Disturbing if it is true....

Dreamers and Idiots
Posted November 11, 2003

Bush and Blair did everything necessary to prevent the outbreak of peace

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 11th November 2003
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/11/11/dreamers-and-idiots/


(snip)
Over the four months before the coalition forces invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s government made a series of increasingly desperate offers to the United States. In December, the Iraqi intelligence services approached Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA’s former head of counter-terrorism, with an offer to prove that Iraq was not linked to the September 11th attacks, and to permit several thousand US troops to enter the country to look for weapons of mass destruction.5 If the object was regime change, then Saddam, the agents claimed, was prepared to submit himself to internationally-monitored elections within two years.6 According to Mr Cannistraro, these proposals reached the White House, but were “turned down by the president and vice president.”7

By February, Saddam’s negotiators were offering almost everything the US government could wish for: free access to the FBI to look for weapons of mass destruction wherever it wanted, support for the US position on Israel and Palestine, even rights over Iraq’s oil.8 Among the people they contacted was Richard Perle, the security adviser who for years had been urging a war with Iraq. He passed their offers to the Central Intelligence Agency. Last week he told the New York Times that the CIA had replied, “Tell them that we will see them in Baghdad.”9

Saddam Hussein, in other words, appears to have done everything possible to find a diplomatic alternative to the impending war, and the US government appears to have done everything necessary to prevent one. This is the opposite to what we were told by George Bush and Tony Blair. On March 6th, 13 days before the war began, Bush said to journalists, “I want to remind you that it’s his choice to make as to whether or not we go to war. It’s Saddam’s choice. He’s the person that can make the choice of war and peace. Thus far, he’s made the wrong choice.”.10 Ten days later, Blair told a press conference, “we have provided the right diplomatic way through this, which is to lay down a clear ultimatum to Saddam: cooperate or face disarmament by force … all the way through we have tried to provide a diplomatic solution.”11 On March 17th, Bush claimed that “Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war”.12 All these statements are false.

The same thing happened before the war with Afghanistan. On September 20th 2001, the Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington.13 The US rejected the offer. On October 1st, six days before the bombing began, they repeated it, and their representative in Pakistan told reporters “we are ready for negotiations. It is up to the other side to agree or not. Only negotiation will solve our problems.”14 Bush was asked about this offer at a press conference the following day. He replied, “There’s no negotiations. There’s no calendar. We’ll act on [sic] our time.”15

 

If true, that makes you a contrarian, cousin to a troll.

 

:thumbs:Thank you, Just Christian, for providing supporting documentation and showing you do know how to participate in discussion or add information. Kudos!

I'm always a bit hesitant when trying to post from memory recall... but, while I couldn't remember the dates or the personages involved, your documentation is reassurring.

If I correctly recall my own impressions around the time of the saber rattling.... just before and immediately after going to war in Iraq.... I wasn't as clear as LadyE about the situation:

At that time I was mostly dependant on non cable news, news papers, and radio for information and had an unreliable internet connection with slow 'puter.... And at that time, I was more trusting of our new administration. I'd worked nights and was entering my day off when I saw the towers come down: I watched it all day and most of the next, and while I accepted the explanations which were given at that time....I didn't think then....nor do I think now that our government has been candid with us concerning what they knew...... and, yes, I do believe that there is involvement if nothing more than to cover up what they did know and what action they delayed in response, and how they turned our feelings of tragedy and loss into chaos psychology and a borderline mass hysteria: and took that opportunity to drastically create laws which are a real threat to freedom within our country and increased surveilance and shakedowns of our own people..... yet did not secure the borders or add secondary checks to alien entry into the US: not to mention the opportunity for war.

Something then and now does not add up. Even the economic woes we're facing now were already being predicted by financial forecasters in the late 90's, including the housing bubble... the expense of the war added to our present economy..... the bust of the financial markets......not enough..... we've got bailouts and recovery debt programs now established to plunge us futher into obligations while programmed within these expensive packages are setting up or expanding the very socialistic programs which would be required of a NEW WORLD ORDER, which has control of everything of which the common people depend.

