Wolfowitz: No WMD, No War
Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz strongly suggested yesterday that, had we known Saddam did not possess WMD, the United States would not invaded Iraq. From the AP:
“If somebody could have given you a Lloyd’s of London guarantee that weapons of mass destruction would not possibly be used, one would have contemplated much more support for internal Iraqi opposition and not having the United States take the job on the way we did.â€
“It was a sense that the greatest danger in taking this man on would be that he would use them,†said Wolfowitz of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. “If you could have given us a guarantee that they wouldn’t have been used, there would have been policy options available probably.â€
This is a sharp departure from the White House line. Current members of the administration still claim that WMD were just one of many reasons that the United States invaded Iraq. From an 11/15/05 op-ed by Deputy National Security Advisor J.D. Crouch:
Some administration critics believe Operation Iraqi Freedom was strictly about weapons of mass destruction. The reality is that Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs were only one reason for the liberation of Iraq.
When Wolfowitz was a member of the administration, that’s what he said too. From the AP 5/23/03:
Wolfowitz insisted in the interview, and in Singapore on Friday, that there had always been three major concerns.
“One was weapons of mass destruction, second was terrorism, and the third … was the abuse of Iraqis by their own government,” Wolfowitz said at the sidelines of the Asia Security Conference in Singapore.
“And in a sense there was a fourth overriding one, which was the connection between those first two, the connection between the weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. All three of those have been there, they’ve always been part of the rationale and I think it’s been very clear.”
(HT: HuffPost)
You’re forgetting the most important thing, though: It makes people FEEL more secure that we’re “killing them there instead of here”.
mighty aphrodite?
NED?
Geo Metro?
“danny”?
I-RIGHT-I?
They don’t care about WMD. They want to hide in their holes and hope it turns out OK.
December 8th, 2005 at 5:23 pmWhat? He doesn’t want to sound crazy at the
December 8th, 2005 at 5:30 pmWorld Bank?
I guess nobody trusts a crazy banker, but for
high-level BushCo. team members it seems
to be requirement.
Wolfowitz states that there were 4 reasons but w/o WMD’s, there are only two (because the 4th reason was a link between the first two, WMD’s and terrorism): terrorism and Saddam. And since there was no link between Iraq and Al-Queda, that only leaves Saddam and Saddam should have been the problem of the UN, not just the US.
December 8th, 2005 at 5:44 pmThe UN would not have solved the Saddam problem. They were compounding the problem. America should have assassinated Saddam and every F*CKER after him until they ran out because the USA knew he was a criminal.
December 8th, 2005 at 5:48 pmIsrael assassinates as a mattr of policy. It’s just a matter of time before the USA does anyway.
Great! So NOW he tells us.
December 8th, 2005 at 6:00 pmJust more ‘bad intel.’ cover for the War Pigs.
December 8th, 2005 at 6:04 pmClinton wanted regime change to come from within Iraq.
BushCo knew better and chose to invade instead.
Personally, I think a blow job is better than watching 2100+ or our finest young people get killed in the searing heat and blowing sands of Iraq.
But the Grand ‘Ol Christian Party feels it’s better to punish than to receive pleasure. Talk about screwed up!
December 8th, 2005 at 6:07 pmThats BS what he, Wolfowitz, is Saying, HE told others Like FEITH “If it even a 10% chance” and HE also used some VERY questionable “methods” of Strauss by “LITERALLY” reading between the Lines, THIS GUY is SO FULL Of IT.
But IRI likes this Behavior, right IRI?
I mean YOU WENT to WAR and YOU educated the ENGLISH, and YOU, by your own words, SAVED ENGLAND, now at this point im inclined to thing of some Boorish stuffed shirt, a really racist one, like Flush, that never went to War, What was,,Oh Yeah
Commander McBragg.
December 8th, 2005 at 6:14 pmOf course the (value B after the (value C is incorrect and should be B+4 and the R=_))
BS wolfowitz BS.
Wolfowitz was asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where no WMD had been found: Wolfowitz said: “Let’s look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.”
That comment followed his widely reported statement from an interview in Vanity Fair in which he said that “for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction.”
Never trust anyone involved in PNAC
December 8th, 2005 at 6:17 pmuhhh, how do I sign up for the blow job plan?
Sounds better than this.
December 8th, 2005 at 6:18 pmOh dear…it does appear that ol’ Wolfie is trying to rewrite history. I thought only the Dems did that.
December 8th, 2005 at 6:19 pmJust another typical republican lie.
December 8th, 2005 at 6:20 pmWolfowitz strongly suggested yesterday that, had we known Saddam did not possess WMD, the United States would not invaded Iraq. From the AP:
December 8th, 2005 at 6:27 pmThey knew Saddam posed no Danger. Thats why they didnt want the U.N. Inspectors finish looking.
It was all about the OIL!
Not WMDS, NOT Terrorists, Hell, Not even Freedom! No, This War was to conquer the oil fields.
Greedy barbarians and savages
December 8th, 2005 at 6:29 pmgopal balakrishnan
FUTURE UNKNOWN
Machiavelli for the Twenty-First Century
When ARE you guys EVER going to Learn, that TRUTH always TRAVELS thru all space and TIME?
Heres WOLFIES Politico EXPERIMENT he so idiotically Depended on, the ‘NEW PHENOM’,, Talk about Questionable..
http://yalepress.yale.edu/ yupbooks/ catalogue/ polisci04.pdf
December 8th, 2005 at 6:30 pmWolfowitz didn,t say” had we known ”
December 8th, 2005 at 6:33 pmthat there had always been three major concerns.
No,
Wolfowitz strongly suggested yesterday that, had we known Saddam did not possess WMD, the United States would not invaded Iraq
You mean all that time Cheney spent in secret energy policy meetings divvying up Iraqi oilfields with Big Oil before the marketing of the invasion….that was not a factor?
With any luck, Wolfowitz will be joining Bush-Cheney and the rest of the PNAC crew when we indict them on conspiracy to commit war crimes.
December 8th, 2005 at 6:35 pmYou mean all that time Cheney spent in secret energy policy meetings divvying up Iraqi oilfields with Big Oil before the marketing of the invasion….that was not a factor?
With any luck, Wolfowitz will be joining Bush-Cheney and the rest of the PNAC crew when we indict them on conspiracy to commit war crimes after the 2006 midterms.
December 8th, 2005 at 6:36 pmLeo Strauss, the godfather of conservative philosophy and figurehead of the neoconservative movement, considered morality a ’stumbling block’ in the business of politics. Some of Strauss’ students and adherents are: Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Paul Wolfowitz, William Bennet, Richard Perle, Allan Bloom, John Podhertz, Irving Kristol and his son, William Kristol editor of the ‘Weekly Standard’. Strauss’ political philosophy can be simplified into 3 basic rules: Deception, Power of Religion, and Aggressive Nationalism…(to all of the Neocons on the board, NOW I get ya!!?). Liberals, this will clarify the RW madness. Jim Lobe AlterNet 1.) DECEPTION Mr. Strauss considered deception a norm in political life. As a matter of fact, he considered it a necessity. He believed that societies should be hierarchical–divided between an elite who should lead and masses who should follow. He believed that “those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right–the right of the superior to rule over the inferior”. This dichotomy requires ‘perpetual deception’ between the rulers and the ruled. “The people are told what they need to know and no more”. While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of moral truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy. 2.) POWER OF RELIGION Strauss had a “huge contempt” for secular democracy. Nazism, he believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the seperation of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control. At the time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were a “pious fraud”. As Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine points out, “Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers.” “Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing”,
December 8th, 2005 at 6:36 pmLIES LIES LIES LIES DECEPTION LIES LIES LIES LIES
December 8th, 2005 at 6:39 pmLIES LIES LIES LIES DECEPTION LIES LIES LIES LIES
LIES LIES LIES LIES DECEPTION LIES LIES LIES LIES
Wolfowitz strongly suggested yesterday that, had we known .
moahahahahaha.
Wolfowitz Should have strongly suggested yesterday that, we knew. we,re
December 8th, 2005 at 6:55 pmYou Know Wolfowitz , With those Big Elephant Ears, How could You Have NOT Known?? Hhmmmm?
December 8th, 2005 at 6:56 pmSpeaking of “the war” I am reminded that reichsfuhrer Rumsfeld had an “epiphany” the other day. He decided to stop calling the insurgents in Iraq “insurgents” and came up with some transcendentally absurd acronym for them. Well, I too have had an epiphany. Why are we calling the situation in Iraq a “war”? The war was over two years ago. What we have now is an OCCUPATION. Let’s start calling it that and our perception of our situation there will immediately change.
December 8th, 2005 at 6:58 pmah, wolfowitz
following in rumsfeld’s footsteps.
you want some revisionist history, well you’re reading it above. wolfowitz’s statements and historical revisionism in action.
with respect to the “three (or four) main concerns” wolfowitz spoke about, there is another he left unsaid:
that saddam hussein was a threat to the security of the state of israel and it would be to israel’s advantage if the u.s. could be induced to take saadam out. it would, to paraphrase douglas feith, et al, “enhance the sucurity of the realm” - the realm in this case being israel.
December 8th, 2005 at 7:05 pmThat is what he says now.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but here is what he said then:
“I think one has to say it’s not just a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism. And that’s why it has to be a broad and sustained campaign.”
I mean, I didn’t see anything at all in that statement concerning WMD’s or a reluctance to invade Iraq.
December 8th, 2005 at 7:05 pmJesus Christ God of WAR,
There was a rumor that Uday and Qusay Hussein were goin gto overthrow Saddam. The rumor was that they planned on overthrowing Saddam on March 24, 2003. The day after we invaded.
I don’t know how true the rumor is, but it is kind of interesting to think we might have stopped that from happening.
Of course, it is also well documented that Qusay was a real bastard worse than Saddam.
December 8th, 2005 at 7:05 pmdon’t ya just love zionists?
December 8th, 2005 at 7:12 pmHis conscious must be bothering the hellout of him .
He his almost coming clean .No matter what he says or said in the past , the overiding reason to go war was oil. If it was not that big prize we would not be stiil there .
The major force behind the war is ” BIG DICK ,LITTLE DICK
CHENEY
Georgie girl and others are tools of this evil Machavillian mind.
December 8th, 2005 at 7:15 pmplease, would you listen to Himmler?
why would you listen to a war criminal like wolfoitz.
December 8th, 2005 at 7:18 pmIt’s interesting that in the same article, it says that Algeria and John Bolton believe that, “Iraq has entered a new era and should be treated as a normal country where disarmament conventions should apply.†I wonder if Algeria has a friendly prison system. Wolfowitz is trying to arrange the first stages of getting more aid to Iraq as well as loans. More than likely he is the advance man for withdrawal from Iraq, or at least the appearance of withdrawal and “normalizing relationsâ€. He is still very involved.
December 8th, 2005 at 7:38 pmAh, yeah, right. Tell that to the families of those that have died. A little late now to admit your ideology might have been wrong.
December 8th, 2005 at 7:45 pmHe must be saying if we knew then what we know now we would expect that what we knew then would have helped us now know what we did was the right thing.
December 8th, 2005 at 8:01 pmWolfowitosis -
Dimentia caused by excessive licking of one’s own comb.
December 8th, 2005 at 8:03 pmTP gets it wrong again. There was no “sharp departure” from what he said in 2003. Here’s the actual transcript:
MR. DUNHAM: If you knew then what you know now about the weapons of mass destruction, would you still have favored the invasion to topple Saddam? And how would the administration’s reasoning have changed if you knew there were not the weapons?
MR. WOLFOWITZ: Well, I always believed and I still believe that there were at least three major reasons — there’s some other reasons, as well — why Saddam was a danger, why that regime was a danger. Both with his weapons of mass destruction programs — and by the way, I don’t think anyone has claimed that he didn’t have the capacity, once out of sanctions, to generate those weapons. We focus a little too much on this question of what was actually there when we got to Baghdad.
But I believe David Kay and Charles Deulfer have both made it clear — lots of people have made it clear — that once free from the sanctions, Saddam would have been back in business. Remember, he built these things. There’s no question he had them 14 years ago, and there’s not much question he could have had them again in the future.
But that was only one of the reasons. I think his support for terrorism in various forms was the second reason. And his genocidal treatment of his own people is the third reason of the principal ones.
But if you ask what difference would it have made, I think one of the biggest differences is that if we could have been convinced — and I’m not sure based on the evidence we know now that we could have been absolutely convinced — that there was no danger — absolutely no danger — somebody could have given you a Lloyds of London guarantee that weapons of mass destruction would not possibly be used, one could have contemplated much more support for internal Iraqi opposition and not having to have the United States take the job on the way we did.
If you have any doubt about it, read Bob Woodward’s book. I’m not going to swear by every detail of it, but it’s demonstrated over and over again that when General Franks was putting his plan together, one of his major preoccupations and one of the reasons the military plan emphasized speed over mass was to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction. It was the sense that the greatest danger in taking this man on would be that he would use them. If you could’ve given us a guarantee that they wouldn’t be used, there would have been other policy options available probably.
December 8th, 2005 at 8:10 pmFor some reason(s), Wolfie is doing some CYA measures. #1) it’s a foolish argument of ‘guarantees’. All of us who live in ‘reality’ realize there’s no such thing as to guarantees. Had there been ‘guarantees’ in relation to Iraq, it would have been even more blatantly illegal to have preemptive invasion. #2) There had been mounting evidence, that the Bush administration was already aware of, and the UN Security Counsel Meeting on March 7, 2003, that gave pretty strong indication that Suddam was not ‘armed and dangerous’. Two articles, one in particular, gives a comprehensive discussion regarding evidence and the lack thereof:
Drinking the Koolaid, by W. Patrick Lane
http://www.mepc.org/ public_asp/ journal_vol11/ 0406_lang.asp
There was a rush to war because the fabricated evidence screen was starting to fall, and quickly.
#3) The primary focus was on Suddam’s WMD, with particular emphasis on the ‘mushroom cloud’/nuclear weapons. Rep. Henry A. Waxman commissioned a study regarding the multitude of misleading statements and how they affected various members of Congress:
http://www.truthout.org/ cgi-bin/ artman/ exec/ view.cgi/ 7/ 3919/ printer
Maybe the PNAC boys are getting getting the Fitzmas gitters?
December 8th, 2005 at 8:10 pmDosnt really matter about the WMDS. the war is a proven fact for OIL! really had nothing to do with WMDs
December 8th, 2005 at 8:12 pmthats why halliburton is there.
December 8th, 2005 at 8:13 pmdid you know halliburton was in iran too?
and in africa?
Creeping fascism by S. Rowan Wolf, Ph.D.Online Journal Contributing Writer.
June 18, 2004—It is just one lie after another, one cover-up after another, one egregious tromping of our Constitution after another, and yet almost half the population supports the Bush Regime. Unfortunately, that half is also strongly represented in the legislative branch of our government. This means that while the exposes, and atrocities, and lies continue to dance across the headlines, legislation continues to be put forward and passed that cements the travesty of the current regime’s vision.
http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=5937
December 8th, 2005 at 8:18 pmSo, is this the new trend in politics? Simply say ‘had we known’ and all is forgiven for this incorrigible invasion? You can’t undo a train wreck with an apology…
December 8th, 2005 at 8:20 pm#23 Great idea. From now on I will do just that. The Iraqi Occupation.
December 8th, 2005 at 8:22 pmI see we are forgetting ONCE again that CURVEBALL was DEBUNKED BEFORE the WAR, err Occupation.
Saddam Was Hogg Tied by embargos that killed many, overflights, 90% of the Uranium is VERY tightly controlled, NOT to Mention the SATTELITE photos that were USED when the SATELLITE WAS OUT OF ORDER, OLD Black and WHITE photos as well, WE HAVE COLOR Satellites, ALUMINUM tubes, even if FOR centrifuges, would have to been modified, not to mentiion the TIME and the AMOUNT of centrifuges Needed.
NOT to mention the FOIA Records Showing the US shipping WMD to SADDAM, OSamas oerative name was TIM OSMAN when he was sold shoulder fired Missiles.
We, as a Country, with Idiot leaders, have in effect, created Frankenstein, HERE and ABROAD.
~~
December 8th, 2005 at 8:37 pmStudy Finds why Bush Stamps Do not stick, Apparently people are spitting on the wrong side.
~~
Write to rita@msnbc in Bagrham Afganistan a letter.
December 8th, 2005 at 9:02 pmShe is over there trying to find positive news.
I,m sure She is being Paid well.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9402797/
December 8, 2005 | 1:34 p.m. ET
Outside the wire in Afghanistan (Rita Cosby)
I hope all of you will tune in tonight at 9 p.m. ET as we continue our special coverage live and direct from Afghanistan. We’ve just returned from one of the most fascinating stories I’ve ever covered. We went on patrol with the 164th Military Police Company from Ft. Richardson, Alaska, who’ve been stationed here in Bagram Air Field
December 8th, 2005 at 9:03 pmAJ, Yea, I did that myself, couldn,t figure out why it wouldnt stick. thanks for the tip.
December 8th, 2005 at 9:05 pm#39 bless you?:
“So, is this the new trend in politics? Simply say ‘had we known’ and all is forgiven…”
Don’t we all wish we could go back to 2000 and apply THAT strategy to our politics?
Or, actually, back to Jimmy Carter’s time? Reagan and Reaganomics would never have seen the light of day.
Had we only known then….
December 8th, 2005 at 9:17 pmHad we known doesen’t give them a pass on an illegal war , even if I was to buy that .
December 8th, 2005 at 9:26 pmOops, inadvertent double post there.
MichDem, there’s nothing illegal about the liberation of Iraq. Spouting bumper sticker cliches is no substitute for an argument.
December 8th, 2005 at 9:31 pmWally I know me and you have been through this liberation debate allready , I’m not arguing the obvious with you , I don’t need spin for argument , but you seem to .
December 8th, 2005 at 9:50 pmA good tar and feathering is in order for the top dogs in the Bush administration. I am 72 years old and lived through a depression, WWII, several other wars and served in the US Army. Three brothers served in combat zones in WWII. In all my years I have never seen this nation in such disarray as it is today due to the incompetence, greed and corrupt behavior of the leadership of this so called administration. For Wolfowitz to admit that the ignorance of the Bush cabal was a factor in the search for WMDS that were never there is singularly noteworthy. The American people have been duped by policies enacted by this truly inept group. The loss of lives in Iraq and the squandering of billions of dollars borders on the criminal. I may have little time left in this world, but would rejoice in seeing these warmongers brought to justice for there malfeasance. I cringe at the thought of what our children are to inherit as a result of the Bush administration. To start a pre-emptive war when doubts about the existence of WMDS were generally accepted by inspectors, nuclear experts and the major countries of the world was a step into the unknown that indicates a lack of common sense beyond any rational thinking. The entire country needs to rethink the prospect of another three years of mismanagement of the affairs of this country.
December 8th, 2005 at 9:52 pmMichDem, you’re the one spinning.
Nova16, the bipartisan, international consensus before the liberation of Iraq was that Iraq was a threat, had WMD, and was a state sponsor of terrorist groups.
December 8th, 2005 at 9:56 pmhttp://www.kadampa.org/ english/ books/ guide_to_dakini_land.php
December 8th, 2005 at 9:57 pmCarefull Nova16 , you’re a prime target and example of what these nazis call unpatriotic . Apperently patriots flex muscle with other peoples lives and never speak out against tyrony and injustice even with the mostundeniable evidence . Nice post anyway .
December 8th, 2005 at 9:59 pmWell, I wonder if we could slip a few WMD’s into Dafur - would Wolfies rules still apply? Oh, no oil. Sorry.
December 8th, 2005 at 9:59 pmWally you’re such a child . I’ve raised kids , you remind me of when my daughter had chocolate all over her shirt , and I asked her ” did you get in the chocolate ” and her reply was “no” , I guess that’s how the whole gop acts , this is too easy .
December 8th, 2005 at 10:03 pmPatriots do not call their fellow Americans Nazis. Doing so is akin to Holocaust denial.
December 8th, 2005 at 10:03 pmNova16, You may be Old but you are Far from worthless, YOU are the very ones we Need to Correct the Mess this Admin has Gotten us into. As long as you have an ability to type, and a computer,WE NEED YOU! And others LIKE YOU! John Murtha and You Have Far greater wisdom than most young people in the entire world have. Godspeed in you Endeavor on focusing on Enlightment.
December 8th, 2005 at 10:03 pmLuv ya.
MichDem, your ad hominem attacks violate the site Terms of Use. Why don’t you try making a reasoned argument instead?
December 8th, 2005 at 10:04 pmNova who did you tangle with in the Big 2 ?
December 8th, 2005 at 10:06 pmP.S. Nova16, The knowledge that you have gained along with the wisdom you posess? Who knows? You might be the very one to Save the Day.
December 8th, 2005 at 10:06 pmGreat Captain Nerdo’s back for grammar check
December 8th, 2005 at 10:07 pmOk that was bad in the spirit of John Lennon I’ll give peace a chance , actually that’s a good idea for everyone to try , I’ll quit picking on wally .
December 8th, 2005 at 10:11 pmThere was no “holocaust”, wwallace.
December 8th, 2005 at 10:13 pmThe Holocaust is one of the best-documented events in world history, Seth. No serious person disputes it.
December 8th, 2005 at 10:18 pmYea, there was what was called a Holocaust, but, What caused it?
December 8th, 2005 at 10:22 pmWally I do agree with you there . They make about ten movies a year about it . I’d like to see more people become aware of what’s happening in the Sudan .
December 8th, 2005 at 10:22 pmHolo Cause.
December 8th, 2005 at 10:23 pmWho called it Halo?(empty cause?)
December 8th, 2005 at 10:25 pmThe Turks wipe out over a million Armenians , you have Stalen , Pol Pot , who am I forgeting , not too many movies about them though .
December 8th, 2005 at 10:25 pmforgetting ww would be nice.
December 8th, 2005 at 10:27 pmWwallace:
Well, if I can’t call a fellow American a Nazi, can I call W’s grandfather a Nazi supporter? Because he was, you know.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ international/ story/ 0,,1312484,00.html
Does that mean I’m not a patriot, or do I get a pass this one time?
December 8th, 2005 at 10:28 pmGrampa would’ve been arrested and at Gitmo by now , people were arrested for less WC
December 8th, 2005 at 10:31 pmThat’s BS WC.
December 8th, 2005 at 10:32 pmWally it’s not BS it’s real , he laundered money for the Nazis
December 8th, 2005 at 10:34 pmsee how money plays into everything?
December 8th, 2005 at 10:40 pmWho created Money , ?
Did you know the Bible mentions “east”
December 8th, 2005 at 10:44 pm204 Results
Along with the Faith based initative theocracy ever creaps closer to democracy . Draw your answer from that Freedom , things are getting wacky , Neil Bush neil is touring with the moonies , I swear I’m not making this up .
December 8th, 2005 at 10:45 pmand west
December 8th, 2005 at 10:45 pm117 Results
And the Oil is Mentioned
202 Results
December 8th, 2005 at 10:48 pmWW - a talking candidate for headlining “White Trash Expo”. For more details, tune in to Bob&Tom!
December 8th, 2005 at 10:48 pmnothing is for free
December 8th, 2005 at 10:50 pm#50, no, the concensus of the world the day Powell shilled for the PNAC at the UN was that ‘there was no Adlai Stevenson’ moment, the WMD tale was at that time ‘not proven’ as the Scots say and that the UN inspectors needed more time. And as for the threat: here’s Colin Powell and Condi Rice, once again: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
The state terror sponsorship seem to matter in the 1980s did it? That’s a political label with little meaning to the US when it matters.
Thank you for playing.
December 8th, 2005 at 10:52 pmLook at the Dates ww/
But two years earlier, Powell said just the opposite. The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell’s visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions — the fact that the sanctions exist — not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein’s ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…
December 8th, 2005 at 10:57 pmYou’ll bite on anything, won’tcha wwallace?
December 8th, 2005 at 11:01 pmJeesh. You’re the perfect shill.
Deuteronomy 20:12 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:02 pmDeuteronomy 20:10 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:03 pmThe “Holocaust” is a Jewish creation.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:03 pmYour ad hominem attacks violate the site Terms of Use and do not refute any of the facts I’ve posted.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:06 pmWallace, when you post some facts, we’ll refute them for you. So far, all I’ve seen are talking points. Do you have any kung fu for us?
December 8th, 2005 at 11:14 pmSaul, you’d better come up with something to back yourself up, you are skirting dangerously on the ridiculous. Oh and neo-nazi sources don’t count.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:16 pmFINF - I have a bible too - what’s your point?
December 8th, 2005 at 11:18 pmYeah Terry,
I can’t make out what FINF is trying to say
December 8th, 2005 at 11:24 pmeither and, well, I have mostly given up trying.
The Bible makes a great referance to War and Peace. Rich and poor.Sickness and health. men and women. God and Satan.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:24 pmUse it.
It helps to understand what in the world is going on.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:25 pmsorry typo, , reference
December 8th, 2005 at 11:26 pmIs this worth the PRICE?
Can we afford 1 billion dollars per week, PER WEEK, for a war that offers nothing on our investment.
Come on, who in their right mind would invest 1 billion dollars per week and not expect a return?
Is there a return?
I can’t think of any. My gas prices aren’t down to 50 cents a gallon.
My heating gas isnt’ down to a mere $30 a month.
1 billion dollars a month to promote democracy in Iraq?
1 billion dollars a mont to remove Saddam Hussein?
Where’s my return? I’m not getting anything.
What? Are we retarded or do we just enjoy sacrificing our nation for another?
Retarded is my answer.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:29 pmThis wasn,t done” 10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. ”
This? 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city.
Did Afganistan or Iraq refuse Peace?
December 8th, 2005 at 11:31 pmanswer”no”
Dear Members of Military Speak Out,
We received the message below from MoveOn.org telling us that they would very much like military families to be involved in events they are organizing in cities and towns across the U.S. next Wednesday, December 14th. Many of you may have received this same message directly from MoveOn. MoveOn.org will be delivering petitions to Members of Congress, asking them to support “an exit strategy in Iraq with a timeline that brings American troops home in 2006.”
Our position as Military Families Speak Out is: “Bring Them Home NOW and Take Care of Them When They Get Here.” This has been our position all along.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:33 pm#92 - but I can get a lot of that stuff from Grimm’s Fairy Tales too. Or Star Trek.
Susan, I never really hear anyone make that argument - as if progressives are embarrassed to talk about money and they feel more comfortbale in the ‘moral argument’. Yours is very simple and powerful: what national interest is being served by the Iraq disaster?
December 8th, 2005 at 11:35 pm#96, Aha now you are making sense: the Afghans (the Taleban) did not offer up OBL, so they did NOT offer peace, however, I beleive that Saddam did make some overtures through the Syrians or Jordanians? Yes?
December 8th, 2005 at 11:37 pmTerry, #90: “Wallace, when you post some facts, we’ll refute them for you.”
This is the equivalent of the playground “I’m rubber, and you’re glue…”
Boring.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:39 pmSo Wallace, all you have done is make a few statements without any references to back them up. How about it? Until you do, I don’t see what kind of argument you are making. I can sit here and type ‘Bill Clinton has a tiny dong’. I could be right, I could be wrong, but unless I have something to bakc up what I say, I am making statements about as worthless as yours. What have you got? The subject is Paul Wolfowitz and WMD - what have you got?
December 8th, 2005 at 11:43 pmYou can start with my post #81, if you are having trouble engaging with the subject matter….
December 8th, 2005 at 11:53 pmTerrytheTurtle , Yes, yes,yes. I am not making sense though. the Bible is. I am merely Qouting from the Bible/ For I know Nothing. so I use the Bible to Guide me.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:54 pmbut, what you said? yes.
“Boring.
Comment by wwallace”
You couldn’t have described yourself or your arguments any better…
December 8th, 2005 at 11:55 pmwhy do you call yourself the turtle? seems to me you ae alot faster than most in this blog.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:56 pm#103 - the bible quotes need context, that’s what I am saying. I was having trouble connecting the quotes to Paul Wolfowitz and WMD.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:57 pmThere were no WMD, even though we found them, fought them and saw them….Yep, lefties are losing election after election because they’re mis-understood…..
December 9th, 2005 at 12:00 amActually Terry , the Bible has the Context and reference, its just hard to find them in a jiffy.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:00 amthats why alot of people just use Gut feelings or plain ole horse sense.
wwallace says that Prescott Bush wasn’t a nazi, this is a well documented and PROVEN fact.
“After the seizures in late 1942 of five U.S. enterprises he managed on behalf of Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen, Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, failed to divest himself of more than a dozen “enemy national” relationships that continued until as late as 1951, newly-discovered U.S. government documents reveal.”
There’s a great article at the New Hampshire Gazette, but it’s just one of MANY sources that document the Nazi business ventures of the Bush family. Bush = Nazi, end of discussion.
http://www.nhgazette.com/ cgi-bin/ NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2
December 9th, 2005 at 12:00 am“There were no WMD, even though we found them, fought them and saw them….” Mark Marco
Bahaha, the US USING wmds against Iraqis doesn’t qualify you retarded monkey…
December 9th, 2005 at 12:01 amMarrk, are you drunk? Tell me why I should ‘waste my beautiful mind’ on you.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:01 amTerry,
He isn’t drunk, he’s ‘deficient’.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:02 amOh that’s right, the WMD were in Iraq the day the US invaded: the depleted uranium and the MK77 (son-of-napalm). DU the WMD that keeps on killing.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:03 amTurtle, Ryan Neat is a prime example of what i am referring too. he dosnt know it but everything he points to can be found in the bible. what wwallace talks about can also be found, but, whos side would you rather be on?
