Monday, April 07, 2003

 
Not Surprisingly, Officials Report Finding WMD

Back on January 21st and March 24th I suggested that the probability of biochem weapons being reported as "discovered in Iraq" was 100%, if not because they were really found, then because they were planted.

On February 5th, I noted that the truth regarding whether WMD were truly found or not will forever remain a mystery because the Bush Administration has so thriftlessly spent it's credibility and can no longer be trusted with anything resembling the truth.

Nevertheless, the time has finally come:

"U.S. forces near Baghdad found a weapons cache of around 20 medium-range missiles equipped with potent chemical weapons, the U.S. news station National Public Radio reported on Monday."

"NPR, which attributed the report to a top official with the 1st Marine Division, said the rockets, BM-21 missiles, were equipped with sarin and mustard gas and were "ready to fire." It quoted the source as saying new U.S. intelligence data showed the chemicals were 'not just trace elements.'"

"It said the cache was discovered by Marines with the 101st Airborne Division, which was following up behind the Army after it seized Baghdad's international airport."

My question is, if these missiles were "pumped and ready to go" as some officials have reported, why would they be sitting around for enemy forces to find. Why wouldn't the Iraqis launch them in lieu of being killed. After all, according to the Administration, all Iraqis are primed to use WMD first chance they get, right? Seems a little suspicious, but again, we will never know the truth.

Of course, many war skeptics have pointed out from the beginning that, "We know Iraq has [WMD], we sold 'em to them."

Be aware that many war advocates will cite this find, whether legitimate or not, as proof positive that they were right and that everyone should obey them from now on...especially those peacenick Europeans. Whatever you do, don't take any crap from these idiots. Remind them that the issue was never whether or not Iraq had WMD. The issue consisted of the following:

a) Danger of setting a preemptive strike precedent
b) Unilateral foreign policy
c) Stealing another sovereignty's natural resources
d) Ulterior motives designed to enrich the "Military Industrial Complex" (i.e. Bush's Carlyle Group and Cheney's Halliburton)
e) Miscellaneous conquest issues as outlined by Richard Perle, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz

To shut conservatives up the quickest, I recommend noting the cataclysmic danger of setting a preemptive strike precedent and the catastrophic decision to envelop the US in a unilateral foreign policy.

Stealing the Iraqi natural resources is also a viable argument, noting that US and British oil companies have already signed contracts to control the Iraqi oil fields.

Dipping into Cronyism and Imperialism is valid but it opens you up to accusations of being a "conspiracy theorist". I recommend that route be reserved for only the most informed and well spoken power progressives out there.

In any event, never concede an inch. The policies used to rationalize an Iraq invasion were wrong then. They're wrong now and they will be wrong when they attempt to invade Syria and Iran.

Join our mailing list!

posted by Thomas Ball 2:52 PM

 
CNN Scrubs Earth-Shaking Republican Admission

On or before February 17, 2003, George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger was a guest on CNN Crossfire.

As a part of the discussion, James Carville drew Eagleburger's atttention to a list of names within the Bush Administration, including Cheney, Wolfowits and Rumsfeld (but not Perle for some reason). Carville looked squarely into Eagleburger's eyes and said, "Here's a list of various hawks within the Administration. Now you don't have to name names, but how many of these people do you think are happy that diplomacy failed [with Iraq and the UN]?" Eagleburger responded after perusing the list, "At least three, maybe more."

Holy Crap! This is a former Republican secretary of state under the current president's father and on national television he admits that members of the current administration WANT WAR, NOT DIPLOMACY. This is unbelievable!

Of course I would like to refer you to the Crossfire transcripts, but they have mysteriously dissappeared. Upon searching within the CNN website, I found only an excerpt from the Eagleburger Crossfire episode (in the "Inside Politics" section, not the "Crossfire" section). The full text and link are printed at the end of this post for purposes of historical documentation. Who knows when they're going to try and scrub all evidence that the interview even took place.

Of course the one, glaring characteristic of this interview excerpt is that it conveniently cuts off prior to the Carville-Eagleburger exchange regarding Administration members who are happy with failed diplomacy.