This current administration is continuing those programs already set in place by previous administrations. And as much as we were lead to believe that there was a difference between the Clinton and Bush administrations.... the basic difference was mostly cosmetic.... with the Bush administration appearing to be more pro-life, pro-Christian, cleaner as far as the moral conduct of the President and cabinet, and appeared to take less of a aggressive stance regarding groups of people belonging to militias or religious separation camps..... such as the FDL ranch in Texas. As I've implied before, I think these have all been window dressing.....as is the changing faces of our money to prepare us for change...... if and when there is a major change in our monetary system: Where is the proof that all this current and previously accumulated debt is not part of the large design to bring down the confidence of our people and in our currency as well as the economy to a desparation and chaos to coerce an acceptance for an offer of a NWO?



At the time our government was saber rattling...... I trusted and hoped that they really knew best and had our interest at heart. I felt at that time that IF a war in Iraq wasn't justified by the presence and threat to ourselves or Israel by terrorist or WMD, still our government was privileged to information regarding the security interests and threats which made our presence in the mid-east.... and Iraq and Afganistan in particular of strategic interest. Now I'm much less sure of even this motive..... as some have alleged that Saddam Hussein was resistant to becoming part of the world community banking system and no democratic change of government would have secured several necessary NWO objectives as well as a war and occupation of that country.

During this time we've passed laws with misleading titles which content if carried out, has potentials to do the opposite of what one would think from the title alone. During this time we've watched agencies, like the FDA or the USDA, complain of understaffing when contaminated or adulterated vegetables and meats or drugs are already being consumed..... yet they have time to impliment actions, based upon laws previously or timely in place, against health food and supplement stores, and small independant labs, businesses and farms and intimidate our own citizens from pursuing hobbies or occupations which might increase their independance. Substainable development? Planned confiscation of private property and control and concentrations of populations into systems more vunerable to diasters and epidemics and more easily to surveil.

I believe government is necessary and we should support it.... but I also believe government can become dangerous and an instrument of evil when it changes from serving the people to mastery and control. The best attitude I can muster towards government is not trust.... but sketicism that government will do what is right without the active participation of the people expecting accountability and checking it quickly whenever possible.

I now think this whole war with Iraq, for whatever reasons, was a set-up, and did little to strengthen our own security ....which could have been more cheaply bought by securing our borders against illegals, careful screening of immigrants and international visitors, increasing efforts at intelligence gathering, and much less loss of life.

As it is...what have we gained from the war? No more oil than before: No more building of nuclear plants or oil refineries: Many soldiers dead or dying or living with nightmares: Many families broken by the fractures in relationships, the deaths or disabling injuries of loved ones in the war: Trillions of dollars in debt for the nation and climbing with accelerating speed? Has the war improved our economy or stimulated industry? Has the war increased the confidence and allegiance of those who were our allies before? Has the war increased respect for our nation? Has the war improved the conditions and safety for Israel? Has the war softened or removed the ambition of Islamic extremist?

In looking back..... I don't see justification for this war. I only see obligation.... to the people whos lives were disrupted by our removal of the only government which they had known which was both terrible and brutal, but strong enough to control the factions within and allow them.... some of them were Christians and some of them were Jews, ...... a relatively stable and normal life before the war.

 

If you'd like to call me a contrarian, that's fine. I guess I do think and act differently than the majority. I think the Republicans and the Democrats are all a morons and anyone who follows either party blindly is just as foolish. If that makes me a contrarian, so be it.

Oh, BTW, how much does OldRegular pay you to be his personal defender?

 

JC if you want to find the facts about Bush/Cheney/Rove then go to the Huffington Post. I am sure you will find lots of good information there.

As far as conspiracy theories they go back at least as far as the sinking of the USS Maine in the Havana harbor. I am sure that if one thought long enough he could conjure up some dude [perhaps the First Dude] who paid those Rebels to make tea in the Boston harbor or hire those farmers to fire on the Redcoats at Concord. Then there is the war of 1812, and the Trail of Tears, plenty of stories abound about the Indian wars, the seizure of the Southwest from Mexico [which they are slowly taking back]. Of course there is the War of Northern Aggression. What were those yankees doing in Charleston anyhow? Still can't keep them out.

 

When I think of 'conspiracy', I'm thinking of events where the general explanation which has been published us is not adequate to explaining the events.... or where later discoveries of documents or reports and communications indicate a prior knowledge or an agenda just waiting for the right catalyst to work processes towards that goal. It's about time that REAL people take some terms off their list of derogatory words and realize they do have meaning and application...... and are appropriate to any explanation of an event which is not fully transparent as to who, when, what, and how......pertaining to that event. "Fundamentalist" is another term which gets abused a lot.... and I'm one. I take the Bible literally. Sure, there may be some allegory in it but I look for the literal and most relevant application. But I'm not an "Extremist". Although I do care for other's souls... and I'm against abortion on what I believe to be a Biblical foundation...... I would never harass a person trying to get them into the kingdom or change their beliefs....nor murder a doctor, nor bomb a clinic, nor bar a door, nor trespass on the privately owned grounds of such abhorrent business. There are Islamic fundamentalist and Islamic Extremist.... I think these are more similar to each other in their goals and beliefs......however, imo, the adjective most appropriate to their religion when they accept that all non-muslims are infidels and killing the infidels is a service to their god.... thats "extremist" even if it is foundational in their koran. Our country's constitution was set up on fundamental principals of natural law and design based upon man-kind's historic experience with rule in the past, and much wisdom was gotten from the Bible and applied and used. The most traditional use of the word fundamental meant springing from or returning to the roots or the foundation. The more common use today is to associate this term with 'extremism' and by changing the popular use to that of another..... and by our own fear and hesitancy to embrace the use of these terms appropriately... the population in general is being programmed in their attitudes to negatively respond or react to any person or groups of people who are so described.

Conspiracy is a good term. It's used in the Bible. When 2 plus 2 equals 4....... one does not have to know where the first 2 came from nor where the second 2 came from to know that when joined, you now have 4. The theory is in where did the two 2's come from..... but it does add up (conspire) to 4 whether you choose to think about it or not.... doesn't it?

Conspiracy examples in the Bible where the term is used:
2Sa 15:12 And Absalom sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David's counsellor, from his city, [even] from Giloh, while he offered sacrifices. And the conspiracy was strong; for the people increased continually with Absalom.
2Ki 12:20 And his servants arose, and made a conspiracy, and slew Joash in the house of Millo, which goeth down to Silla.
2Ki 14:19 Now they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem: and he fled to Lachish; but they sent after him to Lachish, and slew him there.
2Ki 15:15 And the rest of the acts of Shallum, and his conspiracy which he made, behold, they [are] written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel.
2Ki 15:30 And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.
2Ki 17:4 And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea: for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt, and brought no present to the king of Assyria, as [he had done] year by year: therefore the king of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison.
2Ch 25:27 Now after the time that Amaziah did turn away from following the LORD they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem; and he fled to Lachish: but they sent to Lachish after him, and slew him there.
Jer 11:9 And the LORD said unto me, A conspiracy is found among the men of Judah, and among the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Eze 22:25 [There is] a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they have made her many widows in the midst thereof.
Act 23:13 And they were more than forty which had made this conspiracy.

Not all the details regarding these 'conspiracies' are given....so is the Bible giving us truth or is it just giving us theories? There are other 'conspiracies' expressed in the Bible where the term, itself, is not used but a conspiracy did take place: In my current study of Daniel chapter 6 tell of one..... and, appropriate to the events of this blessed season ...... Mark 14 gives another.

FTR, note how these conspiracies often involve secrecy, power, leadership, plans and goals or agendas...... and frequently some of or within governments.

Yes..... I think that there was a purpose or design or an agenda ........ to make war with Iraq.......and to make use of any possible opportunity as an excuse. Just like the so called Patriot Act was drafted before the end of Clinton's term..... but was awaiting the opportunity for a case to be built by circumstances and fears which would allow the people to approve such a measure.


And I also believe that gun violence.....particularly the mass killings or crazed mentalities, is getting more attention in proportion to its occurrance while the intervention which stops crime by a citizen gun owner is suppressed from national news.... is designed to encourage the fears that if average citizens did not own guns...we'd have less gun violence. There's an agenda to suppress or remove the exercise of our second ammendment rights.

And the abuse of children in the home is spectacularized..... while the abuse of children which has or is occurring in some of the foster homes is suppressed from national news..... is by design to disrupt parental authority and give the state control of the home through the children.

I don't agree with everything he says... but I enjoy listening to Jon Strossel........"give me a break" realist!

 

In an earlier post I indicated that Valerie Plame was likely outed by her husband. The following indicates this is true.

June 2003: According to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, the following interview with Richard Armitage at the State Department transpired "about a month before" Robert Novak’s column appeared on July 14, 2003.

Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s p.....d off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off.
Woodward: But why would they send him?
Armitage: Because his wife’s an analyst at the agency.
Woodward: It’s still weird.
Armitage: He* –* he’s perfect. She* –* she, this is what she does. She’s a WMD analyst out there. *
Woodward: Oh, she is.
Armitage: (over) Yeah.
Woodward: Oh, I see. I didn’t think…
Armitage:* (over) "I know who’ll look at it." Yeah, see?
Woodward: Oh. She’s the chief WMD…?
Armitage: No. She’s not the…
Woodward: But high enough up that she could say, "oh, yeah, hubby will go."
Armitage: Yeah. She knows [garbled].
Woodward: Was she out there with him, when he was…?
Armitage: (over) No, not to my knowledge. I don’t know if she was out there. But his wife’s in the agency as a WMD analyst. How about that?

Why would Richard Armitage have been talking about Wilson and Plame in June of 2003? This was still weeks before Joe Wilson wrote his New York Times editorial, and a month before Robert Novak published his column mentioning Valerie Plame.

Armitage brought this up because he is a gossip and it was already common knowledge because Joe Wilson had been calling all of the newspapers trying to get them to run his story about his mission to Niger.

Given the chronology and Mr. Armitage’s remarks, it seems quite obvious Mr. Wilson outed his wife when he spoke to the Senate Democratic Policy Committee and then to the subsequent reporters at the Times, the Post and elsewhere, when he was hawking his story about his trip to Niger.

And these are the people Dick Armitage said Wilson was calling. Who else would he be calling?

And it’s highly probably that Wilson’s motivation for bringing up his wife is likely to have been exactly as Armitage suggested to Woodward. Wilson wanted to give his radically new and dangerous story more credibility.

He wanted to show that he was not just some untrustworthy "low-level guy" who had peaked in his career as an Ambassador to some godforsaken country nobody had ever heard of.

More Here

 

I seem to recall that Saddam Hussein wanted to go into exile. He wanted to give up his power but be allowed to go to Syria or Egypt. Neither wanted him and President Bush wanted to bring him to justice for crimes against humanity. That is what I seem to recall.

This from the Washington Post
Thursday, September 27, 2007

Report Says Hussein Was Open To Exile Before 2003 Invasion
He Is Said to Have Sought $1 Billion and Information on Arms

 

Why is it disturbing? The man wanted a billion dollars and to escape justice.

Should the law have let Bonnie and Clyde go free? No the law went after them and many law men died. Their sacrifice was not in vain. Neither was the sacrifice of our finest in vain. Through their efforts, a mass murderer was brought to justice and a nation is rebuilt.

When an evil rises in another nation, God rises another nation to bring that evil in check. America was that answer to Hitler and is also that answer to Saddam. :godisgood: