Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Neocon Nuttery
See other Neocon Nuttery Articles

Title: John Bolton at CPAC: The Benefits of Nuking Chicago
Source: MotherJones
URL Source: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/200 ... n-cpac-benefits-nuking-chicago
Published: Feb 27, 2009
Author: Jonathan Stein
Post Date: 2009-02-27 10:50:03 by bush_is_a_moonie
Keywords: None
Views: 763
Comments: 46

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton believes the security of the United States is at dire risk under the Obama administration. And before a gathering of conservatives in Washington on Thursday morning, he suggested, as something of a joke, that President Barack Obama might learn a needed lesson if Chicago were destroyed by a nuclear bomb.

Appearing at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the nation's largest annual conference of conservative activists, Bolton, one of the hardest hardliners of the George W. Bush administration, spoke at length about Obama's naiveté and how various nations – Russia, North Korea, Iran – will be exploiting the new president. The most dramatic moment of his speech may have been when he cracked a joke about the nuking of Obama's hometown.

"The fact is on foreign policy I don't think President Obama thinks it's a priority," said Bolton. "He said during the campaign he thought Iran was a tiny threat. Tiny, tiny depending on how many nuclear weapons they are ultimately able to deliver on target. Its, uh, its tiny compared to the Soviet Union, but is the loss of one American city" – here Bolton shrugged his shoulders impishly – "pick one at random – Chicago – is that a tiny threat?"

Bolton wasn't the only one who thought this was funny. The room erupted in laughter and applause. Was this conservative catharsis, with rightwingers delightfully imagining the destruction of a city that represents Obama? Or perhaps they were venting vengeance with their laughter. (Bolton is no stranger to inflammatory remarks. He once infamously quipped, "There are 38 floors to the UN building in New York. If you lost 10 of them, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.")

At CPAC, the Right's most fevered beliefs about Obama live on, with speakers portraying him as a radical liberal who wants to compromise American values, hand hard-earned taxpayer dollars to the shifty poor, and, as Bolton repeatedly pointed out, weaken America's defense.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: All (#0)

More BS propaganda crap from another atheist Ashkenazim Zionist Jew.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2009-02-27   10:51:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#0) (Edited)

"He said during the campaign he thought Iran was a tiny threat. Tiny, tiny depending on how many nuclear weapons they are ultimately able to deliver on target. Its, uh, its tiny compared to the Soviet Union, but is the loss of one American city" – here Bolton shrugged his shoulders impishly – "pick one at random – Chicago – is that a tiny threat?"

Sure Johnny B, we're all shaking in our britches.

Obama was fool to think that Iran is a threat at all, tiny or not. Bolton is ten times the fool (or, more likely, ten times the liar) if he really believes that Iran will launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on the US or anybody else.

This kind of talk is sure to win points with the CPAC rubes, who came to hear that sort of crap from the GOP stars.

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2009-02-27   11:36:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#0)

Is there anyone who has less credibility in foreiogn affairs than someone whose credentials start with "Former Booosh Adminstration...."?

war  posted on  2009-02-27   11:39:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: war (#3)

Is there anyone who has less credibility in foreiogn affairs than someone whose credentials start with "Former Booosh Adminstration...."?

Bolton is the darling of the 25 Percenters.

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2009-02-27   11:40:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: war (#3)

Is there anyone who has less credibility in foreiogn affairs than someone whose credentials start with "Former Booosh Adminstration...."?

Lots. Everyone working for the muslim fake american.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-27   11:45:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: war (#3)

Is there anyone who has less credibility in foreiogn affairs than someone whose credentials start with "Former Booosh Adminstration...."?

Former Kosovo Clinton Administration ??


"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2009-02-27   11:48:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Rotara (#6) (Edited)

Former Kosovo Clinton Administration ??

They dragged us into the Kosovo conflict with half-truths, exagerrations, and outright lies, true. But at least the Clinton administration didn't try to sell the war by claiming that Serbia posed a mortal security risk to the United States, like Buffoon Bolton is doing with Iran and Syria.

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2009-02-27   11:52:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Rotara (#6)

Former Kosovo Clinton Administration

I'm agnostic about Kosovo...

