JFK and George Bush

[Ron Ecker]

Ironically, while most American government leaders don't even have passports, we are told that the 9/11 terrorists who attacked America carried their passports with them to commit suicide. An intact passport was even found near the WTC ruins that the government tells us was carried by one of the vaporized hijackers. And I'll bet Tim believes that too.

[Mark Stapleton]

It's probably true that Saddam poked his tongue out at America at a time when America was in deep shock over 9/11 and not in the mood to be ridiculed. While Hussien's provocations were a foolish error for which he and his murderous cohorts paid dearly, he prompted the Bush Administration into a much larger and more costly one.

How naive was the Administration to think it could establish an American style democracy in a country with such a vastly different culture to their own. They were convinced that the swift defeat of Saddam would result in a wave of business opportunities in a nation whose grateful people would embrace the US as their liberators from oppression. American construction, engineering, manufacturing, banking and finance companies were lining up to begin operations in this oil rich honeypot. The sudden appearance of suicide bombers abrupty ended any such plans. From this point the whole plan unravelled. The occupation has resulted in massive numbers of Iraqis willing to volunteer as suicide bombers. Companies can't set up operations in a country where they are the target of suicide bombers because the staff just won't go. How could Bush and his backers have failed to anticipate such a problem? Kennedy would have foreseen it because, unlike Bush, he understood the cultural differences which exist between countries. He travelled extensively before becoming President. Bush didn't. He served his country in foreign theatres of war. Bush disappeared. He read widely and was empathic towards nations which were emerging from colonialism. Bush didn't and isn't. Kennedy would never have considered such a stupid and dangerous foreign adventure.

Another dubious dividend is that terrorists have now discovered the effectiveness of suicide bombers in driving off American business interests not just from their own country but in all foreign countries where these interests operate. They are now threatening US interests in Europe and elsewhere. If this materialises, against whom does Bush intend to retaliate? Venezuela perhaps?

Edited November 25, 2005 by Mark Stapleton

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert, I don't know exactly what you do for a living, but have you ever considered a career in tv journalism? The cable news stations here could REALLY use a guy like you!!!

Sorry, Dawn, but I have the face for radio, not TV. Besides, I don't have ALL the qualifications for success in the current US TV game: while I may be a middle-aged white male, I'm not a cranky, barking-mad screamer with a persecution complex. Then again, perhaps by the time Gerry Hemming is through with me, I'll have those qualifications, too.

[Mark Stapleton]

Robert, I don't know exactly what you do for a living, but have you ever considered a career in tv journalism? The cable news stations here could REALLY use a guy like you!!!

Sorry, Dawn, but I have the face for radio, not TV. Besides, I don't have ALL the qualifications for success in the current US TV game: while I may be a middle-aged white male, I'm not a cranky, barking-mad screamer with a persecution complex. Then again, perhaps by the time Gerry Hemming is through with me, I'll have those qualifications, too.

LOL. Robert, you also don't possess the most important characteristic necessary for the job--you must be a loyal apologist for your corporate masters.

[Lynne Foster]

John wrote:

The people are beginning to realize they were lied to by Bush.

There he goes again.

All US governmennt leaders, including Congress, had access to the same intelligence information Bush had. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the Democrat leaders in Congress were equally convinced that Iraq had WMD.

The fault, it seems, was with the intelligence agencies and specifically the CIA, which was being run by a Clinton appointee.

WRONG ! THE FAULT IS WITH CHENEY, WHO CHERRY PICKS INTELLIGENCE.

YOU ARE INDEED A CHARACTER ASSASSIN, AT THE VERY LEAST.

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

Tim, you recently stated on one of your post's that "I sleep better when a Republican is in the White House." Care to expound on that a little?

Sure would. Clinton let Ael Quaeda grow while he was busy not having sex with Monica Lewinsky, and then attempting to prevent his impeachment. The result of his dereliction of duty was the disaster of 9-11.

With Bush at the helm, there have been no other terrorist attacks in the United States for over four years. That little fact says something.

You may say what you want about the War in Iraq but I think a point can be made that it has concentrated the terrorist networks in the Mideast rather than in the United States.

And under Reagan-Bush I Communism fell and with it the threat on a superpower nuclear exchange. The prospect of a terrorist exploding a nuclear device in an American city is too horrenduous to contemplate, but many thought that a world-wide nuclear war might spell the death of mankind.

The following wars started in Democrat administrations: World War I; World War II; the Korean War; and the War in Vietnam.

Yes, indeed, I sleep better with a Republican as Commander in Chief.

Edited November 26, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Owen Parsons]

Thats great, Tim. Bill's having sex with Monica led to Al Qaeda growing and 9/11 (which happened under BUSH'S WATCH).

[John Simkin]

Thats great, Tim. Bill's having sex with Monica led to Al Qaeda growing and 9/11 (which happened under BUSH'S WATCH).

Was not having sex though. After all, that is what's important to Tim. Bit of a theme really with Tim's posts. Nothing worse than a middle-aged man with sexual hangups. Maybe Bush and Blair would not need to beat their chests so much if they were getting more sex.

[Ron Ecker]

Maybe Bush and Blair would not need to beat their chests so much if they were getting more sex.

I suspect that Bush gets more than just sage political advice from his "turd blossom" Rove.

[Ron Ecker]

Published on Thursday, February 27, 2003 by the New York Times

U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation

by John Brady Kiesling

The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has “oderint dum metuant” really become our motto?

I urge you to listen to America’s friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0227-13.htm

Published on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 by CommonDreams.org

Letter of Resignation by John H. Brown, Foreign Service Officer

To: Secretary of State Colin Powell

March 10, 2003

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am joining my colleague John Brady Kiesling in submitting my resignation from the Foreign Service (effective immediately) because I cannot in good conscience support President Bush's war plans against Iraq.

The president has failed:

--To explain clearly why our brave men and women in uniform should be ready to sacrifice their lives in a war on Iraq at this time;

--To lay out the full ramifications of this war, including the extent of innocent civilian casualties;

--To specify the economic costs of the war for ordinary Americans;

--To clarify how the war would help rid the world of terror;

--To take international public opinion against the war into serious consideration.

Throughout the globe the United States is becoming associated with the unjustified use of force. The president's disregard for views in other nations, borne out by his neglect of public diplomacy, is giving birth to an anti-American century.

I joined the Foreign Service because I love our country. Respectfully, Mr. Secretary, I am now bringing this calling to a close, with a heavy heart but for the same reason that I embraced it.

Sincerely,

John H. Brown

Foreign Service Officer

John H. Brown, a Princeton PhD, joined the Foreign Service in 1981 and has served in London, Prague, Krakow, Kiev, Belgrade and, most recently, Moscow.

A senior member of the Foreign Service since 1997, he has focused his diplomatic work on press and cultural affairs. Under a State Department program, he has, up to now, been an Associate at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University, where he was assigned in August 2001.

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print....s03/0312-11.htm

Edited November 26, 2005 by Ron Ecker

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

The people are beginning to realize they were lied to by Bush.

Most people know who Eric Alterman is and that he is no FOG.

In the current issue of Newsweek Alterman writes:

First, let's blow the whistle on the recent face-masking at the line of scrimmage. President Bush did not lie about why he took the country to war. Like President Clinton, he genuinely believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; after all, American troops found much more WMD in Iraq in 1991 than prewar intelligence reports had indicated. So it was logical to think the same thing would happen again.

John and others, you may not like George Bush (an understatement if ever there was one) but at this point it is certainly intellectually dishonest to claim that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq.

I notice not one member has met my challenge to demonstrate that Bush had any intelligence analysis which argued there were no WMD in Iraq.

[Tim Gratz]

Here are what some leading Democrats said about whether Iraq had WMD:

John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. ... I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that."

Need I say more?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Here are what some leading Democrats said about whether Iraq had WMD:

John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. ... I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that."

Need I say more?

Actually, yes you do. You gotta lotta 'splainin' to do Lucy.

The Democrats knew only what they'd been told, just like everyone else in the country. Had Blix and El Baradai been allowed to complete their task, think of the untold lives spared from the current carnage, including the 2,100 men and women in your country's uniform who have so pointlessly been sacrificed for lies. For some reason, Bush and Blair became sputtering, hysterical shrews at the very notion that UN inspectors be given sufficient time to complete that task. "But.. but... we know Saddam can blow us up in 45 minutes!!! The sky is falling, the sky is falling." You may recall both the US and UK insisted that they knew the locations of those WMD being sought by the UN, but wouldn't tell Blix and El Baradai. Neither country would disclose, because then Saddam would simply move them from those locations. Lies, lies, and more lies, as we've found out to our eternal nausea.

As Paul O'Neill, Richard Clark and the Downing Street memos have already made perfectly clear, invading Iraq was on the agenda from the outset, and intelligence was both manufactured and misinterpreted to achieve that predetermined goal. Yet, you claim there were no dissenting voices raised at the time. Another lie. Dissenting voices were excluded [Colin Powell] and drowned out [moderate UN proposals] by the shrill insistence upon war as the only recourse.

As I've already pointed out, Canada declined to join the stampede toward slaughter. While I cannot assure you on what basis it made that prescient and principled stand, despite the most undiplomatic arm-twisting from you Ambassador to Ottawa, it is clear that had Canada swallowed the "faulty intelligence" bruited by your administration, Canadian troops would currently be in Baghdad, just as they are in Khandahar. Presumably, our government knew something that disinclined it to participate. For God's sake, if Canadians knew this was a fraud, shouldn't you have known it too?

Your mea culpa won't wash, ex-counsellor. Every time you point to the "faulty intelligence" trafficked by the Bush administration then, you only display your own faulty intelligence now.

You seem to feel that being incredibly stupid is an excuse for what Bush has wrought. "He didn't lie. He was just stupid." Where I come from, that's grounds for removal from office and punishment, not an acquittal. 9-1-1 happened on his watch, and by thereafter divining the future from the tea leaves and chicken viscera supplied by the likes of Chalabi, Bush screwed the pooch. Now you seek to mitigate that guilt by claiming that nobody else briefed by the Bush White House knew anything more than it did. Gee, what a revelation. I guess everything's OK, then. Bush is great after all.

"Saddam has WMD." Nope.

"Saddam's working on nukes." Nope.

"Saddam's sponsoring Al Quaeda." Nope.

"Saddam was behind 9-1-1." Nope.

"We will be greeted as liberators." Nope.

"The insurgency is in its last throes." Nope.

"Why do people around the globe hate us so?" One can't imagine...

I shall continue to remind you of these facts for the next 20 years, which is about how long it will take you to disengage from the mess you've made.

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='Robert Charles-Dunne' date='Nov 27 2005, 05:07 PM' post='46606']

[

Need I say more?

Actually, yes you do. You gotta lotta 'splainin' to do Lucy.

The Democrats knew only what they'd been told, just like everyone else in the country. Had Blix and El Baradai been allowed to complete their task, think of the untold lives spared from the current carnage, including the 2,100 men and women in your country's uniform who have so pointlessly been sacrificed for lies. For some reason, Bush and Blair became sputtering, hysterical shrews at the very notion that UN inspectors be given sufficient time to complete that task. "But.. but... we know Saddam can blow us up in 45 minutes!!! The sky is falling, the sky is falling." You may recall both the US and UK insisted that they knew the locations of those WMD being sought by the UN, but wouldn't tell Blix and El Baradai. Neither country would disclose, because then Saddam would simply move them from those locations. Lies, lies, and more lies, as we've found out to our eternal nausea.

As Paul O'Neill, Richard Clark and the Downing Street memos have already made perfectly clear, invading Iraq was on the agenda from the outset, and intelligence was both manufactured and misinterpreted to achieve that predetermined goal. Yet, you claim there were no dissenting voices raised at the time. Another lie. Dissenting voices were excluded [Colin Powell] and drowned out [moderate UN proposals] by the shrill insistence upon war as the only recourse.

As I've already pointed out, Canada declined to join the stampede toward slaughter. While I cannot assure you on what basis it made that prescient and principled stand, despite the most undiplomatic arm-twisting from you Ambassador to Ottawa, it is clear that had Canada swallowed the "faulty intelligence" bruited by your administration, Canadian troops would currently be in Baghdad, just as they are in Khandahar. Presumably, our government knew something that disinclined it to participate. For God's sake, if Canadians knew this was a fraud, shouldn't you have known it too?

Your mea culpa won't wash, ex-counsellor. Every time you point to the "faulty intelligence" trafficked by the Bush administration then, you only display your own faulty intelligence now.

You seem to feel that being incredibly stupid is an excuse for what Bush has wrought. "He didn't lie. He was just stupid." Where I come from, that's grounds for removal from office and punishment, not an acquittal. 9-1-1 happened on his watch, and by thereafter divining the future from the tea leaves and chicken viscera supplied by the likes of Chalabi, Bush screwed the pooch. Now you seek to mitigate that guilt by claiming that nobody else briefed by the Bush White House knew anything more than it did. Gee, what a revelation. I guess everything's OK, then. Bush is great after all.

"Saddam has WMD." Nope.

"Saddam's working on nukes." Nope.

"Saddam's sponsoring Al Quaeda." Nope.

"Saddam was behind 9-1-1." Nope.

"We will be greeted as liberators." Nope.

"The insurgency is in its last throes." Nope.

"Why do people around the globe hate us so?" One can't imagine...

I shall continue to remind you of these facts for the next 20 years, which is about how long it will take you to disengage from the mess you've made.

Robert:

Please get neo-con Bill O' Reilly's email address and send him the news. Perhaps if you can't convince Tim of these "self evident truths" -(in my opinion)- you can enlighten W's biggest cheer leader in this evil war.

Or at least try.

Dawn

[Gerry Hemming]

[quote name='Robert Charles-Dunne' date='Nov 27 2005, 05:07 PM' post='46606']

[

Need I say more?

Actually, yes you do. You gotta lotta 'splainin' to do Lucy.

The Democrats knew only what they'd been told, just like everyone else in the country. Had Blix and El Baradai been allowed to complete their task, think of the untold lives spared from the current carnage, including the 2,100 men and women in your country's uniform who have so pointlessly been sacrificed for lies. For some reason, Bush and Blair became sputtering, hysterical shrews at the very notion that UN inspectors be given sufficient time to complete that task. "But.. but... we know Saddam can blow us up in 45 minutes!!! The sky is falling, the sky is falling." You may recall both the US and UK insisted that they knew the locations of those WMD being sought by the UN, but wouldn't tell Blix and El Baradai. Neither country would disclose, because then Saddam would simply move them from those locations. Lies, lies, and more lies, as we've found out to our eternal nausea.

As Paul O'Neill, Richard Clark and the Downing Street memos have already made perfectly clear, invading Iraq was on the agenda from the outset, and intelligence was both manufactured and misinterpreted to achieve that predetermined goal. Yet, you claim there were no dissenting voices raised at the time. Another lie. Dissenting voices were excluded [Colin Powell] and drowned out [moderate UN proposals] by the shrill insistence upon war as the only recourse.

As I've already pointed out, Canada declined to join the stampede toward slaughter. While I cannot assure you on what basis it made that prescient and principled stand, despite the most undiplomatic arm-twisting from you Ambassador to Ottawa, it is clear that had Canada swallowed the "faulty intelligence" bruited by your administration, Canadian troops would currently be in Baghdad, just as they are in Khandahar. Presumably, our government knew something that disinclined it to participate. For God's sake, if Canadians knew this was a fraud, shouldn't you have known it too?

Your mea culpa won't wash, ex-counsellor. Every time you point to the "faulty intelligence" trafficked by the Bush administration then, you only display your own faulty intelligence now.

You seem to feel that being incredibly stupid is an excuse for what Bush has wrought. "He didn't lie. He was just stupid." Where I come from, that's grounds for removal from office and punishment, not an acquittal. 9-1-1 happened on his watch, and by thereafter divining the future from the tea leaves and chicken viscera supplied by the likes of Chalabi, Bush screwed the pooch. Now you seek to mitigate that guilt by claiming that nobody else briefed by the Bush White House knew anything more than it did. Gee, what a revelation. I guess everything's OK, then. Bush is great after all.

"Saddam has WMD." Nope.

"Saddam's working on nukes." Nope.

"Saddam's sponsoring Al Quaeda." Nope.

"Saddam was behind 9-1-1." Nope.

"We will be greeted as liberators." Nope.

"The insurgency is in its last throes." Nope.

"Why do people around the globe hate us so?" One can't imagine...

I shall continue to remind you of these facts for the next 20 years, which is about how long it will take you to disengage from the mess you've made.

Robert:

Please get neo-con Bill O' Reilly's email address and send him the news. Perhaps if you can't convince Tim of these "self evident truths" -(in my opinion)- you can enlighten W's biggest cheer leader in this evil war.

Or at least try.

Dawn

-----------------------------------

Aaah !! What fond memories are brought to mind. The "Commie-Symps" and their "fellow-touristers" [in Havana 1959-60] cheering us on -- to go out and "liberate-the-toiling-masses" from ALL of those nasty-ass right-wing oligarch/police states, which were then "ruled" by serial mass murderers such as:

"Little Joe" Mobutu [Mobutu Sese Seko]; Somoza; Ydigoras Fuentes; "Papa Doc"; Stroesner; et al. !!

They even volunteered their own sons to join with us !! Seems that they had personal engagements elsewhere, otherwise they were "willing and able" to support-us-troops from some distant locale.

As for those "brave" Canuck troops -- I remember them from the Congo, and because they [and others] failed miserably -- we had to jump in with Belgian paratroopers to save the Stanleyville hostages from the cannibal "Simbas" [Ops/Dragon Rouge, Noir, & Vert] whilst the "brave canucks" hid out in the whorehouses of Leopoldville.

Show me ONE Canuck Op since Korea, which will remove them from the same "Halls of Infamy" -- which are now topped by the Dutch UN troopers, who coward-ass stood-by and permitted the Screbernica massacre of 3000+??!!

Now we hear nothing but sniveling & whining that the U.S. "dared" to topple just another right-wing [baathist] serial murdering regime. maybe the "ex-counselor" might remind some of the scribblers who have NOW aligned themselves with the oldest enemies of the civilized world, that:

[A] The "War Powers Act" does NOT require the President to even inform either the Congress, or the citizenry that: It might well "take military action" against ANY foreign nation, whether friend or foe. It is ONLY covert type actions which are covered by current law, and even there -- a limited few Congressional leaders [from select committees] are required to be briefed, and moreover. More importantly, that involves a "window-of-time" which covers: An either "after" or "before" briefing reference such operations !!;

The U.S. Constitution and Laws [repeatedly affirmed by SCOTUS] mandate that: Where it is ONLY an "armistice" which has been signed, this fails to carry the same weight as a compact, sponson, or a even a formal [and Senate confirmed] "Treaty".

Iraq remained a "lawful belligeent" even under the provisions of the extant UN charter, along with the 1977 Geneva Protocols. And moreover, this was the exact case with both Germany and Japan until the1952 "Final" peace treaties !!

That is why many of my fellow Marines still wear the "red, white, and black" occupation ribbon/medal on their blouses. A select few have the "Berlin Airlift Airplane" device attached thereto; and demonstrating that they were amongst those who risked their lives -- and saw militar/civilian brothers & sisters die -- saving the starving & huddled masses of our former enemies.

[C] Once again, I will repeat that: Saddam Hussein's butchers repeatedly violated both the UN sanctions and the armistice -- and not just by attacking the flyers who protected the Kurds and Shia folks in both of the "No Fly Zones"; and,

[D] Once again, while I am more than disappointed with "shrub" and his fellow bible-thumpers. However, it was the liberal/left-wing Pols who forced us out of The Levant ["purse-strings-wise-threats"] when "Ronny Ray-Gun" pissed his pants after the USMC B.L.T. barracks suicide BVIED bombing. And who gave us "Desert One", and Mogadishu -- whilst Monica hummed a tune on his flute ?? Oooops !! I forgot about his "Heroic" lanuching of a few million dollar$ worth of Tomahawk cruise missiles at a cluster of sheep and goat sheds.

Man, I bet that messed up "Ussama-ain't-been-Laid-in-how-long" and his al-Quaada ["Toilet"] troopers sex live for at least two weeks !!

Go back to your squatting upon thy throne, whilst your [knee-pad wearing] punk-rocker "3-Stooges" pay homage to their big Sister -- "Da Queen of the Village idiots"!!

Chairs,

GPH

_________________________