JFK and George Bush

[John Simkin]

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

What an interesting world you must live in, Tim. Killing civilians for no apparent purpose passes muster with you, but to suggest that it is wrong shows one's "temerity" and is deemed "outrageous." Your "outrage" is as misplaced as your patriotism.

Killing civilians for no apparent purpose? An incredible assertion, sir.

If there is any other member of this Forum that believes that American soldiers are killing Iraqi civilians for no apparent reason let them rise in defense of Mr. Charles-Dunne!!

Two men appeared at the Old Bailey and were charged under the Official Secrets Act. David Keogh, a former communications officer at the Cabinet Office is charged with making a “damaging disclosure of a document relating to international relations without lawful authority”. This document was passed to Leo O’Connor, a researcher for the Labour MP, Tony Clarke.

The document is so secret that it has not even been disclosed to the men’s lawyers. However, the document has appeared on the internet. The reason why David Keogh thought that the British public should know about this document is that it contains details of a message sent by George Bush to Tony Blair suggesting that the allies should bomb the Arabic TV station, al-Jazeera. Such an attack would have been a war crime and would have resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians. The document also contains a dialogue between Bush and Blair about the tactics being used in Falluja. This is of course another example of war crimes being committed by the US military.

[Dawn Meredith]

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

The documentation has been overwhelming and you know it. But have YOU read it? Richard Clark et al? But I long ago noticed that for people on the far right, documentation does little or nothing to change their thinking. They would rather believe their good "Christian" president than all the documentation to the contrary. As to what ever book you quoted, no I don't have it. Nor do I have your 7 or so hours a day to read. I just finished a long 3 day trial late yesterday and am just getting back to the forum. But I have read on this subject ex- councellor and have watched the news and it all points to one thing: the administration fudged the facts to go into Iraq. But NOTHING will ever convince you that this administration is one of fraud, and will manufacture "evidence" to invade any country it feels is in need of a "preemptive strike".

God save the planet from W and his band of .......(there are a number of words I could insert here, but I am not going to ARGUE with you TIm. ) The counrty is finally waking up to the horrendous error made on 11/2/04 when this guy was "elected". Last time I checked his believability and popularity were in the 30's.

Dawn

[Guest Stephen Turner]

The only problem here Dawn, is how much more pain could this out of control administration inflict on us all, before Nov 2008.

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='Tim Gratz' date='Nov 30 2005, 05:59 AM' post='46840']

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

What an interesting world you must live in, Tim. Killing civilians for no apparent purpose passes muster with you, but to suggest that it is wrong shows one's "temerity" and is deemed "outrageous." Your "outrage" is as misplaced as your patriotism.

Killing civilians for no apparent purpose? An incredible assertion, sir.

If there is any other member of this Forum that believes that American soldiers are killing Iraqi civilians for no apparent reason let them rise in defense of Mr. Charles-Dunne!!

Are you KIDDING Tim? I daresay just about everyone on this forum- save you- holds the same view as Robert on the "killing of Iraqi civillians for no apparant reason". (Oh and Mr Purvis, and G Hemming, of course).

Pray tell what on earth did the Iraqi civilians ever do to US to deserve having their country bombed to shreds???

Oh ya, I forgot, we go to war for the cause of peace. We bomb innocents so we can teach them to be "democratic".

You probably still believe Tricky Dick was "not a crook" too.

Dawn

[John Simkin]

Wadah Khanfar is the director general of al-Jazeera. Here is his response to the George Bush secret document story:

The Guardian (Thursday December 1, 2005)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1654481,00.html

I have lost count of the number of accusations levelled against al-Jazeera and the incidents of harassment to which it has been subjected since it was founded in 1996. It was rumoured to have been set up by Israel's Mossad intelligence agency with the purpose of improving Israel's standing in the Arab world. It has also been accused of being a CIA mouthpiece designed to disseminate western culture among the Arabs. Some have suggested that it is part of an international conspiracy to break up the Arab world by means of stirring up discord and creating problems for the Arab regimes. Others decided it was a front for Osama bin Laden and the Taliban; or funded by Saddam Hussein. And, at the same time, it has been condemned by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and bitterly criticised by Donald Rumsfeld.

We know that the intelligence services of some Arab regimes have resorted to spreading rumours about al-Jazeera in an effort to deter Arab viewers from watching it. These are the same regimes that recalled ambassadors from Qatar in protest at its hosting al-Jazeera, and the same regimes that closed the station's offices in their countries and detained its correspondents.

Until 2001, al-Jazeera was perceived in a positive way in the west as a whole and the US in particular. It was seen as the single most important force for reform and democracy across the Arab region. Harassment by Arab regimes was considered proof of its professionalism and testimony to its objectivity. Indeed, al-Jazeera had from its foundation the slogan of "the opinion and the other opinion" and refused to favour one side over another at the expense of truth. As a result, in record time al-Jazeera became the Arabs' number one channel, and last year it was voted the fifth most influential brand name in the world, after Starbucks, Ikea, Apple and Google.

In the aftermath of the September 11 events, al-Jazeera found itself on the frontline of media coverage in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The greater its reputation became globally, the more frustrated some western governments became. The "other opinion" this time did not seem to suit international decision-makers. Criticisms started pouring in and created an opportunity for some Arab regimes to incite the US administration against al-Jazeera; some have even gone as far as demanding the closure of al-Jazeera as a precondition for full cooperation with the US.

Iraq has been a crucial turning point not only in al-Jazeera's work but for media coverage as a whole; 74 journalists, crew and their translators have lost their lives since the start of the war - two of them belonging to al-Jazeera. As far as harassment goes, al-Jazeera has incurred the biggest share. It has been accused by the US of inciting violence through the broadcast of al-Qaida tapes and of playing footage of beheadings. Our viewers know that no beheadings whatsoever were shown on our screens. And we follow strict professional rules in handling the tapes of Bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders; we only play short, carefully selected and clearly newsworthy clips, and they are followed by analytical discussion, frequently including American commentators.

Al-Jazeera's offices in Kabul and Baghdad were bombed; we were told at the time that both bombings were mistakes. We pushed for an official investigation, but thus far have received neither the findings of any investigation nor any official apology. The al-Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Hajj was arrested in Afghanistan and has for the past four years been detained in Guantánamo. We have repeatedly asked for an explanation, but none has been given to us.

We believe that all this harassment has been a worthwhile price for our professional commitment to reporting the truth. However, the story in the Daily Mirror, which published a leaked document it claimed was a transcript of a meeting in April 2004 between George Bush and Tony Blair, points to a level of threat to our very existence that had never occurred to us or to our viewers before. If it is true that Bush had indeed thought of bombing the al-Jazeera headquarters in Doha, this will undoubtedly constitute a watershed in the relationship between government authorities and the free media. I decided, in view of the great shock and bewilderment felt by many people around the world, to travel to London to look for the truth behind a press report whose reverberations across the Middle East - where reform and democracy have been promised - are far from over.

My colleagues have submitted a memorandum to 10 Downing Street, urging the British government to reveal the truth about the alleged document, and stressing that publishing the part within it relating to al-Jazeera is essential to put an end to speculation. After all, the matter concerns an institution that has never perceived itself to be an enemy of anyone. Our journalists are civilians who have gained the confidence of most Arabic-speaking viewers around the world. The failure to disclose the contents of the memo will cause a great deal of harm and will seriously undermine relations between media and government, and between the western and Arab worlds.

I brought many questions with me to London; it would seem that I shall return to Doha - where al-Jazeera is based - with even more misgivings. Officials in Britain have come up with nothing, and their silence is likely to reinforce suspicion and mistrust. This will not be the end of the road; we are taking legal advice and won't rest until we know the full truth.

However, I shall be returning to Doha with a lot of hope. The support and sympathy that I have sensed from colleagues in the British media represent the best consolation for me and my colleagues at al-Jazeera, whose viewers have seen for themselves the view of British and other western journalists that the truth should be disclosed in full. The issue does not only concern al-Jazeera; it concerns the truth for which we have withstood nine years of pressure and harassment, and for which many journalists around the world have endured all forms of intimidation; it is the truth for which Tayseer Allouni is serving a prison sentence in Spain, for which Sami Al-Hajj continues to be detained in Guantánamo and for which Tariq Ayoub died in Iraq.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Terry, you may disagree (you DO disagree!) with the war in Iraq, but that is a far, far cry from claiming that American soldiers are killing innocent civilians! Which is what Mr. Charles-Dunne asserted.

Since the US has announced that it doesn't "do body counts" [guess that practice wasn't considered a hearts and minds winner in Viet Nam, huh?], we can only rely upon best estimates to calculate the loss of civilian life during this current folly. At present, those are somewhere between 27,000 and 30,000, give or take. Now, unless you're prepared to assert that all of those who died were "insurgents," [in which case the insurgency should be in "its last throes"] there is civilian blood on your hands.

Civilian deaths are almost impossible to avoid during a war, which is one of the reasons why it must only be waged as the very last resort. You would know that, had you ever served, but I suspect you're one of the Karl Rove/Dick Cheney/Richard Perle/Paul Wolfowitz chickenhawks... overfed, hypocritical Republicans who were "too busy" to serve when their draft number came up, but have no compunction about sending others to do what they would not do themselves. How many deferments did you get, Tim? How long did you dodge the draft?

You seem incapable of understanding that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Had the US played its cards a bit differently and allowed the UN process to reach completion, we could have ascertained that Saddam was a toothless tiger with no loss of life. You seem to disregard that as unimportant, and thereby reveal yourself as callous beyond description. If you don't care about the 25-30,000 Iraqis who have perished to date, you presumably do care about the 2,100 [and counting] US war dead.

As for killing innocents "for no apparent purpose" - which was the only part a multi-thousand word post that got your attention, apparently - I suggest you disengage your Bush-worship long enough to look at the broader sweep of history. We know the "reasons" why the US went into Viet Nam - God knows we heard them often enough. But was there a "purpose" served? If so, was it worth the cost? In this current misadventure, even the "reasons" given aren't just debatable, but entirely spurious. One wonders what ultimate "purpose" will be served.

I note that you had no retort for what I posted by Sy Hersh, no contrary comments from Anne Coulter or Rush Limbaugh, and nothing further to add on whether the Bushies simpy made a "bad judgement call" on Iraq, per your prior assertions. Must have been an oversight on your part, surely.

Also, if we effected regime change in Iraq because of oil, then it is fortunate indeed for the Iraqi citizens that we removed the brutal despot terrorist Hussein because of that oil!

Saddam's been gone for two years now, pal. So, just who is it that you're fighting now? When it was "Mission Accomplished" according to your great misleader, the US body count was at 300-plus. You know, more than 1,700 US fatalities ago. Now, here we are with no end to the carnage in sight, and you have the temerity to refer to the dead, injured and displaced as "fortunate."

What would have made them "fortunate" is if you had never installed and armed Hussein with the weapons used to terrorize his own populace. What would have made them "fortunate" is if your government hadn't illegally armed both sides of the Iran-Iraq conflict. What would have made them "fortunate" is if the US had bothered to condemn Saddam's alleged crimes against his own people decades ago when he was doing it, not simply once he'd outlived his use to US plans.

A toast to Ramsey Clark, defender of the WC and Sadam Hussein! Where was Clark when Hussein was murdering tens of thousands of innocent Iraquis? Where was their legal defense? The hypocricy of liberals boggles the mind!

No, ex-counsellor, where were YOU and your crocodile tears when Saddam allegedly gassed the Kurds with chemicals supplied by YOUR country? He was surely your pal and doing your bidding then. Your sudden discovery of crimes committed decades ago is as bogus as your sudden concern for the victims. The transparently bankrupt lies used to justify one's military aggression boggle the mind.

We all know the joke about the fellow who killed his parents and then pleaded for leniency from the court because he was an orphan. You seem to represent a new twist on that old joke: you've killed the orphan's parents [and maybe the orphan, too] to protect them from the brutal clutches of Saddam. I'm sure the dead, maimed and permanently damaged will rush to thank you for that.

As Lenin once called them: useful idiots! (Not intended as a slam against any Forum members, of course)

Actually, you'll find the quote refers to those aid, abet and support agendas they don't understand. Rather like those who find no fault with the current Republican administration. [slam against any Forum members fully intended.]

Edited December 1, 2005 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Terry Mauro]

Terry, you may disagree (you DO disagree!) with the war in Iraq, but that is a far, far cry from claiming that American soldiers are killing innocent civilians! Which is what Mr. Charles-Dunne asserted.

Also, if we effected regime change in Iraq because of oil, then it is fortunate indeed for the Iraqi citizens that we removed the brutal despot terrorist Hussein because of that oil!

A toast to Ramsey Clark, defender of the WC and Sadam Hussein! Where was Clark when Hussein was murdering tens of thousands of innocent Iraquis? Where was their legal defense? The hypocricy of liberals boggles the mind!

As Lenin once called them: useful idiots! (Not intended as a slam against any Forum members, of course)

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

"Terry, you may disagree (you DO disagree!) with the war in Iraq, but that is a far, far cry from claiming that American soldiers are killing innocent civilians! Which is what Mr. Charles-Dunne asserted.