Ask me about Somalia and we'll probably agree...

war  posted on  2009-02-27   12:49:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Old Friend (#5)

I don;t understand your reference.

war  posted on  2009-02-27   12:49:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: war (#9)

Everyone that works for that POS imposter you fools voted for.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-27   12:51:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Rupert_Pupkin, Rotara, TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, Ferret Mike (#7)

Former Kosovo Clinton Administration ??

They dragged us into the Kosovo conflict with half-truths, exagerrations, and outright lies, true. But at least the Clinton administration didn't try to sell the war by claiming that Serbia posed a mortal security risk to the United States, like Buffoon Bolton is doing with Iran and Syria.

What cracks me up, in a sick way, is the way the Demosheep, as opposed to the Republisheep, hold up Klinton as some kind of icon as though Klinton - who presided over Waco, the OK City inside job, and the murder of a couple hundred thousand people in the Kosovo region (to secure control of Heroin routes and the multi-trillion dollar trepka mining complex, and to ensure that Milosevic's thumbing his nose at the World Bank was punished) is some sort of forgotten Saint. The only, and is the ONLY, real difference between Duhbya and Klinton is that Bush murdered more people - several million versus Klinton's measly several hundred thousand. Both are psychopaths and neither is worthy of any more notice than to attach them to the same chain at the Rock Pile.

For those morons who regard Oh'Bummer as somehow different one can only attribute the moronic gullibility to the effect of being immersed in mind control programs 24/7.

""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-02-27   13:38:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: war, Rotara (#8)

I'm agnostic about Kosovo...

Translation: You're willing to give Klinton a pass for his conduct of mass murder and theft because he's a member of the Demoncrat Faction. Disgusting.

""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-02-27   13:41:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Original_Intent (#12)

Translation: You're willing to give Klinton a pass for his conduct of mass murder and theft because he's a member of the Demoncrat Faction. Disgusting.

Not to mention the fact that Bush, McCain, and other GOPers are on the same page as Clinton when it came to Kosovo. Clinton "liberated" Kosovo, Bush was the first to recognize its independence.

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2009-02-27   13:45:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Rupert_Pupkin, War (#13)

Translation: You're willing to give Klinton a pass for his conduct of mass murder and theft because he's a member of the Demoncrat Faction. Disgusting.

Not to mention the fact that Bush, McCain, and other GOPers are on the same page as Clinton when it came to Kosovo. Clinton "liberated" Kosovo, Bush was the first to recognize its independence.

As well both turned a blind eye, and the government covered up, the transportation of Slaves, by DynCorp (documented), under the auspices of the CIA, out of the Kosovo region - some of which were women and children destined for the Sex Slave Trade (in which Israel is MAJOR player). No, I have complete and total disgust for those who would minimize what was done in Kosovo merely because the Killer Chimperor racked up a higher body count.

""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-02-27   13:52:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Original_Intent (#12)

Translation: You're willing to give Klinton a pass for his conduct of mass murder and theft because he's a member of the Demoncrat Faction. Disgusting.

I'm agnostic about Kosovo because, based upon my own conjecture, I'm fairly certain that had NATO continued to ignore what was going on in the Balkans we would have eventually been drawn into an ACTUAL war in which we could have ended up facing down Russia or China or, worse, both.

You gets whollu eaten up with the goofies at the mention of the name Clinton. Your pee yourself and your eyes roll into the back of your head. There are over 100 years of geo politics to support my notion. You have your patho[il]logical hatred of the guy to support yours.

I win.

war  posted on  2009-02-27   16:22:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Old Friend (#10)

I voted for Tim Gannon. As far as I know, he doesn't employ anything other than the common sense of an Irishman.

war  posted on  2009-02-27   16:23:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Rupert_Pupkin, christine, all (#7)

They [Klinton] dragged us into the Kosovo conflict with half-truths, exagerrations, and outright lies, true. But at least the Clinton administration didn't try to sell the war by claiming that Serbia posed a mortal security risk to the United States, like Buffoon Bolton is doing with Iran and Syria.

What the hell difference does that make? The reason for lying us into war makes it no less obscene.

