Did you know that the US is still at war with Korea, Germany, Japan, Bosnia and Kosovo? Based on “Hardball” host Chris Matthews' recent claims, we are still at war with those countries and will be until our troops leave their soil. (h/t Weasel Zippers)
On his November 28 show (transcript here), MSNBC's Matthews discussed Iraq with Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, wondering when “will we be able to come home.” In the process, the former Carter speechwriter said, “If we can't ever come home, we can't ever say we won.”
Silly me, I thought WWII, the Korean War, the Bosnian War and the Kosovo War were over. I guess the US troops still stationed in those countries prove otherwise (bold mine throughout):
...But my definition of a defeat is you can‘t leave. If we can‘t leave that country in the foreseeable future, we are losing. The purpose of the American Army is to get home and be ready to defend this country against possible threats to this country.
As long as we‘re stuck over there, it seems we‘re losing. When will we be able to come home from Iraq, based upon all this popular good news here?
(...)
MATTHEWS: Because if we can‘t ever come home, we can‘t ever say we won.
I understand what Matthews is trying to say, but it isn't that cut and dry. For many reasons, the winning side frequently retains troops in the country where the war was waged—rebuilding, maintaining order, training the defeated and ensuring that others do not invade. Iraq wouldn't be the first country where military forces remain in country after the war is over. Surely Matthews knows that.
I wager that Matthews “definition of defeat” is a little different than most military historians'. Requiring American troops to leave the battleground country to declare a victory would mean that we didn't win WWII. We still have troops in Germany and Okinawa.
Now, obviously, he didn't mean that WWII isn't over, but it's fun to apply his claims about the Iraq War to other conflicts.
Parsing words, he could have meant the type of situation where US troops “can't leave” a country because they are keeping a more active peace, such as the ones on the DMZ in South Korea. That is a little different from troops remaining in a country for strategic reasons, such as those stationed at bases in Europe.
Even going by the more narrow interpretation, according to Matthews' new definition, we are still at war with North Korea, Bosnia and Kosovo.
If a conservative had said this, fellow MSNBCer Keith Olbermann would make him or her the “Worst Person in the World” for changing all of those WWII vets from winners into losers. If Olbermann can tear himself away from the self-tanner, I'm sure he'll get right on it.
Lynn contributes to NewsBusters and can be reached at tvisgoodforyou2 AT yahoo DOT com














Comments Policy
When they coined the phrase
November 29, 2007 - 13:54 ET by mattmWhen they coined the phrase "s*** for brains" they had Chrissy in mind.
also look in the dictionary
November 29, 2007 - 14:42 ET by TruthMongeralso look in the dictionary under "astoundingly desperate for vindication - hopefully he'll win an oscar:)"
I guess we don't need
November 29, 2007 - 13:59 ET by kdoliverI guess we don't need police in this country either. I guess there were not 17000 murders and non-negligent homicides in the US in 2006.
We have lost. We must admit the criminals have won.
http://thelazytriathlete.blogspot.com/
The US is an occupation army
November 29, 2007 - 14:02 ET by professor truthand is hated by the majority of Iraqis. They US wants a subservient "quisling" government and has absolutely no interest in Iraqis if the historical record is reviewed. It's in the best interests of all nations, especially the US, to leave quickly. This is NOT DEFEAT, this is SMART POLICY!
pt... You need to stay in
November 29, 2007 - 14:05 ET by bigtimerpt...
You need to stay in your sandbox and quit acting like you know something about the real world...it gets old.
bt, if you have any real evidence to the contrary
November 29, 2007 - 14:10 ET by professor truthplease present it. My post at 'newshounds' under progressive pat should be read before you make final judgments. It's the third or fourth blog from the top with about 150+ comments. There's an ex viet vet named woke who blogs there whose opinions are perhaps even stronger than mine. he's also seen war up close and personal and offers a different view. I recommend this blog if you want real info.
pt... I have seen your
November 29, 2007 - 14:18 ET by bigtimerpt...
I have seen your posts before about your blog site...
Got an idea...go play there for awhile...you are always here, how come?
LOL!
this guy needs to talk to
November 29, 2007 - 14:44 ET by TruthMongerthis guy needs to talk to native Americans - we're still occupying America too - and the natives don't exactly celebrate our presence here, either - although the casino visits are nice:)
I want to correct a mistake
November 29, 2007 - 14:52 ET by professor truthAccording to this poll:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983841.stm
53% of Iraqis want the US to stay UNTIL SECURITY IMPROVES.
A majority of Iraqis believe the surge has failed.
and what about native
November 29, 2007 - 15:38 ET by TruthMongerand what about native Americans? when do they want us out?
Wait until the rest of the
November 29, 2007 - 15:43 ET by fosstenWait until the rest of the returning Iraqis come back. Then do another poll. I bet they feel different.
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
Flawed Poll
November 29, 2007 - 16:16 ET by Del DolemonteSee my post below-that BBC "poll" was flawed, as it oversampled certain groups to achieve a predetermined result. The BBC's own higher-ups have admitted their liberal bias recently, so they can't be taken seriously as an objective news source any longer.
Besides, if one single poll made everything fact, we wouldn't have numerous pollsters from different firms running around.
regarding the BBC poll, please cite your evidence
November 29, 2007 - 16:24 ET by professor truthshowing they 'admitted a liberal bias."
How Many Cites Do You Need?
November 29, 2007 - 17:26 ET by Del DolemonteI didn't say the Beeb admitted the poll had a bias, BTW
Here are just a few excerpts, with the links below
1. "It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.
A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.
It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.
At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.
One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.
'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'"
http://www.dailymail...
2. The Beeb's own report, 81 pages long:
http://news.bbc.co.u...
3. From Israel:
"An internal memo, recently discovered by the British media, revealed what the BBC has been trying to hide. Senior figures admitted in a recent 'impartiality' summit that the BBC was guilty of promoting Left-wing views and anti-Christian sentiment.
Most executives admitted that the corporation’s representation of homosexuals and ethnic minorities was unbalanced and disproportionate, and that it leaned too strongly towards political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism, anti-Americanism and discrimination against the countryside
A truly shocking revelation to come out of the summit was expected to invoke a storm in Britain, which has already reached the boiling point with regards to the treatment of Muslims and the issue of the veil.
For the purpose of illustration, the executives were given a scenario in which Jewish Comedian Sasha Baron Cohen would participate in a program titled ‘Room 101’, a studio program where guests would be asked for their opinions on different issues, and allowed to symbolically throw things they hated in a garbage bin.
The executives were asked what they would do if Cohen decided to throw ‘Kosher food’, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bible, and the Quran in the garbage bin.
The executives said they would allow everything to be thrown in the garbage bin, save the Quran, for fear of offending the British Muslim community."
http://www.ynetnews....
4. Confessions of a former BBC employee
"We saw ourselves as part of the intellectual elite, full of ideas about how the country should be run. Being naive in the way institutions actually work, we were convinced that Britain’s problems were the result of the stupidity of the people in charge of the country.
This ignorance of the realities of government and management enabled us to occupy the moral high ground. We saw ourselves as clever people in a stupid world, upright people in a corrupt world, compassionate people in a brutal world, libertarian people in an authoritarian world.
We were not Marxists but accepted a lot of Marxist social analysis. We also had an almost complete ignorance of market economics. That ignorance is still there. Say “Tesco” to a media liberal and the patellar reflex says, “Exploiting African farmers and driving out small shopkeepers.” The achievement of providing the range of goods, the competitive prices, the food quality, the speed of service and the ease of parking that attract millions of shoppers does not register on their radar."
http://www.timesonli...
5. From "This is London":
"Even one of the BBC's most senior journalists, political pundit Andrew Marr admitted that the corporation was unrepresentative of British society.
He said: "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly-funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people.
"It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."
The BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused his own employers of being anti-American saying they treated it with scorn and derision and "no moral weight".
He revealed that he had got deputy director general Mark Byford to secretly help him to "correct" it in his reports.
Business presenter Jeff Randall said he complained to a senior executive at the BBC about the corporation's pro-multiculturalism stance.
He claimed he was told: "The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism, it believes in it and it promotes it."
http://www.thisislon...
6. And since they say a picture's worth a thousand words, here's youtube:
http://www.youtube.c...
you have given some powerful evidence for
November 29, 2007 - 17:50 ET by professor truthliberal bias of the BBC. It really doesn't change the SUBSTANCE of my claim. The Iraqis don't want us in their country. I gave a hypothetical example of a foreign occupation of the US by a foreign power as areasonable case for why the Iraqis want us out. I provided a link to a number of polls in the US that generally state that most Americans feel Bush has done a poor job on the Iraq war.
Anytime they want us to
November 29, 2007 - 18:30 ET by Dan The Man 2Anytime they want us to leave all the government has to do is ask us to leave, so far this has not happened.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Iraq asks the US to stay
November 29, 2007 - 19:02 ET by ThisnThatTry this from the Chicago Tribune, 27 Nov 2007. Shiite parliament member Haidar Abadi, who serves as an adviser to al-Maliki and belongs to the prime minister's Dawa Party, said Iraq envisions a need for the U.S. military to stay longer than the end of 2008.
Really, now -- even a Professor can find this stuff, dontcha think?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
the quisling government in Iraq wants the occupation.
November 29, 2007 - 19:11 ET by professor truthAnd the French vichy government wanted the Nazi occupation.
The people of Iraq hate the occupation and want us out. Polls say most Americans want us out.
By the way two questions: who were the invaders and occupiers in WWII? Who were the invaders and occupiers in Gulf WarII?
Don't be so stupid
November 29, 2007 - 19:25 ET by ThisnThatYou asked. I answered. Stop being stupid and argumentative.
Your attitude and downright rudeness provides no incentive to communicate with you. I've seen your endless posts, and they are so tiring. You really don't contribute anything useful to this site, do you? Except, perhaps, to provide a clearer picture of how a juvenile mind actually works inside of an adult. It's not a pretty sight. And it's not even amusing.
In the future, if you ask for an answer, be a little more gracious and stick to the topic. And don't expect me to help at all. That's not why I'm here. Maybe others want to engage in your pettyness, but it simply isn't worth my time. When you start adding value, in the future, then maybe. But not now.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
PT
November 29, 2007 - 19:16 ET by MrShyAs for totally wasteful polls of what Americans (so many that have been deluded by the MSM) think/feel of Bush's job on Iraq, or whatever other non-domestic issue...... may I ask, who G.A.F.F. ???? ("gives a flying f-") :p
First you're telling us of your "assumption", based on no poll done there, that Iraqis don't want us in their country... and then you completely go off course to polling in America, like that has anything to do with the minds of Iraqi people - ??
"MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)
To The Contrary
November 29, 2007 - 20:38 ET by Del DolemonteBy proving the BBC's liberal bias-by their own admission-is also proving that the "poll" they conducted in Iraq was suspect, especially since it's only ONE poll. We'll talk when you can provide multiple polls of Iraqis saying the same thing this one single poll said.
As for US polling, that's what's known as "changing the subject".
By the way, here's some historical persepctive on the BBC for you. I was a daily consumer of the BBC World Service on shortwave radio from 1963 til about 2000, when they turned off most of their shortwave transmitters in this part of the world. I have since become a daily consumer of BBC World Service as delivered by XM satellite radio.
Over the first 30 years I listened, the Beeb's News Division was among the finest anywhere as far as professionalism and integrity were concerned. That all suddenly changed about the time Tony Blair came to power (which was close to the same time Bill Clinton came into power here in the US). At about this time, the BBC entered into a news partnership with the liberal NPR here in the states. It's been downhill ever since.
It even got so bad at one point a few years ago that some British Navy ships turned the BBC off altogether, and got their news from other sources.
I agree with you on the liberal bias of the BBC.
November 29, 2007 - 20:42 ET by professor truthIt has almost no significance to my MAIN point, which you keep dancing around(implying you have nothing to refute it) and that MAIN point is that we have F**^ED the Iraqis in the past and we continue to F*^^ them today. I've cited numerous examples, and anyone can easily find them. Stop dancing around the fact that we aided and abetted a murderous dictator. We F*^^ the iraqis and we are F*^*^ing them now. OUr IRAQ policy has absolutely NOTHING to do with any morality. It's about our interests.
Sorry, Try Again
November 29, 2007 - 21:52 ET by Del DolemonteYou alleged that the Iraqis hate us and want us to leave their country. All I'm asking is for some evidence. Is that too much to ask?
The evidence is common sense
November 30, 2007 - 11:58 ET by professor truthAsk yourself, would you like to be occupied by the Chinese army, assuming the results in theUS were like the results in Iraq? Common sense tells me most people do not want a foreign occupation army.
Let's try this scenario. In
November 30, 2007 - 12:53 ET by KarmaLet's try this scenario. In the future, the Iraqi people have a safe, prosperous and free society with a strong and capable army, thanks in no small part to the brave and patient Americans who helped them achieve this. Also, in this future, the nazis/socialists/communists in America have disarmed the populace and enslaved them with their tax-and-spend wealth re-distribution policies. Patriots, true to the Constitution, are being slaughtered in their weapons-less struggle to return their nation to greatness. Then yes, I would welcome the Iraqi army with open arms to aid in driving the enslavers from power and re-establishing our Constitution. They would be welcome to stay as long as it took to accomplish this goal. Afterall, they would have owed us one.
p.s. My ancestors will be cheering when the Iraqis pull down the statue of the nazi/socialist/communist enslavers' god.
When have the Iraqis had a safe, prosperous and
November 30, 2007 - 12:54 ET by professor truthfree society as a result of US actions? The US policy allied itself with Saddam in the 80's and continued to aid him even after he gassed his own people. US policy also fomented a war between Iran and Iraq, resulting in a million or more casualties. US approved sanctions in the 90's under Clinton resulted in over half a million deaths. Madeline Albright, Clinton's sec. of state stated on 60 minutes that the price was worth it. The 2002-2007 invasion occupation has resulted in over a million deaths and 4+million refugees. If you think things are better in Baghdad, this article tells another story:
http://www.commondre...
Reading comprehension
November 30, 2007 - 13:12 ET by KarmaReading comprehension problem? Re-read my second sentance. Pay close attention to the "in the future" part, then go ahead and repost.
You assert a future prosperous Iraq
November 30, 2007 - 13:26 ET by professor truthand I answered that the historical record shows the opposite outcome when US foreign policy has intervened in Iraq. There's no comprehension problem! You asserted a future scenario that has NEVER been demonstrated! US foreign policy in tervention in Iraq has ALWAYS resulted in increased misery, suffering and death according to the historical record.
You are correct. I do
November 30, 2007 - 15:17 ET by KarmaYou are correct. I do assert a future prosperous Iraq, but only if we stay this time and help them complete their liberation and re-building. I assert a future scenario that HAS been demonstrated; Germany and Japan to name two.
Historical records would require you abandon your collectivist ways before it's too late.
Sorry PT
November 30, 2007 - 13:27 ET by MassConservSorry PT, you’ve got one glaring typo that I can’t ignore. You typed “US” approved sanctions, I think you meant to type “UN” approved sanctions. No biggie, easy mistake.
"Common sense tells me most
November 30, 2007 - 12:58 ET by MightyMouth"Common sense tells me most people do not want a foreign occupation army."
But professor, sometimes Common sense also tells us that some people need a foreign occupation army! Which is exactly why we are still there!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
So the decision as to what's best for the country's future
November 30, 2007 - 13:35 ET by professor truthshould be determined by the occupation army? So, if we were invaded and occupied by a Chinese army, the decision on when the occupation should end should be left up to the Chinese, and not US citizens? Let's take another example? If Bush declared martial law as a result of a terror threat, is it up to Bush to determine when the martial law can be lifted? Let's assume during the martial law, there were numerous midnight search raids on people's homes, and soldiers were constantly patrolling the streets, and let's also imagine that hundreds of accidental shootings resulted from the martial law declaration. Are these the conditions that you would want to live under? Would you want Bush to decide when the threat has waned so that a normal lifestyle could return?
Has anyone told you lately
December 2, 2007 - 21:35 ET by MightyMouthHas anyone told you lately that your examples are atrocious and that you are an idiot? If not, consider it done.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Not the kind of response I'd expect from someone who
December 2, 2007 - 21:54 ET by professor truthuses the word idiot..........so the US occupation is a friendly, compassionate occupation..........kinda like our occupation in Vietnam?....where a few million Vietnamese died? ......and Bush is a compassionate president........until he invades your country......How's that compassion and occupation working out for the Iraqis? the Afghans??? Get back to me when you have the facts, sonny.
profff
December 2, 2007 - 22:10 ET by botgthe US 'occupation'? Are you an idiot???
come back when you have thoughts and ideas rather than 'talking points'
GoHunter08
"Get back to me when you
December 2, 2007 - 22:13 ET by MightyMouth"Get back to me when you have the facts, sonny."
You have the facts, they are called history. But you are too stupid (that's an idiot who is drinking) to see it. The US was INVITED into Vietnam! haha!...Professor my ass!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
botg & mighty
December 2, 2007 - 22:24 ET by BlondeI see Professor Sock Puppet has continued to spam the site while I've been out and about.
How charming.
We need a better class of troll, here.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
YOU were the one who asked
December 1, 2007 - 10:34 ET by bretzysdudeYOU were the one who asked for evidence of liberal bias, d!psh!t!
All you were trying to steer the argument around. Knock it off!!!!!!
You were the one who
December 1, 2007 - 10:31 ET by bretzysdudeYou were the one who demanded evidence of liberal bias, just to see if you could win the argument. He had plenty. You were shot down. Deal with it!
the liberal bias claim was demonstrated.
December 1, 2007 - 12:02 ET by professor truthI asked for evidence since it was claimed without evidence in the first post. The bias evidence was shown, and I said so. The nitpicking had practically nothing to do with my MAIN point, which has never been credibly refuted. That point was this: US policy in Iraq has always resulted in increased misery, suffering and death for Iraqis, and there is no reason to think today's occupation will bring anything different to the past historical record.
Quit skewering around it.
December 1, 2007 - 17:57 ET by bretzysdudeQuit skewering around it. You just wanted to nitpick on everything. That's it; end of story.
So...
November 30, 2007 - 02:57 ET by Sua Sponte 75when are you going to lead the charge, pack up and leave?
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
I am not responsible for the mess in Iraq .
November 30, 2007 - 13:41 ET by professor truthI was always opposed to having a war in Iraq. Those persons who were responsible for the Iraq war should be the ones to go and clean up the mess.
Saddam is responsible for
November 30, 2007 - 13:51 ET by bassndudeSaddam is responsible for the mess in Iraq. Had he simply done as the UN and US had said, he would still be there, killing and raping at his whim. As it is, he is with Mohammad in hell.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bass, we had Saddam contained
November 30, 2007 - 13:57 ET by professor truthwith inspections. It would have been much cheaper to contain him with inspections, where he was essentially toothless. The war has opened up a new can of worms, and has hurt the country badly, in my opinion and the majority of Americans.
Yeah, those inspections
November 30, 2007 - 14:15 ET by MassConservYeah, those inspections were really working. Did you forget the part where he kept kicking out the UN weapons inspectors? He half-heartedly let them back into the country on the eve of the war hoping his show of “good faith” would buy him some more time. Of course, then there was the little part about the missing pages of the inventory of destroyed WMD his country was required to provide to the UN and the, “Aw shucks. We lost the key.” routine for certain doors they didn’t want to let the inspectors into.
Yep, those inspections worked wonders to contain him. We should have just kept doing that. </sarcasm>
no WMD's turned up in the inspections.
November 30, 2007 - 15:49 ET by professor truthColin Powell stated in 2001 that Saddam was contained. Permanent inspections would have been a much better action.
You’re kidding, right?
November 30, 2007 - 16:02 ET by MassConservYou’re responding to post where I just pointed out that he kept kicking the inspectors out of the country, wouldn’t allow them unfettered access to areas they wanted to inspect when they WERE there and refused to provide the documentation showing the destruction of WMD’s he was known to have and you’re telling me no WMD’s turned up and permanent inspections would have worked.
That's rich.
the inspectors were forced to leave prior to the
November 30, 2007 - 16:07 ET by professor truthinvasion. Saddam had complied with inspections. hans Blix was doing the inspections and was forced to leave because of the US invasion. Another poster asked me to show a direct cause-effect relationship between the Iraq war and world terrorism. The simplest answer is to note the number of terrorist attacks in Iraq occurring AFTER we invaded and the number of terror attacks directed against US troops using IEd's and other devices INCREASED after the invasion. This is the simplest demonstration of a cause-effect relationship between the Iraq war and increased terrorism. It's very hard to find info into specific motives of other terrorists but the number of Iraqi suicide bombers increased after we invadede Iraq. This is a clear example of a cause=effect relationship between the Iraq war and increased terrorism.
“the inspectors were forced to leave…”
November 30, 2007 - 16:16 ET by MassConservRight, just before the invasion the inspectors were forced to leave so they didn’t get hurt.
Um… recall any OTHER times when Saddam kicked them out because he didn’t want them snooping around any more and he figured since Clinton was in office he could get away with it?
Do you seriously not remember any of that? Or does that just not fit your agenda?
Try 1998 :
November 30, 2007 - 16:40 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveTry 1998 : http://www.iht.com/articles/1998/12/22/gulf.t_0.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/latest_news/238991.stm
But then, the lefties seem to have a collective and chronic short-term memory.
"There are millions of people in Iraq who have sacrificed in the hope that the United States will finish its work here. We should never forget that." -- Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, Commander U.S. III Corps
Thanks for the backup, MG
November 30, 2007 - 16:44 ET by MassConservI hate doing research for links, especially for something so obvious and recent.
And you're right, the memory is controlled by the agenda.
nothing in either article stated that Saddam
December 1, 2007 - 02:42 ET by professor truthkicked out the inspectors. This is revised history, according to my source, FAIR.org, a left wing media watchdog.
2 true statements by Bush: "This is an interesting group, the haves,...and the have mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base". "Our enemies are resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking up ways to harm us,.....and neither do we!"
UN Inspectors
December 1, 2007 - 03:18 ET by mastersofdeceitWhat Disarmament Means
UNSCR 687 and related resolutions 707, 715, and1051 stipulate that Iraq must provide full, final and complete disclosure of
all aspects of its nuclear, chemical, biological, and long-range missile weapons
programs; allow unconditional inspection access by international monitors; cease
any attempt to conceal, move, or destroy any material or equipment related to
these programs; and cooperate with UN monitoring of relevant Iraqi facilities
and trade activities.
What Iraq Has Done
" When these resolutions were passed, it was expected
that compliance would require no more than 90 days. Instead, nine years later,
sanctions remain in place because Iraq has decided to..(3) give UN inspectors fraudulent declarations to mask weapons
and equipment that are still hidden."
"Iraq began playing hide-and-seek
with UN inspectors in 1991. In December 1998, Saddam stopped all cooperation
with the UN, refusing to let any weapons inspectors into the country."
"In July 1998, Iraq seized
from the hands of UNSCOM inspectors an Iraqi Air Force document indicating that
Iraq had misrepresented the expenditure of over 6,000 bombs which may have contained
over 700 tons of chemical agent. Iraq continues to refuse to provide this document
to the UN."
"At the request of the
UNSC, Brazilian Ambassador Amorim led a review...His 7 April 1999 report affirmed that future work "should be based on the full implementation....and called for Iraq to provide
UNSCOM and IAEA inspectors with all the rights called for by UNSC resolutions
687, 707, and 1051." Rather than do so, Saddam has refused to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq."
" Since December 1998,
Saddam Hussein has prevented UN weapons inspectors from even entering Iraq. We
do not know for sure what he is doing under the roofs of the weapons factories
they routinely monitored. So, in addition to the weapons he has worked so hard
to hide since 1991, Saddam may well have his experts making chemical and biological
weapons, and pursuing nuclear weapon designs."
PS-Hans Blix was never 100% satisfied.
MOD, but there were ongoing inspections up to the time of the
December 1, 2007 - 04:07 ET by professor truthinvasion. What imminent threat gave Bush autority to attack Iraq? Those UN resolutions don't give authority to attack. The UN charter is very specific regarding the circumstances where one country can legally invade another. Israel has also been in violation of UN sanctions but they are not attacked and could not be attacked legally under the UN Charter. The WMD case was a fraud, according to Scott Ritter, ex UN weapons inspector and a marine vet. There was lots of evidence suggesting Saddam no longer had weapons or they had degraded. Inspections turned up nothing.
Multi-death from chemicals. Arrogance has won. (h/t, Slayer)
December 2, 2007 - 04:05 ET by UnsaneCare to mention something else you left out on Scott Ritter? Also, his being a UN weapons inspector and a Marine vet does not immunize him from scrutiny. (I find it amusing you fall back on those qualifications, yet that tactic doesn't seem to apply to those who disagree with you in the slightest. Contradictions collapse.)
Chemical weapons, if you knew anything about them (and now I call in your chemistry credentials into question), take a whole hell of a LONG time to degrade. Don't believe me? Farmers in France as late as the 1990s (and this may STILL be going on) are known to develop mustard blisters from plowing old WWI era battlefields. Some degradation. The effects of nuclear weapons are actually shorter lived, what with Strontium-90 going through one half life in 30 years, and Iodine-131 in a month.
If they just degraded on their own, then why did the United States take its inventory of chemical weapons to the middle of the Pacific for incineration? Bear in mind that most of those chemicals were manufactured in the 1950s.
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
Here is some info about the WMD's:
December 2, 2007 - 14:38 ET by professor truthExcerpts from the book,"Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks:
The Bush administration offered three basic rationales for the US intervention in Iraq: the threat it believed was osed by Saddam's WMD's; the supposed nexus it saw between Saddam Hussein's government and transnational terrorism; and the need to liberate an oppressed people.(pps374-5)
In January, 2004, David Kay, as he stepped down from his post as head of the Iraqi Survey Group, the US government intelligence organization created to hunt for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, announced that he had concluded that Saddam Hussein had destroyed his weapons stockpiles in the 1990's, but had bluffed about still having them...........to maintain an image of power. "Everyone was wrong," Kay said. President Bush was sked about this by Tim Russert on Meet the Press on February 8, 2004.
Russert:" The night you took the country to war, March17th, you said this:"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime contunues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised ."
Bush:"right."
Russert: That apparently is not the case."
Bush:"correct"
Russert:"How do you respond to critics who say that you brought the nation to war under false pretenses?
Bush:"............I expected to find the weapons..........I based my decision on the best intelligence possible..........gathered over the years..........intelligence that not only our analysts thought was valid but analysts from other countries thought was valid. And I made a decision based upon that intelligence in the context of the war against terror.........we were attacked........every threat had to be reanalyzed.........looked at. ...........we looked at the intelligence.........we remembered the fact that he had used weapons......he had had weapons. ........he was paying for suicide bombers. ......the fact he was funding terrorist groups. ......he was a dangerous man..........
Russert:nothing more important.
Bush:..........I expected there to be stockpiles.........But David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons........when David Kay .....says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories....where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. ..........They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out. ...............But David Kay did report.......that Saddam had the capacity to make weapons. .....Saddam........was a dangerous man in the dangerous part of the world. I made the decision to go to the United Nations..........their data.....unaccounted for stockpiles.........I believe it is essential....when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It's too late before they become imminent......so that's why I made the decision I made.(Fiasco,pps375-6)
(Fiasco, pps376-378):"Despite Bush's theories.....the negative returns would continue to pour in. In October, 2004, Charles Duelfer, who succeeded Kay as head of the ISG, produced....final findings.....no such arsenal........in a 1000page report. Saddam had indeed eliminated his weapons in the early 1990's, but had tried to preserve the intellectual and physical ability to restart the weapons programs at some point. Duelfer.......found no ......evidence of an effort to buy uranium from other countries .....he testified to the senate that, as some analysts had suspected, the aluminum tubes Iraq was buying,which the Bush administration had made central to the argument that Iraq was developing a nuclear capability, were for....conventional rockets."......the United States government asserted that Saddam.... had reconstituted his nuclear weapons programs, had biological weapons and mobile biological weapons production facilities and was producing chemical weapons', the Robb-Silberman commission noted....."And not one bit of it could be confirmed when the war was over."
...in 2005, the CIA issued an internal report.....amounted to a major correction of its previous conclusions on chemical weapons, Titled "Iraq:No largescale Chemical Warfare Efforts since Early 1990's" .....concluded "Iraq probably did not pursue chemical warfare efforts after 1991."
Thank you ever so much, Perf Twaddle
December 2, 2007 - 14:46 ET by BlondeFor another cut & paste job, from the illustrious Perfesser Twaddle.
Still paddling that handmade kayak, I see. What'd you make it out of, chickenwire?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blaaaaan-D, back for more ridicule and
December 2, 2007 - 15:00 ET by professor truthabuse....son, ......like the Monty Python character.....in their Search for the Holy Grail Movie.....getting all his limbs chopped off....and yelling for his attacker to come back and fight........even as he has no limbs left......still trying to attack me????........Blaaaaaahn-D? No arguments(no limbs) but still on the attack, eh, Blaaaaaahn-D???
Remember advice from the grandmaster to the novice: Always have fun and NEVER get angry? This is Professor Truth's words of advice for you, Blaaaaaaahn-D!
Loved your vid, Perv. Twaddle
December 2, 2007 - 15:04 ET by BlondeAdvice from the novice, huh? Gee thanks.
How's that chickenwire kayak today?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blaahn-d, pinky the cat is more of a critical thinker
December 2, 2007 - 15:14 ET by professor truththan you........pinky clearly shows what war crimes are and how the Bush administration has acted in a way that makes them war criminals.....too difficult to follow Pinky's thoughts, Blaaaahn-D?
Thanks, Perv Twaddle
December 2, 2007 - 15:20 ET by BlondeComing from you that's quite the compliment. You, as a flea on a gnat's arse....a kitty, even one named "pinkie" is rather fearsome, yes?
So, if you would, kindly enumerate the crimes for which President Bush has been indicted...or cite the articles of impeachment which Congress has proferred.
And kindly spare me the imaginary crimes you've brewed up in that fever-swamp reality of yours.
I'm waiting, Perfessor.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blaaaahn-D, I guess in your world, unindicted=
December 2, 2007 - 17:06 ET by professor truthnot a criminal, even when the evidence is right in front of you.
Blaaaaahn-D, it's hard to indict Don Corleone when the lawyer in charge protects the DON. The criminal president was protected by a criminal atty general who helped try to justify torture like waterboarding. Think on it sonny.
Blaaaaan-d, not a cut-n-paste from Fiasco,
December 2, 2007 - 16:06 ET by professor truthI typed and edited parts from the book!.......Son, I guess you made another false assertion, ......expected from you......are those brain concussion injuries.......
clouding your thinking, son?....Just a thought, Blaaaaahn-D!
Perv twaddle...
December 2, 2007 - 16:19 ET by BlondeYep, just another cut & paste job from you, perv. Not a real thought of your own in that fever swamp brain. Keep shilling, sock puppet.
And I'm so glad it amuses you to call me son...talk about reading deficient. You just proved it, yet again, ROTFLMAO.
Ta ta. Must run, but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you, knowing what an attention whore you are and all that.
We need a better class of troll, here.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blaaaaahn-D, you are improving your
December 2, 2007 - 17:18 ET by professor truthposts. Still no arguments of any substance and the same words used on me, but now you're having fun with it. You learned, Blaaaaan-d.
Savor the moment, all fledglings leave their nest at some time in their life, Blaaaaaahn-d. Too bad you can't attack the substance given, huh,.....Blaaaaahn-d. ...Much better to attack......smear.......and smear again......the bringer of bad news for your rightwing dogma......eh, Blaaaaaahn-d. Bet you believe in a real virgin Mary,........eh, Blaaaaaahn-d. Got that rational thinking thing about it, huh.......Blaaaaaahn-d. But , you are improving, Blaaaaaahn-d. There's some hope for you yet. Keep on blogging, and always have fun. OK, Blaaaaaahn-D???
Prof T......You gotta get over this WMD thingie
December 2, 2007 - 15:12 ET by JayTeeBoy, you gotta get your head in the Game here...Bush WAS elected for 8 years, WMD's are no longer an issue, and Bush did get 53% of the vote last election, and you need to get yourself about 6 or 7 years forward here.
Satelllite photo's right before we invaded Iraq showed some Big 18 wheeler Wagon Trains crossing over into Syria from Iraq, and you need to ask yourself about what you think were in all those Truckloads...and then ask yourself why Israel recently bombed Syria and WHAT they bombed, but more than anything else you need to GIVE UP on "Criminal" anything as far as George Bush is concerned....No criminal violations were ever pursued, No impeachment, nothing, nada for Bush/Criminal.
AND, if this current Congress hasn't been able prove anything Criminal for Bush or Rove, It ain't gonna happen. So get your head outta tha sand and lets talk current events....not events as you would like to have seen them unfold in 2003.
And by the way, due to Term limits Bush isn't running in 2008.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
JT, regarding the WMD's, here is a response
December 2, 2007 - 15:33 ET by professor truthgiven in Thomas Rick's book, Fiasco(pps 377-8): "Lt. Cdr. Richard Riggs, who had served as the tactical action officer aboard a Navy ship that fired Tomahawk cruise missiles in the opening salvo of the war, said that the WMD situation was forcing him to reexamine his role. "Lacking the evidence that Iraq had possessed WMD,.....in an article in Proceedings, the professional magazine for Navy officers,"I have begun to question our motivations....I am asking, not only as a subordinate to a superior seeking justification for our course of action, but as a US citizen holding my elected officials responsible for my country's leadership: Where are the weapons of mass destruction?"
Meanwhile, no solid evidence of a nexus between Iraq and Islamic extremist terrorists, such as al Qaeda, surfaced either. In June 2004, the bipartisan 9-11 commission ..........released its report which concluded, unanimously, that while there had been contacts between al Qaeda and ....HUssein's Iraq, it had seen no evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship." Instead , by the end of 2004, the US intelligence community would conclude that the invasion had turned Iraq into a new breeding ground for a fresh generation of tougher, more professional Islamic extremist terrorists.(from Fiasco, pps377-8)
JT, as I've said, the strategy of attacking Iraq to destroy terrorists had t