Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK and George Bush


John Simkin

Recommended Posts

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

Tim and Gerry,

You really should read these letters of resignation carefully, especially Kiesling's:

"Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, supersticious empire thrashing towards self destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

With respect, you guys need to realise that things have changed since the fifties and sixties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[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

_________________________

*********************************************************

Deleted by Hanoi Jane.

Edited by Terry Mauro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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

My Gerry, but you do go on, don't you? What's got your knickers in a twist this time? Did Rumsfeld and the Pentagon brass undertake a war without consulting you first? Imagine the nerve....

Just who is it you're so pissed at, Gerry? The Canadians? The Dutch? Bush? Ray-Gun? Clinton? The UN? Given the foam-at-the-mouth literary scattergunning you've demonstrated here, it's impossible to guess just what's got you so rabid.

Whatever Saddam Hussein was is precisely what your nation made him. You want credit for having deposed the monster? Fine. But unless and until you're prepared to also assume credit for having built him in the first place, you're on parade as an amnesiac hypocrite.

You can cite all the legal niceties regarding Presidential powers that you like, Gerry, but I doubt you'll find a legal protocol that allows a President to lie to his own people about the reasons that he's prepared to squander the lives of their sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, fathers and mothers. Given your own military experience, and the camaraderie you enjoyed with your brothers in arms, one would think you'd appreciate it when civilians insist that their lives be snuffed and their blood spilled only as a very last recourse, but apparently that's not the case. Apparently allowing UN inspectors to determine at no cost in lives that there were no WMD is just no substitute for the brutal carnage your nation has unleashed.

And you can chest-beat all you want to about your nation's noble military tradition of knocking off pissant despots your nation created. It doesn't alter history.

In the two great wars, Canadians were among the first to do the heavy lifting, whilst your great military power cooled its heels on the sidelines and waited to see which way the wind would blow in the final result, before making a commitment. Korea was such a magnificent victory that the enemy is still there and you're still quaking in your boots over what nuke capability they may possess. Your Bay Of Pigs example of military expertise was also a wonderous thing to behold, wasn't it? Forty-six years of Fidel, and you're still left with your pud in your hand and egg on face. Thirty years ago your nation fled Saigon with its tail firmly between its legs, and Iraq will prove no different. One only hopes that you'll see the light without expending your nation's wealth, and sacrificing another 60,000 of your best and brightest before that light finally clicks on. So, please, spare us the speeches about other countries' military deficiencies. You've got nothing to brag about, dear boy. [Not that it seems to stop you, mind... Typical of Yanquis, though, innit?]

As for your recurring vulgarisms directed at the female members of this forum, it is loathesome and beneath contempt. You got a problem with me? Fine. Direct your wholly impotent potshots at me, old man. Leave the ladies out of it. Or is sexually insulting and degrading the women who happen to disagree with your worldview what you've been reduced to? This is behaviour that wouldn't be tolerated from a five year old. Shape up, for God's sake.

What a pathetic display of hubris, arrogance and ignorance.

_________________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I eagerly await Gerry's reply to Mr. Dunne.

Dunne is done. He repeats the lie that Bush lied. Even Eric Alterman won't buy that one.

No one of the Bush bashers here has accepted my challenge to post a reference to any single document that Bush saw that opined that Iraq had no WMD. Not a single document to that effect.

And it is absolutely ridiculous to claim the Dems were only allowed to see the documents that Bush allowed them to see. That assertion is horsefeathers (I'd put it stronger but this is a "G" rated forum (except for Gerry who has a "special dispensation").

Robert may be right about one thing: that the US helped create the monster that Hussein was. Does that mean we had no right to remove him? To the contrary, I think it imposed a responsibility on the US to remove the monster from Iraq.

Every single American life lost in Iraq is regrettable. But one must consider the tens of thousands of innocent Iraquis Hussein killed oft using WMD. His atrocities would have continued had the US not effected regime change when it did.

Re Canada's lack of participation, if I was a Canadian I would be hanging my head in shame!