/hypocrisy alert

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition


"Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." ~~ IndieTx

You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom.~~William Wallace

ALAS, BABYLON

IndieTX  posted on  2009-02-27   17:01:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: IndieTX (#17)

What the hell difference does that make?

Not much, except for the "Iran is going to nuke US cities if we don't stop them" is an even bigger insult to your intelligence (or ought to be) than the Clinton administration's pseudo-humanitarian claptrap.

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2009-02-27   17:23:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: war (#15)

I'm fairly certain that had NATO continued to ignore what was going on in the Balkans we would have eventually been drawn into an ACTUAL war.

Oh and it's not like some of us weren't trying. Wesley Clark took us to the brink. We love ACTUAL wars. Actual wars is when towns and villages get burned to hell and our bombs fry babies and women.

You gets whollu eaten up with the goofies at the mention of the name Clinton. Your pee yourself and your eyes roll into the back of your head. There are over 100 years of geo politics to support my notion. You have your patho[il] logical hatred of the guy to support yours.

Yes, indeed. I get eaten up with the goofies when I think of that philandering rapist warmonger with his phony democrat populism as much as I get eaten up with disgust at the lyin' squirrel that followed him with his bullshit dry-drunk conservatism. I have no less heaps of general loathing for the current Liar-in-Chief who doesn't just split hairs when he equivocates. He simply flat out lies.

I win.

You might some day, war, if you warn't so damned smug about it.

Cheers.

Join 2x4 Tuesdays & protect your RKBA.
www.righttokeepandbeararms.com

randge  posted on  2009-02-27   17:27:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: randge, war, IndieTX (#19) (Edited)

Oh and it's not like some of us weren't trying. Wesley Clark took us to the brink. We love ACTUAL wars. Actual wars is when towns and villages get burned to hell and our bombs fry babies and women.

There was every indication that Wesley Clark wanted an all-out war with Russia. Back in the Senate, McCain was egging him on and pushing Clinton to send ground troops to Kosovo. It was thanks to the more sound judgement of other NATO commanders like Jackson that the conflict didn't escalate further. I'm kind of surprised that Obummer didn't give Clark a job in his cabinet.

Even if it had, stupid Clinton fans would still be defending the war because it was a "humanitarian war" fought "for the children."

All it takes to get moron Democrats to sign onto the latest war or the latest fraud in domestic policy is to say that "it's for the children." All it takes to get moron Republicans to sign on is to say that it's "for the troops" or "national security."

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2009-02-27   17:34:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#0)

Bolton is a coward who avoided Vietnam but is now a rabid warmonger. Chickenhawk's the name, having no balls is the game.

No place is better than Turtle Island.

Turtle  posted on  2009-02-27   17:41:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#20)

All it takes to get moron Democrats to sign onto the latest war or the latest fraud in domestic policy is to say that "it's for the children." All it takes to get moron Republicans to sign on is to say that it's "for the troops" or "national security."

Nothing is more revolting than the tepid, reasoned tone that Dem's take on when defending the depredations of the War Party. It's sickening.

Then they shake the boogey man of the 'Pubs in our face. But piracy is expected from the repuglicans. After all, they are all of them sworn cannibals. We expect them to act like swine.

Their handmaidens on the other side of the aisle though wear the threadbare mantle of humanitarianism and concern for the people. One would hope that they would take a stand against these illegal adventures that have become our bloody little hobby and a profitable pastime for corporations.

But they don't. And their hands are just as steeped in blood as those of the repuglicans.

So screw them and all that stand up for them.

Join 2x4 Tuesdays & protect your RKBA.
www.righttokeepandbeararms.com

randge  posted on  2009-02-27   18:03:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: randge, Rupert_Pupkin (#22)

Nothing is more revolting than the tepid, reasoned tone that Dem's take on when defending the depredations of the War Party. It's sickening.

Which is exactly why defending demoflaps because they should insult my intelligence less is a silly statement. It makes no difference. There is no difference between them. Fascism is Fascism regardless of the label. To discuss degrees of insult when the outcome (WAR AND DEATH FOR LIES/RAPE OF LIBERTY) is just an excercise in futility and lack of purpose.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition


"Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." ~~ IndieTx

You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom.~~William Wallace

ALAS, BABYLON

IndieTX  posted on  2009-02-27   18:16:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Rupert_Pupkin, Original_Intent, IndieTX, randge, war, christine, Jethro Tull, All (#7)

Extra! November/December 2001

"We Think the Price Is Worth It"
Media uncurious about Iraq policy's effects- there or here

By Rahul Mahajan

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.


--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's quote, calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children, has been much quoted in the Arabic press. It's also been cited in the United States in alternative commentary on the September 11 attacks (e.g., Alexander Cockburn, New York Press, 9/26/01).


But a Dow Jones search of mainstream news sources since September 11 turns up only one reference to the quote--in an op-ed in the Orange Country Register (9/16/01). This omission is striking, given the major role that Iraq sanctions play in the ideology of archenemy Osama bin Laden; his recruitment video features pictures of Iraqi babies wasting away from malnutrition and lack of medicine (New York Daily News, 9/28/01). The inference that Albright and the terrorists may have shared a common rationale--a belief that the deaths of thousands of innocents are a price worth paying to achieve one's political ends--does not seem to be one that can be made in U.S. mass media.

It's worth noting that on 60 Minutes, Albright made no attempt to deny the figure given by Stahl--a rough rendering of the preliminary estimate in a 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions. In general, the response from government officials about the sanctions’ toll has been rather different: a barrage of equivocations, denigration of U.N. sources and implications that questioners have some ideological axe to grind (Extra!, 3-4/00).

There has also been an attempt to seize on the lowest possible numbers. In early 1998, Columbia University's Richard Garfield published a dramatically lower estimate of 106,000 to 227,000 children under five dead due to sanctions, which was reported in many papers (e.g. New Orleans Times-Picayune, 2/15/98). Later, UNICEF came out with the first authoritative report (8/99), based on a survey of 24,000 households, suggesting that the total “excess” deaths of children under 5 was about 500,000.


A Dow Jones search shows that, although some papers covered the UNICEF report, none mentioned that the previous figure had been contradicted. In fact, papers continue to cite the obsolete Garfield numbers (Baltimore Sun, 9/24/01).

Who's to blame

The summer of 2001 saw a revival of long-discredited claims that sanctions are not to blame for Iraq's suffering, but that Saddam Hussein bears sole responsibility--an argument put forward in a State Department report (8/99) issued shortly after the UNICEF report on the deaths of children. Seizing on the fact that infant mortality had decreased in northern Iraq, which is under U.N. administration, while more than doubling in the rest of the country, where the government of Iraq is in charge, the State Department accused Baghdad of wide-scale misappropriation of funds from Iraqi oil sales earmarked for humanitarian purposes.

Michael Rubin of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who spent nine months as a private citizen in northern Iraq, has pushed this argument in at least eight op-eds in papers ranging from the Wall Street Journal (8/9/01) to the Los Angeles Times (8/12/01). These op-eds follow the same basic theme: Since conditions in the north of Iraq are much better than the rest of the country, Saddam must be taking oil-for-food money and using it to buy weapons; Iraqis don't want sanctions lifted, they want Saddam out; the U.S. should support the overthrow of Saddam.


In fact, oil-for-food money is administered by the U.N., and disbursed directly from a U.S. bank account to foreign suppliers, so direct misappropriation of funds is impossible. Allegations about misappropriation of goods on the other end have repeatedly been denied by U.N. officials administering the program in Iraq (e.g. Denis Halliday, press release, 9/20/99), a fact that has garnered virtually no media coverage (Extra!, 3-4/00).

The disparity between north and south in Iraq has to do primarily with structural factors not considered in mainstream media coverage, including the fact that the north, Iraq's breadbasket, is far less dependent on imported food. Per capita, citizens of the north receive 50 percent more oil-for-food relief, and much more humanitarian aid.

While Rubin was given space for his misrepresentation of the effects of sanctions, critics of the sanctions were virtually shut out of the debate. When the Bush administration put forward a proposal for a new, supposedly less deadly embargo known as "smart sanctions," only one major newspaper (Seattle Times, 5/14/01) carried an op-ed that criticized the plan for not doing enough to help the Iraqi people. Among those who could not get published were Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, both former coordinators of the U.N. oil-for-food program who resigned because the program failed to prevent the humanitarian disaster caused by sanctions.

Biological warfare?

With renewed concern about biological warfare in the U.S., it's worth noting an instance of the use of disease for military purposes that has gone almost uncovered. Last year, Thomas Nagy of Georgetown University unearthed a Defense Intelligence Agency document entitled "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," which was circulated to all major allied commands one day after the Gulf War started. It analyzed the weaknesses of the Iraqi water treatment system, the effects of sanctions on a damaged system and the health effects of untreated water on the Iraqi populace. Mentioning that chlorine is embargoed under the sanctions, it speculates that "Iraq could try convincing the United Nations or individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons," something that the United States disallowed for many years.

Combined with the fact that nearly every large water treatment plant in the country was attacked during the Gulf War, and seven out of eight dams destroyed, this suggests a deliberate targeting of the Iraqi water supply for "postwar leverage," a concept U.S. government officials admitted was part of military planning in the Gulf War (Washington Post, 6/23/91).

A Dow Jones search for 2000 finds only one mention of this evidence in an American paper--and that in a letter to the editor (Austin American-Statesman, 10/01/00). Subsequent documents unearthed by Nagy (The Progressive, 8/10/01) suggest that the plan to destroy water treatment, then to restrict chlorine and other necessary water treatment supplies, was done with full knowledge of the explosion of water-borne disease that would result. "There are no operational water and sewage treatment plants and the reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above normal levels," one post-war assessment reported; "further infectious diseases will spread due to inadequate water treatment and poor sanitation," another predicted.

Combine this with harsh and arbitrary restrictions on medicines, the destruction of Iraq's vaccine facilities, and the fact that, until this summer, vaccines for common infectious diseases were on the so-called "1051 list" of substances in practice banned from entering Iraq. Deliberately creating the conditions for disease and then withholding the treatment is little different morally from deliberately introducing a disease-causing organism like anthrax, but no major U.S. paper seems to have editorialized against the U.S. engaging in biological warfare--or even run a news article reporting Nagy's evidence that it had done so. (The Madison Capitol Times--8/14/01--and the Idaho Statesman--10/2/01--ran op-eds that cited Nagy’s work.)


Decreased safety?

While there has never been much sustained attention in U.S. media to the costs of sanctions inside Iraq, one might expect the renewed concern for safety to occasion critical re-appraisal of whether U.S. policy towards Iraq contributes to or undermines American security. But there has been no such re-examination of, for example, the December 1998 bombing campaign known as "Desert Fox."

Contrary to much subsequent reporting, Iraq did not expel U.N. weapons inspectors in December 1998; rather, the U.S. withdrew them in preparation for conducting the unprovoked, unauthorized military strike. Many critics at the time suggested that this would make it impossible to conduct future inspections--especially after it was revealed that the CIA had been using weapons inspection as a cover for military espionage (Washington Post, 1/6/99; Extra!, 3-4/99)--rendering verification that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction impossible. This analysis got little play in the media at that time.

The de-stabilizing effect of the airstrikes was evaluated at the time by analysts like the Merchant International Group (London Times, 1/1/99) as likely to increase the threat of terrorism. Yet more recent U.S. policies have followed a similar approach. In July 2001, the U.S. decided to dump a proposed protocol for inspections and other mechanisms designed to give teeth to the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, preferring instead to rely on surveillance and espionage coupled with unilateral enforcement (New York Times, 7/25/01)--presumably through more strikes like Desert Fox, and like the August 1998 bombing of the El Shifa plant in Sudan, which turned out to produce pharmaceuticals, not chemical weapons. Since then, it has been reported that U.S. bioweapons research "pushes" the limits of the 1972 treaty, and that the Pentagon is even planning to produce a new strain of anthrax, ostensibly to test anti-anthrax procedures (New York Times, 9/4/01).


