Luis Posada Carriles

[Tim Gratz]

Pat wrote:

Powerful men from Texas don't fail to properly investigate the assassination of their predecessors because they're ascared third world badmen might try and hurted them.

Now, now, Pat, remember the Cuban missile crisis was only thirteen months before. LBJ had ever right to be concerned that if public pressure forced him to invade Cuba it might result in a nuclear exchange with millions of innocent Americans killed. It was not an unreasonable concern on his part.

And you know what? Had he been able to obtain JFK's counsel from the grave, if you will, I suspect JFK would have told him the same thing: it is not worth the sacrifice of millions of Americans to avenge my death. Better my killers go free than risk that possibility.

Stupid liberals. Barry would have told the Russkies to hand over Fidel to American justice or he would lob one into the men's room in the Kremlin. But that's just the way he was.

Kidding aside, early on, there was sufficient reason to suspect Cuban involvement that LBJ did not want to open that Pandora's box. Which is why the CIA and FBI in Mexico City were forced to close down their investigation.

I have found almost every one of your arguments (even those with which I disagreed) to be logical and articulate, and many have even influenced my thinking. But the statement quoted above does not fall into that category. Fidel may have been a "third world badman" but he was more than that. He was the client of a powerful state armed with nuclear weapons and apparently adequate delivery systems. LBJ did not (necessarily) fear Castro but he certainly had reason to fear Castro's benefactor.

[John Simkin]

This is why LBJ was able to use the CIA to cover-up the assassination of JFK. It is why Bush used the CIA to provide him with false information on Iraq.

John, not only must we "rise above partisan politics" we must, as historians and researchers, get our facts straight.  Bush "used" the CIA?  The CIA provided similar information to Clinton who also stated, repeatedly, that Hussein had WMD.  It is not like the CIA first discovered them in the Bush Administration.

You really have not grasped the point I am making. In fact, I can see that your support for the Republican Party is making it impossible for you to think logically about any topic we discuss on the Forum.

I am not a supporter of Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party. I live in the UK. I am not involved in the Republican-Democratic dogfight. In fact, I am not the supporter of any politician or political party. I am a historian who looks at the evidence and tries to use it to obtain the truth. If you are going to do that you cannot also be a cheerleader of any political grouping, left or right.

It is true the CIA told Clinton that Iraq had WMD. It appears Clinton believed the CIA reports. However, he was shrewder than Bush and commissioned a report into what the likely consequences of an invasion of Iraq.

The report suggested three things:

(1) The US would easily defeat the Iraq government. However, it would find it very difficult to leave Iraq as it would be impossible to set-up a secure pro-American government. In other words, it would be impossible for Clinton to develop an exit strategy.

(2) An invasion of Iraq would result in increased instability in the Middle East. This would include a dramatic increase in the rise in Muslim Fundamentalism. This was seen to be against the long-term interests of the US.

(3) An invasion of Iraq would have international repercussions. This was difficult to calculate but might include Iran invading Iraq at the same time US forces entered the country. Another possibility was that China and Russia might use the opportunity to invade neighbouring countries.

As a result of this report Clinton rejected the idea of invading Iraq. He was wise to do so. The first two points have come true. The third did not as other countries showed great restraint in the way they reacted to the illegal action of the US.

You still have not replied to my point about Uzbekistan. Would it have something to do with the fact that President Islam Abduganievich Karimov first came to power as First Secretary of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan (1989). After the collapse of the Soviet Union he became the president of what he called Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic.

Although you refuse to believe anything a member of the Communist Party ever says, George Bush is willing to provide millions of dollars to keep this one in power. Can you explain that Tim?

[Tim Gratz]

John, I do not think the second point has come to pass, yet anyway.

Hussein certainly had a record of using WMD even against his own people. You now appear to concede that it was not the Bush Administration that manufactured the spectre that Hussein still had WMD that he could use against the West. You agree that Clinton had the same reports and acted on them. But, based on the conclusions of the report you cite, Clinton refused to act against Hussein.

Bush, however, did chose to act.

Uh, John. . . are we forgetting about an event that happened between the time that Clinton chose to ignore the reports of Hussein's WMD and Bush's decision to remove them? That may have been a factor in Bush's decision-making.

Whether or not Hussein was linked to 9-11, or harbored any of the conspirators in his country, 9-11 changed the face of the world. The US saw dramatically what could happen if WMD were used against it. Bush concluded the US could not take the risk that Iraq had WMD. He believed the CIA reports, just as Clinton did.

And even if Hussein did not have WMD, the Iraqui people are better off with the evil Hussein and his evil sons in prison.