Finally, I have to add this:

Robert wrote:

Apparently allowing UN inspectors to determine at no cost in lives that there were no WMD is just no substitute for the brutal carnage your nation has unleashed.

Robert blames the US for the "brutal carnage" of the terrorists? A bit derriere backwards, if you ask me, to blame the savages for attacking the peacekeepers! Typical left-wing hogwash.

BTW, I just read in USA Today that Ramsey Clark will be joining Hussein's defense team. Perhaps Robert will be contributing to the Hussein defense fund!

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well put!! By Wesley Pruden, editor of "The Washington Times":

"Ironically, or maybe there's no irony at all, the Islamic nations of the Middle East are not nearly as squeamish as the girlie men of the West in recognizing the true nature of the beast at the village gate... The delicate sentiments of frightened Western girlie men have no currency this morning in Amman or other capitals of Arabia, where there is fear of how the radical Islamists will try to erase the indifference that thrived when al-Qa'ida seemed preoccupied only with the infidels of Israel and Christendom... The warfare, now spilling over in unexpected places, has a little to do with poverty, joblessness and maybe even ennui, but everything to do with the Islamist campaign to replace modern civilization with something bad from the Dark Ages."

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well put!! By Wesley Pruden, editor of "The Washington Times":

"Ironically, or maybe there's no irony at all, the Islamic nations of the Middle East are not nearly as squeamish as the girlie men of the West in recognizing the true nature of the beast at the village gate... The delicate sentiments of frightened Western girlie men have no currency this morning in Amman or other capitals of Arabia, where there is fear of how the radical Islamists will try to erase the indifference that thrived when al-Qa'ida seemed preoccupied only with the infidels of Israel and Christendom... The warfare, now spilling over in unexpected places, has a little to do with poverty, joblessness and maybe even ennui, but everything to do with the Islamist campaign to replace modern civilization with something bad from the Dark Ages."

Tim,

Finally, you've revealed your agenda.That piece is just a crude argument in support of a holy war, probably to fulfil a biblical prophesy. Like Islam, Christianity has a small minority of hardline fundamentalists advocating holy war. That's you, Tim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Mark, the "holy war" is being fought by the Muslim fundamentalists.

Although Christianity certainly had its problems, it was through Christianity that the concept of a religiously tolerant liberal democracy came to being.

GB II and I advocate political and religious freedom throughout the world.

What do you advocate: the Muslim fundamentalist subjugation of women?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tim Gratz' date='Nov 28 2005, 12:08 PM' post='46672']

I eagerly await Gerry's reply to Mr. Dunne.

Dunne is done. He repeats the lie that Bush lied.

Not on your life. Those who can't see that W and company LIED are greatly lacking in discernment. [color=#FFCC33]

Robert may be right about one thing: that the US helped create the monster that Hussein was.

A concession to the truth here? You're slipping, some logic is setting in.

Re Canada's lack of participation, if I was a Canadian I would be hanging my head in shame!

As a former Canadian ( for my first 18 years)- I view my country with great pride!!! Both during Vietnam, and Iraq.

Robert blames the US for the "brutal carnage" of the terrorists? A bit derriere backwards, if you ask me, to blame the savages for attacking the peacekeepers!

"PEACEKEEPERS"????? Hardly. That would be funny Tim, if it weren't so sad and such a distortion of the truth. YOu really need to travel outside of this country and see how the US is preceived. "Peacekeepers" is not a word you'd hear. Try imperialistic war mongers!!

Dawn

Edited by Dawn Meredith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you believe Eric Alterman lacks discernment? (If I recall right, Alterman even wrote a recent book about Presidents who lie.) Found the reference: "When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and Its Consequences" (Hardcover) This liberal pundit studied presidential lies and he states it is clear that GB II did not lie about Iraq!

And Dawn, you can call Bush a xxxx all you want, go ahead, stick out your tongue and chant: "xxxx, xxxx, pants on fire!" (Your rants are that puerile.)

I still await some cite to any document given to GB II that claimed Hussein had no WMD.

Come on, now, Dawn, surely you would not call the President a xxxx unless you had the documents. Or would you?

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Although Christianity certainly had its problems, it was through Christianity that the concept of a religiously tolerant liberal democracy came to being.

What do you advocate: the Muslim fundamentalist subjugation of women?

Tim this is SO wrong I am at a loss to know where to start. Lets get this out of the way first, are you now saying that a LIBERAL democracy is a good thing? secondly where do you get the notion that Christianity brought democracy about, this was achieved by the working class, though their unions, every foward step that has been taken in this regard was though relentless pressure being brought to bare on the rich and powerful, and their payed lacky's in Government. If it had been left to the clergy we would still be tugging our collective forelocks to the parasite class. Tim, with your views on abortion you are in a poor position to chastise anyone on the rights of Women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I eagerly await Gerry's reply to Mr. Dunne.

Dunne is done. He repeats the lie that Bush lied. Even Eric Alterman won't buy that one.

No one of the Bush bashers here has accepted my challenge to post a reference to any single document that Bush saw that opined that Iraq had no WMD. Not a single document to that effect.

And it is absolutely ridiculous to claim the Dems were only allowed to see the documents that Bush allowed them to see. That assertion is horsefeathers (I'd put it stronger but this is a "G" rated forum (except for Gerry who has a "special dispensation").

Robert may be right about one thing: that the US helped create the monster that Hussein was. Does that mean we had no right to remove him? To the contrary, I think it imposed a responsibility on the US to remove the monster from Iraq.

Every single American life lost in Iraq is regrettable. But one must consider the tens of thousands of innocent Iraquis Hussein killed oft using WMD. His atrocities would have continued had the US not effected regime change when it did.

Re Canada's lack of participation, if I was a Canadian I would be hanging my head in shame!

Finally, I have to add this:

Robert wrote:

Apparently allowing UN inspectors to determine at no cost in lives that there were no WMD is just no substitute for the brutal carnage your nation has unleashed.

Robert blames the US for the "brutal carnage" of the terrorists? A bit derriere backwards, if you ask me, to blame the savages for attacking the peacekeepers! Typical left-wing hogwash.

BTW, I just read in USA Today that Ramsey Clark will be joining Hussein's defense team. Perhaps Robert will be contributing to the Hussein defense fund!

Since you feel so strongly about America's global role of removing harsh dictatorships, I assume you advocate immediate American intervention in various countries, like North Korea and China for example. You could also help with America's current recruitment shortage by donning the khaki yourself, of course.

If there was no oil in Iraq, the Bush group wouldn't be there and no amount of sanctimonious crocodile tears about the suppression of the Iraqi people by Saddam Hussein can change that indisputable fact. If Bush's motives are as pure as you asking us to believe, then why aren't they spending billions removing dictatorships and enforcing "democracy" on dozens of counties, non-oil producing ones, all around the globe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Mark, the "holy war" is being fought by the Muslim fundamentalists.

Although Christianity certainly had its problems, it was through Christianity that the concept of a religiously tolerant liberal democracy came to being.

GB II and I advocate political and religious freedom throughout the world.

What do you advocate: the Muslim fundamentalist subjugation of women?

So Tim, if I argue against Christian fundamentalism, this makes me a supporter of Muslim fundamentalism? Is that your reasoning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I eagerly await Gerry's reply to Mr. Dunne.

Dunne is done. He repeats the lie that Bush lied. Even Eric Alterman won't buy that one.

Well, no need for an investigation then, is there? After all, if Eric Alterman gives Bush a pass, then we all should.

No one of the Bush bashers here has accepted my challenge to post a reference to any single document that Bush saw that opined that Iraq had no WMD. Not a single document to that effect.

In the absence of a true and thorough investigation, just how are we to locate such documents, pray tell? You keep insisting that we should have at hand the very papers that the Bush administration is accused of hiding from us. If he wouldn't share them with Colin Powell, what makes you think we would have them? Tim, even you are not the prat this type of illogic makes you out to be.

Call your friend Karl Rove and demand the investigation that will disclose one of two things: the referenced CIA reports indicating doubts about the existence of WMD in Iraq, or that those documents never existed. Then we'll know the truth. But the Bushies aren't very keen on investigations, are they? Didn't want the 9-1-1 investigation, you may recall. Now they don't want an investigation into the manipulation of pre-war intelligence, but there will be one.

And it is absolutely ridiculous to claim the Dems were only allowed to see the documents that Bush allowed them to see. That assertion is horsefeathers (I'd put it stronger but this is a "G" rated forum (except for Gerry who has a "special dispensation").

We'll see soon enough.

Robert may be right about one thing: that the US helped create the monster that Hussein was. Does that mean we had no right to remove him? To the contrary, I think it imposed a responsibility on the US to remove the monster from Iraq.

"May be right?" For a chap who extols the virtues of reading history, you don't know much about it, do you? There's no "may" about it. Without CIA intervention, there would have been no Ba'ath party, and no Hussein. Without the bio-chemical materials supplied by your country [and others], he would not have mutated into the monster he became. The two biggest, cheapest and most effective weapons you had to defang the bastard were Blix and El Baradai. Had they been allowed to finish their UN mandated mission, we would have known what we know today, without the loss of tens of thousands of lives. However, had that occurred, Bush and Blair would have had no pretext for war, which is exactly why they disallowed Blix and El Baradai from completing their mission.

Every single American life lost in Iraq is regrettable. But one must consider the tens of thousands of innocent Iraquis Hussein killed oft using WMD. His atrocities would have continued had the US not effected regime change when it did.

His atrocities would never have transpired had your nation not installed him, and then armed him with the very weaponry you now think to have been so nasty.

Re Canada's lack of participation, if I was a Canadian I would be hanging my head in shame!

You have every reason to hang your head in shame, whereas Canadians have no innocent blood on their hands. It's a funny world in which you, Gerry and your ilk reside: those who murder innocents are "brave" and those who refuse to do so should be "ashamed." Those who throw their fellow-countrymen into harm's way "support the troops," whereas those who try to shield the troops from harm unless there is no other recourse "don't support the troops." Rather bass-ackwards, innit?

Finally, I have to add this:

Robert wrote:

Apparently allowing UN inspectors to determine at no cost in lives that there were no WMD is just no substitute for the brutal carnage your nation has unleashed.

Robert blames the US for the "brutal carnage" of the terrorists? A bit derriere backwards, if you ask me, to blame the savages for attacking the peacekeepers! Typical left-wing hogwash.

More Alice in Wonderland. Peacekeepers wear blue berets and operate under the aegis of the UN. Had Blix and El Baradai been allowed to complete their mission, we might have seen blue berets in Iraq. Instead, we see blood red. Aside from the civilians your misguided adventurism has already slain, you've managed to turn Iraq into a petri dish of terrorist extremism. The Pottery Barn rule applies, ex-counsellor. You broke it, you own it. This is all your doing, and it'll be your undoing.

BTW, I just read in USA Today that Ramsey Clark will be joining Hussein's defense team. Perhaps Robert will be contributing to the Hussein defense fund!

He's your country's creation, Tim, not mine. I have nothing to defend or be ashamed of, whereas you.... you cannot possibly live long enough to atone for what your nation has wrought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now just listen to Charles-Dunne's logic:

He asserts that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq.

Presumably that means Bush had intelligence information claiming there were no WMD in Iraq.

But when asked to produce evidence Bush had any such intelligence information, Mr. Charles-Dunne admits he has none. He says Bush is hiding it. Well, apparently no one else who ever saw (or participatedin the preparation of) such intelligence information is talking about it. Why not? Because it does not exist.

It is simply the product of his overly-active imagination. Or perhaps he dreamed of the missing "smoking gun" intelligence reports.

What is clear is that Mr. Charles-Dunne has branded Bush a xxxx without a scintilla of evidence.

And he has the temerity to assert that American soldiers in Iraq are "murdering" innocents! This is outrageous. It is the Iraqi terrorists who murder innocents (including American soldiers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...