Even before the September 11 attacks, bombing of Iraq had dramatically increased. In February 2001, two dozen U.S. and British planes attacked Iraqi radar installations, some of them out of the "no-fly" zones. In August and early September, there were at least six more pre-planned attacks to degrade Iraqi air defense. This was part of a comprehensive plan for multiple strikes, with a U.S. government official quoted (on MSNBC, 9/14/01) as saying "Hitting targets one by one doesn't draw the same kind of attention or reaction. It takes longer, but it should eventually get the job done." It's certainly true that the bombing campaign didn't receive much notice from a Gary Condit-fixated media.

Independent military analysts like George Friedman of Stratfor (a private intelligence company) had concluded that this sustained attack on Iraqi air defense was a prelude to another major bombing like 1998's Desert Fox. This is particularly relevant once again, with frenzied attempts by commentators to link Iraq and bin Laden, or to assert that such a connection wasn't necessary to justify a renewed bombing of Baghdad (William F. Buckley, National Review, 10/9/01). Laurie Mylroie, an analyst noted for a 1987 New Republic article urging the U.S. to support Saddam Hussein ("Back Iraq," 4/27/87), has been making her rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows and op-ed pages (e.g., Wall Street Journal, 9/13/01; CNN Crossfire, 9/27/01) peddling her book, Study of Revenge, claiming that Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, based on the questionable analysis of the identity of one man.


TV's drive to convict Iraq may have something to do with the fact that Iraq has real targets for bombing campaigns, unlike Afghanistan, which is already in ruins after more than 20 years of U.S., Soviet and other foreign meddling. Although no immediate plans to bomb Iraq have been revealed, if the Bush administration follows the advice of hawkish pundits like William Kristol and Fred Barnes, don't expect U.S. journalists to do a better job than they have so far in explaining the bombing's impact on the people of Iraq--and on U.S. security.

Rahul Mahajan, a leader of Peace Action and the National Network to End the War Against Iraq, is the author of the forthcoming The New Crusade: America’s War on Terrorism (Monthly Review Press). He can be contacted at rahul@tao.ca.

Face it war(t) - you've always been a clinton cs'er and you'll always be a clinton cs'er.

Remember, I know you extremely well.

It's certainly fair to say that EX-TRIMPOTUS - Jorge Arbusto - Obamalamadingdong are all in the same league. Same masters. Same deeds.

ameriKa and it's neocon-neocom Globalists make me want to F**KING BREAK THINGS !!


"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2009-02-27   20:08:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: randge (#22)

Nothing is more revolting than the tepid, reasoned tone that Dem's take on when defending the depredations of the War Party. It's sickening.

Then they shake the boogey man of the 'Pubs in our face. But piracy is expected from the repuglicans. After all, they are all of them sworn cannibals. We expect them to act like swine.

Their handmaidens on the other side of the aisle though wear the threadbare mantle of humanitarianism and concern for the people. One would hope that they would take a stand against these illegal adventures that have become our bloody little hobby and a profitable pastime for corporations.

But they don't. And their hands are just as steeped in blood as those of the repuglicans.

So screw them and all that stand up for them.

I RESEMBLE THAT REMARK !!!


"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2009-02-27   20:09:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#20)

There was every indication that Wesley Clark wanted an all-out war with Russia.

What a Globalist johnson smoker !

That WEASEL S-O-B is a CRIMINAL afaic.


"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2009-02-27   20:10:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Original_Intent, war (#12)

I'm agnostic about Kosovo the Constitution...

Translation: You're willing to give Klinton a pass for his conduct of mass murder and theft because he's a member of the Demoncrat Faction. Disgusting.

war is a NEOCOMMIE Globalist that wipes his ass with the Constitution.

Always has.


"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2009-02-27   20:12:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Rotara (#27)

I'm agnostic about Kosovo the Constitution... Translation: You're willing to give Klinton a pass for his conduct of mass murder and theft because he's a member of the Demoncrat Faction. Disgusting.

war is a NEOCOMMIE Globalist that wipes his ass with the Constitution.

Always has.

bump!!

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition


"Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." ~~ IndieTx

You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom.~~William Wallace

ALAS, BABYLON

IndieTX  posted on  2009-02-27   20:27:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#7)

Among the first to call for action against Milosevic, interestingly eno- ugh, were the now notorious neoconservatives, especially Richard Perle, the original “Prince of Darkness”, and the current senior Pentagon figures Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. This shows that the neocons are by no means exclusively preoccupied with the Middle East and the defence of Israel. Indeed, the conspiracy-theory websites that now obsessively document the activities of neoconservatives condemn the likes of Perle and Feith, in the same breath and without irony, for working for foreign governments such as Israel and Bosnia.

Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard said Serb forces were "slaughtering civilians and threatening the stability of the region…" It said if NATO didn't intervene it would lose its purpose and go out of business.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2009-02-27   20:29:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Rotara (#27)

war is a NEOCOMMIE Globalist that wipes his ass with the Constitution.

But you are a general fightoing for truth, justice and the American way, right?

Un a gen'rul...saloot me!!!

war  posted on  2009-02-28   9:58:49 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: randge (#19)

Oh and it's not like some of us weren't trying. Wesley Clark took us to the brink.

IF you believe tha British press.

It's also somewhat remarkable the flip that a lot did on this. First, CLinton/Clark were accused of allowing Russia th eupper hand there...then they were accused of overconfronting the Russians,

You might some day, war, if you warn't so damned smug about it.

Chyea...I wrote the book: Smugness On The Internet, fer shore.

war  posted on  2009-02-28   10:17:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Rotara (#24)

Remember, I know you extremely well.

You know shit about me, TinkerBell. But your own phoniness ooozes through with each of your posts.

I have never supported any action against Iraq and have long advocated that Saddam did us, and the world, a favor by invading Kuwait and then threatening Saudi Arabia - presuming that he actually did do the latter but the veracity thereof I do have my doubts.

war  posted on  2009-02-28   11:03:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: war (#32)

I have never supported any action against Iraq and have long advocated that Saddam did us, and the world, a favor by invading Kuwait and then threatening Saudi Arabia - presuming that he actually did do the latter but the veracity thereof I do have my doubts.

When you say "us" you may jolly well speak for yourself, war.

To all that applaud the kind of bloody realpolitik that such comments represent, you have my militant opposition and my unalterable contempt.

We will not in our lifetimes see the end of the woe set in motion by Bush I and Baker.

Join 2x4 Tuesdays & protect your RKBA.
www.righttokeepandbeararms.com

randge  posted on  2009-02-28   11:30:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: randge (#33)

To all that applaud the kind of bloody realpolitik that such comments represent, you have my militant opposition and my unalterable contempt.

Wha...chuckle...huh?

Saddam was the best trading partner in the ME that the West had. Period. It is the institutional policy of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia that their REAL #1 export is terrorism AGAINST the West.

Therefore, I don't understand your response in ANY context.

war  posted on  2009-02-28   12:04:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: randge (#33)

We will not in our lifetimes see the end of the woe set in motion by Bush I and Baker.

I agree 100% with that statement and nothing that I have posted here shows otherwise so I don't know what your issue is.

war  posted on  2009-02-28   12:05:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: war (#30) (Edited)

sucks to be you

That's all you have because you're a low life anti-American Constitution-hating L-O-S-E-R. LOSER !!


"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2009-02-28   12:29:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: war (#34)

Wha...chuckle...huh?

Figures that you chuckle incessantly, just like rick boteye.

Yes, turd sucker, I know everything about you down to the last detail.

What, you think I'm some amateur ? LOL


"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2009-02-28   12:30:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: war (#34)

Therefore, I don't understand your response in ANY context.

Of course you don't.

We have nothing more to say to one another, sir.

Join 2x4 Tuesdays & protect your RKBA.
www.righttokeepandbeararms.com

randge  posted on  2009-02-28   12:59:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Rotara (#37)

What, you think I'm some amateur ?

"Think" as opposed to know?

Chuckles...

You, boy, are a side order of bacon strip stain on white cotton briefs to go. The type of Keyboard Commando wannabe poser that I have encountered going back to my days at MSN.

war  posted on  2009-02-28   18:45:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: randge (#38)

Um, okay...hmmm...remind when we first spoke please?

war  posted on  2009-02-28   18:46:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 46) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest