Politics: J'accuse!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Heard anything more about this recently? Last I heard, the only source was a close associate of Ahmed Chalabi, and no one else had seen any proof . . . .

from what I understand, the investigation, lead by Volcher, has been stalled because of process and, in the mean time, the buearacrats at the UN are instructing the minions to not turn stuff over until it is resolved. Charlie Rose has been interviewiing people on this almost nightly. Every reporter (NYT included) I have seen has basically said that it is not a question of whether it happened, but how many dollars and who is responsible.

[sgtclub]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...1818-7431r.htm

Is this any different from the landing on the aircraft? From a Kerry campaign email:

"Over the past week we have all been shocked by the pictures from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq," wrote Ms. Cahill. "John Kerry has called on Donald Rumsfeld to resign, and today we're asking you to support him by adding your name to the call for Rumsfeld to resign."

In addition to allowing recipients to sign a petition demanding that Mr. Rumsfeld resign, the e-mail also permitted recipients to donate cash online.

Asked if the campaign was concerned about linking fund raising to the prisoner-abuse scandal, spokesman Chad Clanton initially said there was no mention of raising money in the e-mail.

\After he was sent a copy of the e-mail with the fund-raising pitch, Mr. Clanton replied: "John Kerry has made it clear that our men and women in uniform deserve a Commander in Chief that takes responsibility for the bad as well as the good. The bottom line is: We need more than just a new Secretary of Defense. We need a new president."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...1818-7431r.htm

Is this any different from the landing on the aircraft? From a Kerry campaign email:

I'm trying to figure out what this has to do with Bush landing on an aircraft carrier has to do with this. Both involve the military. Other than that, I'm not seeing it.

And what's the problem? Kerry takes a position. His campaign sends an e-mail repeating it, and asking supporters to sign a petition to like effect. And there's a link that lets them donate money. So what. What if Bush send a letter to supporters asking them to sign a petition against gay marriage, and included an address where supporters could mail a check? Is that the same thing? Is your issue that e-mail makes it easier for Democrats to give each other money?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
from what I understand, the investigation, lead by Volcher, has been stalled because of process and, in the mean time, the buearacrats at the UN are instructing the minions to not turn stuff over until it is resolved. Charlie Rose has been interviewiing people on this almost nightly. Every reporter (NYT included) I have seen has basically said that it is not a question of whether it happened, but how many dollars and who is responsible.

You're not answering my question, which is, other than close associates of Chalabi (i.e., the IGC investigation),* has anyone seen any proof?

As I think I said before, I have an easy time believing that the basic underlying allegations happened, and I'm not interested in defending the UN. But I am interested in the continuing spectacle of Chalabi manipulating events by spreading information. Odd that he would discrediting the UN just as Bush is turning to the UN to help decide whom will preside over "sovereign" Iraq after June 30 . . . .

* The Telegraph: "Mr Hankes-Drielsma, a close associate of the controversial Iraqi finance minister Ahmed Chalabi, has played a pivotal role in bringing the scandal to light by challenging the United Nations with paperwork discovered in Baghdad files."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
It's good to know that in Florida, at least, stupidity is non-partisan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3697541.stm

As I recall, she was quite partisan.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As I recall, she was quite partisan.

Following the clear dictates of a law is a republican trait?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're not answering my question, which is, other than close associates of Chalabi (i.e., the IGC investigation),* has anyone seen any proof?

As I think I said before, I have an easy time believing that the basic underlying allegations happened, and I'm not interested in defending the UN. But I am interested in the continuing spectacle of Chalabi manipulating events by spreading information. Odd that he would discrediting the UN just as Bush is turning to the UN to help decide whom will preside over "sovereign" Iraq after June 30 . . . .

According to this and others I have read, yes.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38040

By the way, I don't disagree with you on Chalabi.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm trying to figure out what this has to do with Bush landing on an aircraft carrier has to do with this. Both involve the military. Other than that, I'm not seeing it.

And what's the problem? Kerry takes a position. His campaign sends an e-mail repeating it, and asking supporters to sign a petition to like effect. And there's a link that lets them donate money. So what. What if Bush send a letter to supporters asking them to sign a petition against gay marriage, and included an address where supporters could mail a check? Is that the same thing? Is your issue that e-mail makes it easier for Democrats to give each other money?

Both are using the war for political purposes. Frankly, I think this is how it should be, as this is the issue of the day. But if the DEMS are going to get bend about the carrier landing, they should at least get equally bent about soliciting donations in this manner.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
According to this and others I have read, yes.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38040

By the way, I don't disagree with you on Chalabi.

The facts described in that article are exactly what I'm talking about. Hankes-Drielsma is a Chalabi stooge, and he retained KPMG.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Both are using the war for political purposes. Frankly, I think this is how it should be, as this is the issue of the day. But if the DEMS are going to get bend about the carrier landing, they should at least get equally bent about soliciting donations in this manner.

I don't think that "using the war for political purposes" describes what Kerry is doing. Bush was using the carrier as a prop, while dumping Rumsfeld is the message, not the medium.

Hank, that's your cue to get all McLuhan on me.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The facts described in that article are exactly what I'm talking about. Hankes-Drielsma is a Chalabi stooge, and he retained KPMG.

That may be true, but it also suggests that there is documentary evidence that an independent third party has viewed.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...004May8_3.html ... people at least imply that democracy was never feasible, or at least is not now.... [the iraq invasion was] complete insanity ... One would be expected to try and get permission from France, Russia and China to respond to 9/11 by invading Afghanistan. The other, well, the article pretty accurately sums up my frustration with these assholes.

This is why the Bush adminstration needed to deceive the public and Congress about the administration's motivations for invading Iraq and needed to misrepresent the facts to support that deception. Congress and the public NEVER would have permitted the Iraq war if he adminstration had told the truth. The public might have permitted limited assassinations in Iran, Syria and North Korea, but Iraq -- never. Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney should all be fired for deceiving Congress and the public. Fuck the noble lie.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me



This is why the Bush adminstration needed to deceive the public and Congress about the administration's motivations for invading Iraq and needed to misrepresent the facts to support that deception. Congress and the public NEVER would have permitted the Iraq war if he adminstration had told the truth. The public might have permitted limited assassinations in Iran, Syria and North Korea, but Iraq -- never. Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney should all be fired for deceiving Congress and the public. Fuck the noble lie.

I didn't mean to imply that "[the Iraq invasion]" was complete insanity, except for the manner in which they prepared to deal with the aftermath (i.e., no apparent preparation whatsoever). That article is quite depressing in its implications for the immediate future of this nation.

Hello

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me

I didn't mean to imply that "[the Iraq invasion]" was complete insanity, except for the manner in which they prepared to deal with the aftermath (i.e., no apparent preparation whatsoever). That article is quite depressing in its implications for the immediate future of this nation.

It was complete insanity if you believe, as I do, the Bush administration's single goal from the beginning was to remake Iraq into a single, secular, democratic state. No amount of preparation could accomplish that goal without massive, long term spending and casualties.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me



It was complete insanity if you believe, as I do, the Bush administration's single goal from the beginning was to remake Iraq into a single, secular, democratic state. No amount of preparation could accomplish that goal without massive, long term spending and casualties.

I believe that registering adults, giving them a short period to organize and campaign, holding elections, and withdrawing from all areas that don't fight us, could have been done a year ago, allowing us to withdraw from more than half of the population centers long ago (as the generals are calling for now, albeit without elections).

If that was their only goal (creating a democracy, even just for a moment), then I agree, they lied to us.

But my strategy is a simple carrot-and-stick campaign. Fight us and we'll fight back and appoint your local leaders/impose martial law/ensure everyone else but you get the carrot (Sunnis and Al-Sadr listening?). Work with us for a few weeks, and elect whoever you want (as long as its not Osama or anyone else calling for a Jihad). Want to elect your shiekhs or tribal leaders? Have at it. Want to elect Chalabi? Have at it. Want to elect a former Saddam official? Have at it.

This could have been done in Kurdish and Shiite areas long ago, and at least some Sunni areas. But noooo, nobody has ever tried it, and nobody has ever explained why not.

Hypothetically, let's say it works until we withdraw and then the country turns to anarchy. Its not like anyone could blame us if we obtained the first Iraqi democracy in, well, this century, but they couldn't keep it.

Of course, we created a lot of this resistance by disbanding the military, rather than reining them into bases. By not organizing elections or even announcing a plan. By playing carrot and stick games with aid money instead of freedom and democracy. Its all sickening. I'm at the point this week where even getting rid of Rummy and Wolfy wouldn't satisfy my anger. And the fact that the electoral alternatives have not, from the start, been satisfying. This just sucks.

Hello