Did Bush (by which I mean his people, of course) make some mistakes in designing the war in Iraq? Absolutely. Did Churchill make mistakes in World War II? Yes. Does the fact that mistakes were made mean that WWII was wrong? Obviously, no. Same answer with respect to the mistakes Bush made in Iraq. Did LBJ make mistakes in Vietnam? Yes. Does that mean the War in Vietnam was wrong? Not necessarily. It is easy to be a "Monday morning quarterback" after we lost the War in Vietnam. Would there be a different judgment of LBJ in the history books had we won the War in Vietnam? We all know the answer to that, don't we? Same as with a political campaign. Bush won, so Kark Rove is a political genius. Had Bush, a War President lost, Rove would be seen in a different light.

So, John, I think the answer to our current debate over Iraq is "Time will tell". If democracy can be achieved in Iraq, and it results in the stabilization of the Middle East, history will say Bush was right. If your predictions turn out to be correct, then the judgment of history will be different.

A point I made before about the war in Iraq is that you ought to be hoping that history will prove Bush correct (as much as you now doubt that will be the case) since I assume you are for democracy, even for Arabs, and you are for female emancipation even for Muslim women.

And it is hardly a partisan (or a conservative) argument to support the war in Iraq. Sen Kerry supported the war (of course, he also opposed it) as did Tony Blair.

And, John, you know I posted in a reply to Pat (on a different thread) at least two important parts of Bush's policies with which I disagree. I think it is easier to find my record of opposing Bush on something than you ever supporting him on any of his programs or policies.

* * * * * * * *

Now, am I ducking your question about Uzbekistan because I do not have a good answer to it? Frankly, yes. Does the fact that I do not have a good answer to your question mean that none exists? Not necessarily.

[Tim Gratz]

I also suggest that the above discussion belongs in a different part of this Forum.

Perhaps Luis Posada Carriles belongs to the assassination debate. If so, my point was that Pres Bush should rightly be applauded for facing political heat from his supporters for having the guy arrested. And that fact remains regardless of whether Bush was right about the War in Iraq, or any of his other policies, for that matter.

And you know, if we are going to discuss contemporary Cuban politics, I think a broader, more important discussion might be "What should the US do if Fidel ever dies?" So far neither the CIA, the Mafia or God has accomplished his demise. I assume, however, that regardless of the existence or non-existence of a deity, Fidel will sooner or later bite the dust, raising the question I proposed above.

Of course, the big question where I am from is: What will an open Cuba do to the Key West tourism industry (what grubby little minds to focus on THAT issue!).

[Guest Stephen Turner]

-Tim wrote "whether or not Hussien was linked to 9-11...

Tim with all respect HE WAS NOT LINKED TO 9-11 IN ANY WAY,SHAPE, OR FORM.

you really must concede this point, its the saudi's you want.

[Tim Gratz]

Stephen, I do suspect you are correct about the Saudis. But you MIGHT be wrong about Hussein. He hated the U.S. and certainly would have been willing to offer sanctuary to our enemies. Another reason a democratic Iraq is in our best interest.

[Tim Gratz]

I wrote:

Now, am I ducking your question about Uzbekistan because I do not have a good answer to it? Frankly, yes. Does the fact that I do not have a good answer to your question mean that none exists? Not necessarily.

I have one possible answer, perhaps not completely satisfactory. Unless the West is going to invade and depose every government it believes to be corrupt, we presumably need to change policies through persuasion. Arguably, persuasion works best if we maintain a dialogue with the country.

Does that mean I support lifting restrictions on Cuba? I dunno the answer to that one yet!

[Pat Speer]

Back to the main point, however:  I disagree with you that anyone would have believed that the Russians had killed Fidel.  Had Fidel ever died mysteriously, everyone would look at either the CIA or anti-Castro Cubans.  I do not necessarily assert that the plot to kill Castro and blame Russians was ever contemplated by someone, but if it was, it was a crazy idea that would never have worked.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What you're forgetting Tim, is that the purpose of these kind of lies is not to fool the world, but to fool the American people, and as long as there are good Americans out there willing to support mass murder and U.S. supported terrorism in the name of anti-communism or liberty, these lies will be successful. Your holding out for the non-existent WMD's is PROOF. For some reason, you give Bush the benefit of the doubt that you would never give JFK or Clinton.

After the lowest point in recent American history, last November's election, I kind of blocked a lot of the Bush bs out of my head, but if you do your research and stop watching Fox Lies Network you'll find that the CIA was very cautious on the reports of WMD's, and the Bush Administration, Cheney in particular, wouldn't take no for an answer. They created their own back door channel of idealogues with no intelligence background to advise Cheney on what intelligence the CIA OUGHT to be providing, and they rode Tenet until he provided it. I believe Wolfowitz and Perle were two of the cheerleaders. Anyhow, they then used this tainted intelligence to pressure Powell into lying at the U.N. (Why do you think he quit?) By all accounts they honestly believed they would find the WMD's once they got there. When they couldn't find them, however, only THEN did they double-check and find that almost all of the reports of WMD's came from Chalabi's intelligence network, and that he fabricated these to encourage us to invade. I believe there is evidence suggesting Perle coached him on how to fool us, telling him which intelligence services throughout Europe he could tell his lies to and have them report these same stories to us as confirming information. Anyhow, Perle skipped out the same week the special prosecutor was hired to investigate the Plame case. Coincidence? You really need to read Richard Clarke's book and Suskind's book on Paul O'Neil; that way you could get the real deal from good Republicans and good Americans who only want to tell the truth.

Sorry to be picking on you. It's just that the Discovery Channel whitewash of the magic bullet put me in a REALLY BAD MOOD.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Stephen, I do suspect you are correct about the Saudis.  But you MIGHT be wrong about Hussein.  He hated the U.S. and certainly would have been willing to offer sanctuary to our enemies.  Another reason a democratic Iraq is in our best interest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim ol Mate.

I "MIGHT" be wrong about a lot of things,but to make a serious case for hussein

being wholy or partly responsible for 9-11 requires EVIDENCE. Of which you have

none.Or if you do, you need to tell GWB, cause he's at a loss. Steve.

[Ron Ecker]

On Iraqi involvement in 9/11, I always wondered about Salman Pak, the training site outside of Baghdad where terrorist trainees practiced hijacking airliners before 9/11. I wondered why the significance of that was assiduously ignored by the CIA and the Cheney regime in trying to build a case to invade Iraq. The activity at Salman Pak was publicly known (to speak very loosely, since the mainstream media ignored it too, since the government wanted it ignored). Yet even in his Iraq speech to the UN, Powell ignored Salman Pak. I've never figured it out.

In any case, there was apparently Iraqi involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing, based on all the evidence that the FBI ignored. The Cheney regime couldn't use that evidence, of course, because it had to protect the FBI. But it could be argued that one reason the U.S. invaded Iraq was revenge for OKC. But I suspect even moreso that it was revenge for Saddam trying to kill W's daddy.

But those were side benefits. The overriding reason for invading Iraq was spelled out, well before 9/11, in the agenda of the PNAC, an almost unknown group that took over the U.S. government with the 2000 election, to the surprise of everyone including probably George W. Bush.

Ron

[Mark Knight]

I'm still trying to determine just exactly WHAT "imminent threat to US national security" that Iraq posed. Iraq had neither WMD's nor the means to deliver them to the US (the effective range of SCUD missiles being somewhat limited). So, absent any REAL threat to US security, the administration falls back on the explanation, "Well, Saddam was a really bad man and he needed to be removed." So I guess Kim Jung Il, then, is NOT a really bad man? After all, the North Koreans DO have nukes, and they've threatened to use them against America. But I guess that's NOT as big a threat to US national security as some third-rate NON-nuclear power who has oil wells.

Actually, I understand that the reason the US doesn't dare move against North Korea is that the North Korean government is merely a puppet of the Chinese...and with Chinese ground troops alone outnumbering the entire population of the US, they could simply outlast the US in a war of attrition, let alone any confrontation that included lobbing a few nukes at one another. China has ALREADY proved that, by ever-so-slightly flexing its muscle, it can wreak economic terrorism on the rest of the world, as it has recently done in the steel and oil industries...so the US can keep on making its "pre-emptive strikes" on the little guys, while China continues to hold them hostage. Despite North Korean nukes and continued belligerence, it's probably best to let sleeping dragons lie.

Meanwhile, such actions expose the true hypocrisy of the current US administration's foreign policy.

So...please enlighten me about Saddam and how 9/11 made him a true threat to US security.

[Drew Williams]

Who on here believes the actual 9-11 Commission Report?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Who on here believes the actual 9-11 Commission Report?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Drew, & others

I refer you to "Political conspiracies, Postner & 9-11," For an in depth discussion.

Steve.

[John Simkin]

I wrote:

Now, am I ducking your question about Uzbekistan because I do not have a good answer to it? Frankly, yes. Does the fact that I do not have a good answer to your question mean that none exists? Not necessarily.

I have one possible answer, perhaps not completely satisfactory.  Unless the West is going to invade and depose every government it believes to be corrupt, we presumably need to change policies through persuasion.  Arguably, persuasion works best if we maintain a dialogue with the country.

This is indeed an argument for not invading every tyranny. My question was why George Bush continue to provide money to maintain the tyranny of President Islam Abduganievich Karimov of Uzbekistan. I cannot see how it fits into his crusade to bring freedom and democracy to the world. By your answers I suspect you can’t either. However, because of your blind passion for Bush you cannot afford to be honest with yourself about it.

[Tim Gratz]

Re the foregoing post, see my previous post where I wrote:

Now, am I ducking your question about Uzbekistan because I do not have a good answer to it? Frankly, yes

What is "dishonest" about this admission?

Edited May 24, 2005 by Tim Gratz