In addition, you can see below that the date of the "Inside Politics" article is February 17, 2003. The article states that Eagleburger "joined hosts Robert Novak and James Carville on Friday to discuss [Iraq]". The Friday to which they refer is February 14, 2003. With this information I strolled over to the Crossfire transcript archive and what did I find for that date? Why, an episode featuring Robert Novak, James Carville, former National Security Council Spokesman P.J. Crowley and former U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Director Ken Adelman. But no Eagleburger. Giving the benefit of the doubt, I checked all transcripts within two months of that date, but once again found absolutely no trace of Eagleburger.

As a result, I called CNN and brought this to their attention. They said they would "Look into it" and assured me that it was merely a technical error. Nevertheless, I encourage everyone to notify CNN that censorship will not be tolerated and that this transcritpt in particular should be reinstated in its full glory. You can email them here.

- - - - -

Following is the full text of the "Inside Politics" article that contained a portion of the Eagleburger Crossfire episode:

In the Crossfire
Eagleburger discusses Iraq
Monday, February 17, 2003 Posted: 6:48 PM EST (2348 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) --National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Sunday on both "Fox News Sunday" and NBC's "Meet the Press" that President Bush would not back down on Iraq, despite pleas last week from most members of the U.N. Security Council that he give weapons inspectors more time.

But is force really an option at the United Nations when countries like France, Germany and Russia are opposing a U.S.-led war in Iraq?

Lawrence Eagleburger, Secretary of State in the first Bush administration, joined hosts Robert Novak and James Carville on Friday to discuss situation in Iraq and the diplomatic ramifications of Friday's U.N. presentation.

NOVAK: Mr. Secretary, thanks for joining us. Now, you're a former diplomat. You spent most of your life as a diplomat. Surely you're not as cavalier as [Secretary of Defense] Don Rumsfeld and [Vice President] Dick Cheney, as those boys are, about this tremendous breach we had with our longtime allies, the French.

EAGLEBURGER: What do you want me to say there, Mr. Novak?

NOVAK: Are you as cavalier as they are?

EAGLEBURGER: Look, I guess I'm not as cavalier, but I must tell you, I didn't think that the administration started this whole exercise the right way. I thought that the vice president, the way he came on at the beginning, made some serious mistakes in talking about this whole exercise in the chest-thumping way he did.

I was very nervous about that. I was nervous about the way in which he started out so much as if this was a unilateral exercise. I thought the president later on, when he went to the U.N., was excellent. And I thought it went on the right track thereafter.

After listening to the U.N. today, first of all, I think the U.N. is well on the way to becoming the League of Nations. I have to tell you, and I'm sorry to say it, of course I'm upset by the fact that we aren't getting along with what I guess we should call our allies. But at the same time, when I see the way the French and the Germans and so forth have conducted themselves, I have to tell you that [Secretary of State] Colin Powell was right today.

The issue isn't over inspections, it's over the question of disarmament. And the way these people think, particularly the French, when they talk about this as an inspection problem, it's not. It's whether [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein has disarmed, and that's the issue. And I'm sorry, I have to tell you, much as I am upset by the way in which we've had a breach with our allies, I also have to tell you I think that the United States is right, and they're wrong.

And if that's the case, then whether we are not in sync with them or not has to take second place to the issue of whether Saddam Hussein has disarmed. And he hasn't.

CARVILLE: Mr. Secretary, [former U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Director Ken] Adelman was on here, and he made Bob's point. He said that it was a mistake to go to the U.N. to try to build support. That we should have gone in immediately. And that [going to the United Nations] ... has [done] nothing but cost us support around the world.

You were an advocate of going to the U.N. early. Why is Mr. Adelman wrong and your approach proven to be right, when so many people in the world now hate us?

EAGLEBURGER: Well, I'll tell you. First of all, because I am never wrong. But that aside -- seriously -- the fact ...

CARVILLE: You have something in common with me, Mr. Secretary.

EAGLEBURGER: I know. That's why I said it. Because I knew we'd agree on this.

No, but seriously, if you're going to have an alliance -- and we have one -- it seemed to me implicit in that you had to start by trying to deal with the alliance. And then if it doesn't work, then you have to say, "Look, we've done our best to try to get our allies to agree with us on the wisdom of our course. And we couldn't convince them, and therefore we're going to have to go our own way."

But if we had done it the other way, that is, done what the vice president was talking about early on and simply gone in there like gangbusters, I will tell you, I think the world reaction would have been far worse. It hasn't worked so far. I must tell you, given the attitude of the French and the Germans, I don't think there's anything we can do that will convince them because I don't think they want to be convinced.

NOVAK: Well, disagreeing with you, Mr. Eagleburger, is your longtime friend, colleague and business associate, Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state.

EAGLEBURGER: I've met him, yes.

NOVAK: Yes. I'm going to read something he said this week:

"In the end," he said, "French realism will not permit France to stand aside while its strongest ally, which has stood by us through two world wars and the Cold War, pursues its vital interests with a coalition of the willing."
Do you agree with that, or do you disagree with that?

EAGLEBURGER: I hope he's right. I pray that he's right. All I can tell you at this stage is it doesn't seem to be the case. And the more that the French act the way they have been acting and acted today, the harder it's going to be for them to climb off this high horse they're on and get with the program.

The only thing I can think of that may bring them around is ... because they want some of that oil. And they may decide that they have to come in because they want some of that Iraqi oil. The French greed may well lead them to be more reasonable at some point. The only thing I can tell you is this war is not about oil.

CARVILLE: I understand your utter contempt for the French, but the Germans, the Russians and the Chinese have the same position they do. Do you have the same contempt for the Germans, Russians and the Chinese that you do the French?

EAGLEBURGER: Well, certainly you can put the Germans in on the same list. No, wait a minute. The Chinese and the Russians obviously come from a different position. They have never, for example, been as close allies to us as the Germans and the French. Beyond which, if you take a look at the way the French and the Germans have acted in NATO ... they won't even let NATO plan on how you would defend Turkey [in the event of a war in Iraq].

Now, as far as I'm concerned, that is a real slap at the whole concept of NATO. And it puts France and Germany in a totally different category. I disagree with the Russians and the Chinese, and I think they're wrong. But I don't think that I can put them in the same category with old allies such as the French and the Germans.


Join our mailing list!

posted by Thomas Ball 12:14 PM

 
People Hate Bush Three Times as Much as They Hate Clinton.

Until now, it was widely believed that the right-wing hatred for the Clintons was unparalleled. New evidence, however, paints a very different picture.

Indeed, according to statistical researcher types here at politicalstrategy.org, Bush is in fact hated three times as much as Clinton ever was.

First the methodology:

In a double-blind study conducted with millions of search engine entries, scientists typed in the following entries, all lower-case and without partisan spin:

Entry one: "i hate bush"
Entry two: "i hate clinton"

Search Engine Selection:

Search engines were selected using the "off the top of my head" technique. Used were Google, AltaVista, MSN and Hotbot.

So now that the infallibility of the methodology has been established, we can analyze the findings:

Data: figures below indicate the number of entries found that "match" the search queries of each "i hate bush" and "i hate clinton".

Search Engine ~ "bush" ~ "clinton"

Google ~ 1,480 ~ 162
Alta Vista ~ 458 ~ 110
MSN ~ 3,336 ~ 1,304
Hotbot ~ 3,262 ~ 1,292

Total ~ 8,536 ~ 2,868

"...Bush" to "...Clinton" ratio = 2.976

So there you go. Conclusive evidence that Bush is hated exactly 2.976 times as much as Clinton. Of course, to be reasonable and valid, we really should round up to 3 times. Further investigation into these findings is certainly unnecessary. Indeed, they have the accuracy of a Bush speech coupled with the validity of a Fox News online poll. This study is beyond reproach.

Join our mailing list!

posted by Thomas Ball 9:51 AM