until the Germans took it upon themselves to do it?

No. Comparing 2003 Iraq to 1939 Germany is comparing apples to bulls**t. Germany was an overwhelming aggressor that annexed, by force, much of Eastern Europe. Iraq was a two-bit wannabe that, after years of UN disarmament and economic sanctions, put up little to no resistance in its defense.

There was no reason to divert our attention from al Qaeda to venture into Iraq.

[rexbo 104]

The problem with this strawman is that action against bin Laden wasn't pre-emptive. Osama bin Laden/al Qaeda has a long history of attacking US assets, so taking military action against him wasn't "pre-emptive" at all.

I agree with you in principle, but I can asure you, if Clinton or Bush had sent troops into Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11 the international outrage would have been MUCH, MUCH higher than it was when we went into Iraq. No, one, nobody anywhere in the national media was saying, "let's invade Afghanistan before Osama attacks us again." Heck, there were protests all over the world when we went in to Afghanistan AFTER 9/11!!!

[Tiger Al 0]

I agree with you in principle, but I can asure you, if Clinton or Bush had sent troops into Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11 the international outrage would have been MUCH, MUCH higher than it was when we went into Iraq.  No, one, nobody anywhere in the national media was saying, "let's invade Afghanistan before Osama attacks us again."  Heck, there were protests all over the world when we went in to Afghanistan AFTER 9/11!!!

Aside from the few people that protest any military action whatsoever, I think that if the case had been made based on RELIABLE information (there was plenty) and a clear plan was set forth to include a definitive exit strategy, it would have been acceptable to most Americans.

Iraq is totally seperate and totally different. The administration has tried to link the two as one and the same conflict. All of the pre-war reasons they gave for Iraq have wilted under scrutiny. If you choose to continue believing those reasons are valid, that's your decision.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

Anyone is absolutely insane to think that Saddam and the Islamic terrorists would not be knocking each other's door down to get together for their huge attack on the West. Whatever the situation was in March, with regard to WMDs and Saddam's connection with Al Queda, it was inevitable, destiny, that the 2 evil forces were going to come together to strike at the civilized West.

Saddam and Osama are natural enemies. OSB is a "religious" fanatic who hates secular arabs such as Saddam. In fact, he released a tape praising the downfall of the "infidel". You call anyone who disagrees with you "insane", but you clearly have no great understanding of the region-- which, I guess, means you could get a job with the White House.

I'm sure you'll disagree with me, but what about these folks:

First, former President George H.W. Bush wrote this in his 1998 book:

"We should not march into Baghdad," he wrote in his 1998 book, A World Transformed.

"To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero...assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war.

"It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."

Second, current Vice President Dick Cheney said this in 1991 interview:

"I was not an enthusiast about getting U.S. forces and going into Iraq. We were there in the southern part of Iraq to the extent we needed to be there to defeat his forces and to get him out of Kuwait, but the idea of going into Baghdad, for example, or trying to topple the regime wasn't anything I was enthusiastic about. I felt there was a real danger here that you would get bogged down in a long drawn-out conflict...I think if we had done that we would have been bogged down there for a very long period of time with the real possibility we might not have succeeded.."

Third, Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote this in a 1992/1993 Foreign Affairs article.

"The Gulf War was a limited-objective war. If it had not been, we would be ruling Badhdad today--at unpardonable expense in terms of money, lives lost and ruined regional relationships."

Do you think these are all too dated? How about this from on op-ed piece by Brent Scowcroft ("Don't Attack Saddam") in the August 15, 2002 Wall Street Journal? Scowcroft, by the way, served as National Security Advisor to Bush Senior and Gerald Ford. I'm picking juicy quotes from the op-ed, but you can read it yourself:

"there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them.

He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address.

There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression.

An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.

But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence.

At a minimum, it would stifle any cooperation on terrorism, and could even swell the ranks of the terrorists."

One final set of quotes from former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, who served under Bush senior. This is what he said about war in Iraq promoted by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz:

"I don't think it's legitimate policy at this stage, unless the president can demonstrate to all of us that Saddam has his finger on a nuclear, biological or chemical trigger and he's about to use it.

And finally, it doesn't seem to me that we've thought through at all what we do when we overthrow him. Are we going to stay there for the next six years?

I don't understand why this rush to judgment to do it right now when we have no demonstrated reasons for doing it right now. So I'm kind of -- I lean toward Scowcroft unless the president can prove to me that there is an immediate reason to do it now.

I must tell you, I think they're [Perle and Wolfowitz are] devious. And I think they have had for some time this view that this is a -- well, first of all, I think they are committed to getting rid of -- and have been for years -- committed to getting rid of Saddam Hussein because they think we should have done it the first time around.

I am scared to death that they are going to convince the president that they can do this overthrow of Saddam on the cheap, and we'll find ourselves in the middle of a swamp because we didn't plan to do it in the right way.

[T]here are a level of questions that remain. For example, what -- who replaces him? Do we have to stay there and occupy Iraq? If that's the case, it would not be a better place.

I mean, I can tell you right now if the new regime that follows Saddam is perceived by the Iraqis to have been put in place by the United States, it will have a half-life of about 10 minutes..."

This, by the way, was from an interview by Fox News, August 19, 2002.

[Tiger Al 0]

Oooo...what he said!!! Welcome aboard, TexasTiger and War Eagle to ya!!!

[CCTAU 3,287]

QUOTE]

No. Comparing 2003 Iraq to 1939 Germany is comparing apples to bulls**t. Germany was an overwhelming aggressor that annexed, by force, much of Eastern Europe. Iraq was a two-bit wannabe that, after years of UN disarmament and economic sanctions, put up little to no resistance in its defense.

There was no reason to divert our attention from al Qaeda to venture into Iraq.

As usual, tell that to the families of the thousands of dead folks they have pulled out of mass graves. I know, I know, Germany and Hitler and the jews were all made up in hollywood.

[Tiger Al 0]

As usual, tell that to the families of the thousands of dead folks they have pulled out of mass graves.

Sorry, CCT. Genocide, although a very compelling reason to intervene in the affairs of a sovereign nation, it really wasn't very high on Bush's list of reasons to attack Iraq, before the other reasons were discredited. WMD's, terrorism, al Qaeda and September 11th were the reasons why attacking Iraq was necessary, according to Bush in the 2003 State of the Union Address and Colin Powell in his February,2003 address to the UN. In the entire SOTU address, this is all that was said about Hussein's brutality:

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

And this, from Powell's production before the UN, which included ten parts but, amazingly, 'brutality' was only addressed in the tenth part (Conclusion):

And I thank you for your patience. But there is one more subject that I would like to touch on briefly. And it should be a subject of deep and continuing concern to this council, Saddam Hussein's violations of human rights.

Underlying all that I have said, underlying all the facts and the patterns of behavior that I have identified as Saddam Hussein's contempt for the will of this council, his contempt for the truth and most damning of all, his utter contempt for human life. Saddam Hussein's use of mustard and nerve gas against the Kurds in 1988 was one of the 20th century's most horrible atrocities; 5,000 men, women and children died.

His campaign against the Kurds from 1987 to '89 included mass summary executions, disappearances, arbitrary jailing, ethnic cleansing and the destruction of some 2,000 villages. He has also conducted ethnic cleansing against the Shiite Iraqis and the Marsh Arabs whose culture has flourished for more than a millennium. Saddam Hussein's police state ruthlessly eliminates anyone who dares to dissent. Iraq has more forced disappearance cases than any other country, tens of thousands of people reported missing in the past decade.

Nothing points more clearly to Saddam Hussein's dangerous intentions and the threat he poses to all of us than his calculated cruelty to his own citizens and to his neighbors. Clearly, Saddam Hussein and his regime will stop at nothing until something stops him.

Horrible things, for sure. Many of them happened while we supported Saddam Hussein and with our knowledge. Why didn't we do something then?

Just for giggles I thought I'd provide you with the text of some responses to the 2003 SOTU address as it pertains to Iraq. Follow the link for the entire response. Remember, Bush has just set the stage for Iraq by discussing terrorism and 9/11. Neat how he does that, huh?

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country.

Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world.

Bennoune: "This is certainly true. However, President Bush appears confused about the role of international law and the need for all nations to obey it. Earlier in the speech, he said: 'The course of this nation (the U.S.) does not depend on the decisions of others.' Some nations, in his view, seem to have to follow international law, while others seem to have a mandate from the oft-invoked God, and don't have to follow such mundane rules. This completely undermines the universality of international law, one of its central tenets…. The U.S. has often shown contempt for the U.N. and the opinion of the world in the human rights area. The U.S. is one of only two countries in the world (the other is war-ravaged Somalia which does not have a functioning government) that has not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The U.S. has not ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, putting it in the company of countries like Afghanistan. When the U.S. has ratified human rights conventions (i.e. the UN Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), it has entered limiting reservations, which put the constitution and the dictates of U.S. law (for example those allowing execution of juvenile offenders) ahead of U.N. treaties. This practice has been criticized by the UN Human Rights Committee (a body of UN experts who monitor implementation of the ICCPR) -- criticisms rejected by the U.S.government."

Couto: "This is more reckless rhetoric designed to prepare the world for an attack on Iraq. According to Hans Blix's report one day before the President's statement, 'It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access.' And 'Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field [running the operation of inspection]. Access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect, and with one exception [out of 230] it has been prompt.'"

The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming."

Jacqueline Cabasso, executive director, Western States Legal Foundation: "While U.S. officials try to cast the worst light on the UN weapons inspectors' generally favorable reports, they have already prepared contingency plans to use nuclear weapons in Iraq. This manifests the Bush Administration's increasingly aggressive and unilateral 'national security' policy which tears down the wall between nuclear and conventional weapons, and contemplates nuclear weapons use 'against... emerging threats before they are fully formed.' While focusing world attention on a speculative and questionable Iraqi 'threat,' the U.S. is actively pursuing 'more useable' nuclear weapons for use against seven named countries, in blatant violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Which country poses a greater threat to global security? Why aren't international weapons inspectors in the U.S.? Who will disarm America?"

It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

Zunes:"UNMOVIC director Hans Blix and IAEA director Mohamed El-Baradei have expressed concerns that Iraq was not sufficiently forthcoming in some potentially key areas, though they also noted areas where there had been a high level of cooperation in some other areas. This is far short of 'utter contempt.' Similarly, their mission is far from being a scavenger hunt, given the extensive records from the eight years of UN inspections during the 1990s. It is noteworthy that the UNSCOM inspectors did not find any more hidden materials during their last four years of operations despite expanding the scope of their searches. Though these inspectors were withdrawn under pressure from President Bill Clinton in late 1998 before they could complete their job, satellite surveillance and other intelligence gathering since then has given this new round of inspections -- which have an even tougher mandate regarding the timing and extent of their searches -- a good idea of where to look and what to look for. Furthermore, they have equipment that can detect radioactive isotopes and other telltale signs of WMD development at a great distance from their source. It is noteworthy that after insisting that Iraq's four-year refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors to return was cited as grounds for an invasion, the Bush Administration has suddenly challenged the inspectors' effectiveness since they resumed inspections. Furthermore, the United States has yet to put forward any proof that Iraq currently has any banned weapons."

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; --

Glen Rangwala , a lecturer in politics at Cambridge University in Britain: "No, they didn't. The UNSCOM January 1999 report states that there is insufficient evidence that Iraq didn't produce this volume of anthrax spores. In short, if Iraq had used its fermentors at maximal capacity from the start of the industrial production of anthrax in September 1990 until the outbreak of war, it could have produced this amount of anthrax. The production log for 1990 at Iraq's bio-weapons factory, al-Hakam, indicates that Iraq did not operate its fermentors at maximal capacity. UNSCOM was not wholly confident of the accuracy of the production log, though it never explained why. However, there is no indication -- either in UNSCOM reports or in UNMOVIC statements -- that they actually believe Iraq produced this volume of anthrax. There is, again, a very large difference between what Iraq had the potential to produce in 1990, and what it is likely that it did actually produce."

Rangwala: "This is just plain wrong. Anthrax spores produced in 1990 were in liquid slurry form. They would have deteriorated markedly by the mid-1990s. The assessment by Professor Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is as follows: 'Anthrax spores are extremely hardy and can achieve 65 percent to 80 percent lethality against untreated patients for years. Fortunately, Iraq does not seem to have produced dry, storable agents and only seems to have deployed wet Anthrax agents, which have a relatively limited life." ["Iraq's Past and Future Biological Weapons Capabilities" (1998), p.13]

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Rangwala: "This is plain inaccurate. The only assessment of UNSCOM in this regard was in the January 1999 report, which stated that it could not account for 460kg of casein, the growth media for botulinum toxin. That would be enough to produce 1200 litres of the toxin. The U.S. has independently claimed that Iraq had more casein, but that is not -- and has never been -- the UN's assessment."

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

Zunes: "This figure is far higher than most independent estimates. The former chief weapons inspector for UNSCOM stated that at least 95% of Iraq's chemical weapons had been accounted for and destroyed by 1998. With the embargo preventing the import of new materials, satellites eyeing possible sites for new production, and the return of UN inspectors, it is highly dubious that Iraq could develop an offensive chemical weapons arsenal, particularly since virtually all of their ballistic missiles capable of carrying such weapons have also been accounted for and destroyed. In addition, if Saddam Hussein's possession of chemical weapons is really such a major concern for the U.S. government, why did the United States send Iraq tons of toxic chemicals during the 1980s, even when it became apparent that they were being used for weapons?"

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs.

Rangwala: "The only defector who has gone public with this claim is Adnan Saeed al-Haideri. It's interesting to note that in his first press conference, he didn't make this claim at all. It was only after he was "debriefed" by an official from the Iraqi National Congress -- the group supported politically and financially by the Pentagon -- that he started making these claims."

These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Zunes: "True. What the president failed to mention is that in 1998 the International Atomic Energy Agency also reported that Iraq's nuclear capability had been completely dismantled. More recently, IAEA director El-Baradei, in his January 27 report to the UN Security Council, reported there was no evidence to suggest that Iraq had resumed its nuclear program."

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Rangwala: "Iraq in 1981-82 tried unsuccessfully to import yellowcake (unrefined uranium) from Niger. The UK government has given no signs that it was not referring to this episode. The IAEA have repeatedly asked the U.S. and UK for information about this, without success. Either the UK is refusing to comply with the UN weapons inspectors, or its claims are irrelevant."

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Zunes: "As '60 Minutes' and other independent investigations have revealed, these aluminum tubes also have commercial applications. The IAEA has investigated the matter and has reported that there is no evidence to suggest they were intended for a nuclear program." www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/inspectors_1-27.html.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.

John Burroughs, executive director of the New York-based Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy and co-editor of the just-released Rule of Power or Rule of Law? An Assessment of U.S. Policies and Actions Regarding Security-Related Treaties: "Chief nuclear inspector Mohamed El Baradei told the Security Council Monday that 'we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons program.' El Baradei noted that that by the end of 1992 the IAEA had eliminated nuclear-weapons-related facilities and equipment, and by early 1994 it had removed weapons-usable uranium and plutonium from the country. He stated that while investigation continues, 'it appears that the aluminum tubes would be consistent with' rocket production as Iraq states and 'unless modified, would not be suitable for manufacturing centrifuges' for uranium production. He noted that investigation continues regarding reports of Iraqi efforts to import uranium. (Text of El Baradei's report is at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/internat...st/28ETEX.html)

"Contrary to the implication of Bush's speech, El Baradei's report indicates that Iraq has no nuclear weapons program or that if it does, the program is in a very early stage. The reality is that an advanced program would be discovered due to the large-scale, industrial nature of production of enriched uranium and separated plutonium and the detectability of radioisotopes at significant distances. It is impossible for Iraq to mount such a program while subject to UN inspection and monitoring. Yet the Bush administration relied last summer on the prospect of a future nuclear-armed Iraq as a chief rationale for going to war. Perhaps recognizing the weakness of that rationale, in this speech Bush emphasized instead the dangers posed by chemical and biological weapons, and argued: 'With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.' The argument shifts as the administration runs into inconvenient facts.

"Meanwhile, doctrine announced in December 2002 and Pentagon planning reported by the Los Angeles Times envisage U.S. use of nuclear weapons to respond to or 'preempt' any Iraqi use of chemical and biological arms in response to a U.S. invasion and to attack deeply buried targets. Who's threatening whom with nuclear weapons? The U.S. posture is contrary to commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, including a 2000 pledge to a 'diminishing role of nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that the weapons ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination.' That is the same treaty Iraq violated in the early 1990s by seeking to acquire nuclear arms."

From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves.

Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.

Mahajan: "Iraq is not 'blocking' U-2 flights -- it simply cannot guarantee their safety. The reason it can't guarantee their safety is that U.S. and U.K. planes constantly overfly Iraqi airspace, in violation of international law, and Iraq maintains its sovereign right to defend its airspace. If the United States was serious about inspections, it would suspend or end the no-fly zones so that the U-2's can collect information."

Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say.

Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with UN inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Rangwala: "There is absolutely no evidence for any of this. No evidence has been presented either by UNMOVIC or the U.S. to back up these claims."

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why?

AbuKhalil: "The implication here is that those who have weapons of mass destruction can only acquire them because they have aggressive and dominating intentions. But does that apply, say, to Israel and more importantly the U.S.? Or do those weapons of mass destruction only pose a threat to peace and security when in the hands of Arabs and Muslims?"

The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.

Zunes: "This is hardly the 'only possible explanation.' The most likely reason for a country in a heavily armed region within missile range of two nuclear powers to pursue weapons of mass destruction is for deterrence. Even the CIA has reported that there is little chance that Iraq would use WMDs for offensive purposes in the foreseeable future. By contrast, so says this CIA analysis, there is a far greater risk that Saddam Hussein would use whatever WMDs he may possess in the event of a U.S. invasion, when deterrence has clearly failed and he no longer has anything to lose."

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

Perlman: "Who else could exercise 'ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region'?"

Wright: "This is a very eloquent and very dangerous speech, the purpose of which is to lead America into an illegal, unilateral war against Iraq. It is important to register what was not claimed either by Hans Blix or by Mohamed El Baradei, Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Those who argue that the time of inspections has run out and the remaining questions are cause for war paint a picture of an Iraq bristling with weapons of mass destruction. This is far from what we already know. Iraq is a defeated, impoverished country that has been under a strict arms embargo since 1991. Substantial evidence indicates that it does not possess nuclear weapons and Mr. El Baradei registered this today. After the UN inspectors left Iraq in December 1998 because a military strike by the United States was imminent, Iraq did not start a war, it continued to pay huge war reparations to Kuwait, and it did not threaten any other country. All the signs were that, even with the UN inspectors out of the country, Iraq was effectively deterred.

"So the key question to be asked about the position of the Bush administration is whether the remaining ambiguities associated with Iraq's chemical and biological warfare programs justify what the administration calls a 'preemptive' war ? Such a war is hardly justified under the UN charter, which requires war to be justified in terms of self-defense against an attack or protection against an imminent danger to the survival of a state. Do these ambiguities justify horrendous humanitarian costs to the Iraqi people and the surrounding region? Or to the American people and their security given that a U.S.attack on Iraq may very well provoke further terrorist attacks on the U.S.? A brutal irony in the scenarios for war is that the Bush administration has radically loosened restraints on the use of nuclear weapons. There is a possibility that the administration would pursue its ambitions in the Gulf by using the very weapons that it claims it wants to eliminate."

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Zunes: "Reports from the State Department, the CIA and other intelligence agencies have found no credible proof of any links between the Islamist al Qaeda movement and the secular Iraqi government. In fact, they have been at odds with each other for many years. Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism peaked in the 1980s, when the U.S. dropped Iraq from its list of states sponsoring terrorism in order to make the regime eligible to receive U.S. military and technological assistance. Furthermore, most biological weapons -- the only WMDs threat that Iraq realistically might possess at this point -- do leave fingerprints and could easily be traced to Iraq."

Jennings: "Secretary of State Colin Powell said this week at the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, that Iraq has 'clear ties to terrorist groups,' but he failed to present any evidence. This line is an old argument that has often been refuted over and over again, for example in the Institute for Public Accuracy's analysis of President Bush's earlier Iraq policy speech. The truth is that Iraq, a secular government, has always opposed Khomeini-type Islamic radicalism, and in fact never recognized the Taliban government in Afghanistan, even though U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were supporting them. It is true that the Ansar al-Islam, a 600-member cadre of armed Islamists having similar goals to al-Qaeda, continues to hold territory in the U.S.-protected Kurdish zone of northern Iraq. Why the U.S. has not so far attacked them is a mystery, when the loudly announced goal of the 'Terror War' since September 11 has been to eliminate such threats wherever they may take sanctuary. It is therefore highly ironic that the only place in the world that terrorists have remained safe thus far is in Kurdistan, under the protection of the U.S. military umbrella. One clue may be found in a recent article by New York Times columnist William Safire, often a stalking horse for successive administration's actions. He tried (unsuccessfully) to make the case for a link between this group and Iraq's central government. Long time observers of the situation fear that this group is being held in reserve as a trump card in the Pentagon's search for a casus belli. Any alleged link between these fanatics and official Iraq would provide the President with an ideal opportunity to attack Iraq as an extension of the so-called 'War on Terror.' Americans should keep in mind, however, that both the Vietnam War and the Gulf War were initiated in part by pretexts advanced by the executive branch of the government. The first was the Senate's Tonkin Gulf Resolution (based on a lie by the Johnson administration), and the second the famous 'Naira' testimony before Congress, in which the Kuwaiti Ambassador's daughter claimed to have seen Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait that never happened. The theme of 'babies dumped from their incubators' was widely promoted by George Bush, Sr. in drumming up support for the Gulf War."

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Shallal: "What has September 11th showed us? Saddam had nothing to do with September 11th. Making these desperate links of September 11th to Saddam Hussein is at the least disingenuous."

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

Jennings: "One can imagine all kinds of things, from goblins and ghosts to things that go bump in the night. It hardly seems presidential, or even marginally responsible, for a high U.S. public official to engage in this kind of speculation. It apparently is designed to stimulate fear, which will in turn generate support for a war already decided upon."

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Perlman: "All of the administration's actions are inviting that day … our bullying, tough talk, domination and threats are increasing fear, motivation and danger."

Zunes: "Again, there is no evidence of any connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, who has called the Iraqi dictator 'an apostate, an infidel, and a traitor to Islam.' Iraq has never threatened nor been implicated in any attack against U.S. territory and the CIA has reported no Iraqi-sponsored attacks against American interests since 1991. It is always easy to think of worst case scenarios, but no country has the right to invade another on the grounds that the other country might some day possess weapons that they might decide to pass on to someone else who might use these weapons against them."

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

Bert Sacks has been to Iraq several times, most recently with Congressmen Jim McDermott and David Bonior. (He has violated U.S. law in taking medicine without authorization to Iraq and has been fined $10,000): "Amnesty International has, indeed, catalogued other methods; they have included putting babies beside the cells of a mother and father and leaving them to cry and starve until the parents do as they are told. (We continued to support Iraq after AI's reporting of this torture.) The same Amnesty International USA passed a resolution, at their U.S. Annual General Meeting in Seattle on April 21, 2002, which essentially accuses U.S./UN economic sanctions of torturing the Iraqi people in just this same way."

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

Zunes: "The use of chemical weapons by the Iraqi armed forces against Kurdish villages took place in the 1980s when the U.S. was backing Saddam Hussein's government. The U.S. even covered up for the Halabja massacres and similar atrocities by falsely claiming it was the Iranians -- then the preferred enemy -- who were responsible. Human rights organizations have indeed reported torture and other human rights abuses by the Iraqi regime and did so back in the 1980s when the U.S. was supporting it. As a result, one can only assume that this professed concern about human rights abuses is insincere, particularly since the Bush Administration is currently sending military and police aid to repressive regimes such as Indonesia, Uzbekistan, Colombia, Egypt and others that are guilty of similar human rights abuses.  If President Bush really thinks that this constitutes evil, why does he support governments that engage in such crimes?"

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

AbuKhalil: "Time Magazine recently reported that some 800 cruise missiles will fall on Iraq in the first 48 hours of war; does that mean that all 800 missiles will be directed at Saddam, and his two sons Udayy and Qusayy? If not, where will the rest go?"

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

Shallal: "Few Iraqis would believe that our intention is to liberate them. They are also keenly aware that for any credible opposition to take hold, it would have to come from within not led by the U.S. military. In the words of one Iraqi, 'We do not want to be Karzai'd.'

"There is no shortage of Iraqi opposition groups. They represent a wide array of Iraqis including Sunni, Shiites, Kurds and Monarchs. What they have in common is their desire to overthrow Saddam. How, when and why differs greatly from one group to another. Most lack credibility and have little internal support.

"The INC is the group of choice for the U.S. and the CIA -- this group is now headed by Sharif Ali, the nephew of the late King Ghazi. Its previous head and de facto leader is Ahmed Chalabi. He was convicted of embezzlement and 31 felony charges in Jordan and fled to England in the early 90's where he was afforded safe haven. Senator Lieberman called Mr. Chalabi 'a principled man.' He came to the U.S. and was instrumental in the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. He is mired in CIA money and has little support within Iraq.

"Another possible 'liberator' at the top of our list is Nizar Al-Khazraji. One of Saddam's military honchos who left Iraq to seek asylum in Europe. He is still under investigation for charges of crimes against humanity in the possible role he played in gassing the Kurds in Northern Iraq. In June 2002, the Police Chief of Ringsted, Denmark told Western Denmark TV that he had no doubt that Al-Khazraji was involved in the genocide against the Kurds. He added that the evidence, so far collected, is substantial. It has necessitated the review of his asylum application and sending his file to Public Prosecutor -- The Kurdish National Congress has pressed for charges. Ambassador David Mack, a senior official in the State Department, has endorsed Gen. Khazraji as a man 'with the right ingredients' as a future leader of Iraq.

"For change to take hold in Iraq, it would have to take place gradually. It will also have to come from within and it must take place in an open arena, free from sanctions and restrictions to information, travel and movement."

Rangwala: "Bush seems to be committing himself to the removal of the Iraqi regime, even if there is full compliance with weapons inspectors. This provides only disincentives for Iraq to comply. Bush has never answered the question: Does he have a regime change agenda, or a disarmament agenda? The two are not compatible: By adhering to the former, you prevent progress in the latter."

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies.

The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Jennings: "Few voices have been raised in criticism of the Bush administration's major strategic shift from deterrence and containment of Iraq to preemptive attack and regime change. Yet it is a change of monumental significance. In the January/February, 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs, Bush Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated the administration's position vis a vis the Middle East as one of deterrence. Following President Bush's remarks that Saddam must not be allowed to blackmail the world, Ms. Rice said that, unless the U.S. acts, Iraq would 'blackmail the international community.' Two of America's most eminent international affairs and security studies specialists dispute that assessment, saying that the only way the administration can sell the idea of a preemptive attack on Iraq is to 'inflate the threat' and 'distort the historical record.'" [www.foreignpolicy.com/wwwboard/walts.html]

I know, I know, Germany and Hitler and the jews were all made up in hollywood.

I don't what you drank, smoked, sniffed or injected to come up with...that.

[Donutboy 0]

World press unconvinced by Bush visit

Papers around the world see little reason for US President George Bush to return home satisfied after his trip to the UK.

Many believe that his visit served merely to underline the gulf between the US-led coalition and Europe's citizens.

Against the backdrop of the suicide bombings in Istanbul, some papers also suggest that the war on terror has had very limited success and may in fact be backfiring.

Read international comments from former allies here!!