Wednesday, February 22, 2006
1) It's not an "Arab company", it's a company controlled by a foreign power. No sane human wants their country's ports to be controlled by another country, no matter how friendly. It's simple common sense. 2) The country in question has ties to the Taliban and to the 9/11 hijackers. You remember them, right? 3) Bush and John Snow have financial interests in the deal. So please, stop buying into the BushCo bilge that "the deal's critics are all racists". Thank you. Love, Phoenix Woman
You are aware that the John Snow story intimates that Saddam had WMDs and they were moved to Syria, right? I thought you might like to know.
One suspects that when Bush really goes to the mat on something it's due to his families financial interest in it. Fairness, opposition to bigotry? Give me a break. It's the money, first, second and always.
He would sell them the materials to attack the United States, in fact, he probably already has.
"the John Snow story intimates that Saddam had WMDs and they were moved to Syria, right"
A right wing newspaper says that Daimler Chrysler "may" have moved "the WMDs" to Syria. Which WMDs? The nonexistent ones about which Colin Powell said:
"He (Saddam) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." --Secretary of State Colin Powell, in Cairo, Feb. 24, 2001
The ones about which The Duelfer Report concluded never existed.
So, in the mind of the opposite party, linking an article which makes one assertion known to be false constitutes endorsement of that assertion. If the opposite party weren't a complete hypocrite, he would be saying to himself, "If WMDs exist, as the article alleges, then the president and John Snow are traitors."
Whereas in the mind of thinking people, what the link shows is that the right wing is starting to understand that they put in power a man who puts his Arab friends and his own pocket ahead of the American people.
But not to worry. Yesterday was yesterday, and today Bush was never for the deal. Ever.
For people who read and analyze news, there's no problem linking a righty newspaper with the understanding that it will inevitably contains a certain amount of baloney. The baloney about WMDs was debunked by Bush's own man. No WMDs. No manufacturing capability. Lots of hopes and wishes and might-have-beens, but bottom line is they were never there.
I've read it. Have you?
You will recall that former UNSCOMer Scott Ritter -- no fan of Bill Clinton -- has said repeatedly that chemical weapons of the sort that Donald Rumsfeld helped give to Saddam back in the 1980s have at best a shelf life of around five years, and usually far less. "Harmless goo" was the phrase Ritter used to describe any of the Reagan-Rumsfeld chemical weapons stocks that might have somehow managed to avoid being used up during the Iran-Iraq or on the Kurds living in Iraq. (Yes, Saddam "gassed his own people", and with Ronald Reagan's full tacit approval.)
They only launch wars costing hundreds of billions or perhaps even trillions of dollars on something more substantial.
The only thing that would have justified the Iraq War as essential to the national interest would have been nuclear weapons. We were, before we invaded, absolutely certain that Iraq did not have even refined uranium.
Which is what Colin Powell was saying on February 24, 2001.
The big fat crucial undeniable difference between Bill Clinton's belief that Iraq had WMD and Bush's assertion that Iraq had WMD is that Bill Clinton decided it wasn't a big enough risk to launch a war over it.
Oh, and that during the Bush Administration, UNSCOM established beyond a reasonable doubt that there weren't any WMD, but Bush acted as if there were anyway.
More blogs about politics.