Also, if we effected regime change in Iraq because of oil, then it is fortunate indeed for the Iraqi citizens that we removed the brutal despot terrorist Hussein because of that oil!"

But, that's the truth of the matter, T.G. WE ARE KILLING INNOCENT CIVILIANS. And, we'll continue killing them because we insist on bombing, napalming, and bi-opping their lands. No one is exempt, or safe from that form of carnage. And, if Hussein had these WMD's, and the supposed ICBM capabilities to go up against the continental U.S.A., wouldn't you think they'd have been launched prior to 9/11, instead of the supposed hi-jacking of those commercial airliners to be used as missiles, instead? Hussein may have bought biologics from Germany for use in his immediate area, or under the auspices of the U.S. during our conflict with Iran, because after all, we did recruit him as an ally against the Ayatollah, remember?[Just as Ho Chi Minh had been recruited as our ally in WWII.] Therefore, the U.S. has no one but themselves to blame for whatever upstart behavior our government perceives to be coming from his regime. He's obviously not going to play the fall guy as easily as Noriega did.

[Mark Stapleton]

Terry, you may disagree (you DO disagree!) with the war in Iraq, but that is a far, far cry from claiming that American soldiers are killing innocent civilians! Which is what Mr. Charles-Dunne asserted.

Also, if we effected regime change in Iraq because of oil, then it is fortunate indeed for the Iraqi citizens that we removed the brutal despot terrorist Hussein because of that oil!

A toast to Ramsey Clark, defender of the WC and Sadam Hussein! Where was Clark when Hussein was murdering tens of thousands of innocent Iraquis? Where was their legal defense? The hypocricy of liberals boggles the mind!

As Lenin once called them: useful idiots! (Not intended as a slam against any Forum members, of course)

Tim,

American soldiers aren't there to kill innocent civilians. I believe most don't want to be there. They are there to follow orders. If innocent civilians die, responsibity lies with whoever gave the orders. Who gave the order to invade Iraq ? That's where the buck stops.

[Tim Gratz]

"I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if [American and Allied] forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country. The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this... The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead... What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory." —Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), who spent Thanksgiving with our troops in Iraq

Open query...

"Where are the John F. Kennedy Democrats who supported his 1961 Inaugural promise that America would 'pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty? Where are the old-time Democrats who believed as JFK believed that the cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission'." —A Patriot reader comment.

[John Simkin]

"Where are the John F. Kennedy Democrats who supported his 1961 Inaugural promise that America would 'pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty?

I would have thought that a lot of young Democrats have died in Iraq on behalf of the Military Industrial Complex. A more relevant point is what price are warmongers like you paying. As Robert Charles-Dunne has already pointed out, we never see hawks like you fighting in the frontline. When people like Bush had an opportunity to fight for the cause he believed in, he got help from Daddy to make sure he never saw action in Vietnam.

[Tim Gratz]

So do you also believe that JFK was speaking for the MIC during his inaugural address, John?

Sorry there are some things worth fighting for and now, at least, all of our soldiers are volunteers.

Do you think we fought World War II to make money for companies such as John McCone's?

Sure there are capitalists who make money from wars. But it is because of their business capabilities that we have been able to defeat tyrants such as Hitler--and save the posteriors of a lot of Brits while we were at it!

Had it not been for the MIC in WWII, there would be no Jews left in Europe and you would not have the right to criticize either the British or American governments, both of which would be headed by Fascists.

Edited December 3, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Carroll]

Killing civilians for no apparent purpose?... If there is any other member of this Forum that believes that American soldiers are killing Iraqi civilians for no apparent reason let them rise in defense of Mr. Charles-Dunne!!

Oh, yeah right, I forgot. We're in there to shove DEMOCRACY down their throats at all costs because it's the American way to deal with these rag heads and goat herders.

Where are the John F. Kennedy Democrats who supported his 1961 Inaugural promise that America would 'pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty?'

I would have thought that a lot of young Democrats have died in Iraq on behalf of the Military Industrial Complex. A more relevant point is what price are warmongers like you paying.

I don't need to "rise in defense of Mr. Charles-Dunne" because my own views are at least as cynical as his about the Iraq War.

In 1968, when LBJ wanted nothing more than to finally end the war before going off to his haunted retirement, Nixon's election strategy involved conspiring to undermine the Paris Peace Talks. In 1980, during the Reagan/Bush election bid, there was a backdoor deal to undermine a resolution of the Iran hostage crisis. In 2004, the Republican Senate brazenly admittedly to delaying the investigation of the White House manipulation of the intelligence leading to the war until after the election, only to have them subsequently assert once the election was over that the issue no longer had revelation - since the election was over. And of course, everyone stonewalled the Plame treason (Poppy Bush's term) to get through the election.

For four years, every American life lost in Vietnam from 1969 to 1973 under Nixon was wasted; the final settlement was not materially different than the terms available at the beginning of the four years. Even worse, the Watergate corruption and resultant weakening of the government made the later agreement unsustainable. Meaning, for all of those lives lost, we turned a stalemate into a loss. And why? Because we wanted peace with honor. I'm still waiting to hear a single non-excusatory articulation of what honor there is in what Americans did, and what they died for there. As an expression of will, it failed.

After the Republican subterfuge leading up to the election in 1980, whaddya know! We started selling them sophisticated weaponry, paying ransom for hostages, and used the mark-up on the arms sales to fund Latin American attrocities in specific violation of American law. And most of us are aware that many of the Latin American Contra activities involved the same School of the Americas thugs trained up to take out Castro, and who possibly turned on JFK.

Now this current crowd relies for its power on a constant barrage of fearmongering, wrapped in the flag. But what honor is there in using White Phosphorus against civilian populations? How is it not an illegal occupation when, by democratic standards, the majority wants us out? We relied on an agent known to lack credibility named Curveball to take out the secular strongman dictator of a country with three distinct ethnic/religious factions, never considering that democracy is the worst thing that could happen there. The majority of Iraqis support the Shiite theocracy in Iran. We're not worried that if we "cut and run" there will be chaos and civil war; we're worried that Iraq will become Iran's by osmosis.

The use of Kennedy's "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty?" is obscenely disingenuously applied to the current circumstance. I know that the death of American soldiers is a minor consideration to some, but how is it that Kennedy navigated the most dangerous era in the history of humanity without any combat troops dying? Less than two hundred military personnel died during the entire course of his presidency, including training accidents and advisors in Vietnam. And most forget the value he placed on the incarcerated Bay of Pigs Cubans, whose ransom was greatly opposed by Republicans. Manuel Artime alone cost $500,000.

The lesson from Vietnam, the so-called Powell Doctrine (how does he live with what he's done?) is that you don't go into a military conflict without overpowering force and a clear Exit Strategy, along with a tenacious avoidance of mission creep. Absent all of these requirements, with no clearly defined mission or exit strategy, every life lost contributes to worse than nothing; it contributes to diminished respect and influence for America in the civilized world and diminishes civil rights and liberties domestically. MORE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED IN IRAQ THAN FROM ALL THE TERRORISM IN HISTORY.

T.C.

Edited December 3, 2005 by Tim Carroll

[Tim Gratz]

Well there certainly were American soldiers killed during the Kennedy administration, including the Brigade members killed at the Bay of Pigs (who were fighting to obtain an American objective after all). And the commitment to Vietnam was certainly started in the Kennedy administration.

Tim, do you REALLY REALLY believe that American troops are indiscriminately killing innocent civilians in Iraq? If so, where is your proof?

[Tim Carroll]

Tim, do you REALLY REALLY believe that American troops are indiscriminately killing innocent civilians in Iraq? If so, where is your proof?

The most recent and clear-cut proof was just last week when the White Phosphorus story broke in the Italian press on Monday, was denied on by the military on Wednesday, and then admitted on Friday. There is the proof of the assertions of soldiers relating their orders to assume that anyone moving in certain areas, man, woman or child, be dealt with as a hostile combatant. It's a friggin's disaster, and a shameful episode for America. There is the torture and murder of prisoners, many of whom have committed no wrongdoing (but their children will, someday). Enemy-making is a fundamental M.O. of the MIC. That's something the current bunch does well.

T.C.

[Dawn Meredith]

Open query...

"Where are the John F. Kennedy Democrats who supported his 1961 Inaugural promise that America would 'pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty? Where are the old-time Democrats who believed as JFK believed that the cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission'." —A Patriot reader comment.

This war is not about LIBERTY, or "the cost of freedom". That is just one of the lies told to wage this war. And the American public is finally seeing this farce for what it really is, so of course they are becoming less willing to sacrifice AMerican sons to justify a war based on deception.

Dawn