December 9th, 2005 at 12:05 amI prefer what Jesus is for, not what Jesus is Against.
wwallace, are you following me on this?
Well at the risk of diving into the bible further than I would like to go… you can find pretty much anything you want in the bible. Funny how what the Man himself said never gets much airplay….
December 9th, 2005 at 12:07 amWolfowitz is a shining example of the lack of character in the neocons. They suffer from group think on a single focus. They are morally bankrupt, and ethically corrupt.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:08 amWallace is thinking……..
December 9th, 2005 at 12:10 amfreedom,
I attended ‘christian’ seminary you idiot. I know more about the bible that you could conceive, and frankly based on your postings you know very little of it. I am a hindu, not a christian, because frankly it’s a more useful set of religious principles.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:17 amfreedom,
If you want to understand christianity, you have to study the gnostic texts. The ‘christian bible’ is both deficient and misleading on christian teachings.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:18 amWallace is thinking……
December 9th, 2005 at 12:19 amcan he do that?
December 9th, 2005 at 12:21 amDemagogue: “A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.”
Bush is a Demagogue, republicans are prejudiced.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:21 amMaybe we’re looking at Plamegate all wrong — what if the reason for Plamegate was to disrupt Valerie Plame’s anti-proliferation network in Eastern Europe so that Saddam could buy an (ex-)Soviet nuke on the black market?
We know that Plame worked (covertly) in WMD anti-proliferation. An elegant, erudite, multilingual blonde woman is totally unremarkable in Eastern Europe: she could appear be an Italian businesswoman, usw. Since she was covert, she was probably running a network that tracked Soviet-era munitions that appeared on the black market. Once she was outed, her network would be in disarray until a new agent could take over the network and reestablish Plame’s contacts. During that several months period, it would be (relatively) easy for Saddam’s operatives to buy and bring home a Soviet-era nuke. Outing Valerie Plame was a last-gasp attempt by the Bush Administration to provide Saddam with WMD’s that could be found when the US invaded.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:22 amWallace, did your brain explode, do you need help?
December 9th, 2005 at 12:24 amMaybe we’re looking at Plamegate all wrong — what if the reason for Plamegate was to disrupt Valerie Plame’s anti-proliferation network in Eastern Europe so that Saddam could buy an (ex-)Soviet nuke on the black market?
We know that Plame worked (covertly) in WMD anti-proliferation. An elegant, erudite, multilingual blonde woman is totally unremarkable in Eastern Europe: she could appear be an Italian businesswoman, usw. Since she was covert, she was probably running a network that tracked Soviet-era munitions that appeared on the black market. Once she was outed, her network would be in disarray until a new agent could take over the network and reestablish Plame’s contacts. During that several months period, it would be (relatively) easy for Saddam’s operatives to buy and bring home a Soviet-era nuke. Outing Valerie Plame was a last-gasp attempt by the Bush Administration to provide Saddam with WMD’s that could be found when the US invaded.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:25 amRyan, I am not disagreeing with you. I am agreeing with you.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:25 amQoute: from hindu.
I sorta figured you out to be Knowledgable of the Bible .reader.
you have that sixth sense alot of people do not have.
Thats a Good thing.
Some people call it “Wisdom”.
Conspiracy, OK, that’s a fun tale, but I think Occam’s Razor applies here: Plame was outed to discredit Wilson, because Wilson exposed the whole WMD house of cards. PLame MAY (only may because I don’t really know and probably am not in a position to know) have been outed to disrupt the undercover company as it exposed certain Israeli activities… but then that’s a conspiracy theory…
December 9th, 2005 at 12:28 amU.S. military probes video of road violence
British contractors appear to shoot at Iraqi civilians
MORE ON WASHINGTONPOST.COM
• Most viewed on MSNBC.com
By Jonathan Finer and Ellen Knickmeyer
Updated: 12:12 a.m. ET Dec. 9, 2005
December 9th, 2005 at 12:29 amBAGHDAD, Dec. 8 - A silver Mercedes swings into the passing lane when a machine gun opens fire, sending the car smashing into a taxi, whose terrified occupants scatter. Moments later, in a video posted on the Internet and apparently recorded in Iraq, a white sedan is riddled with bullets as it accelerates on an open highway.
Cry Wolfowitz should be tarred and feathered for what he did with US foreign policy during the 90s and post 9/11. The man is a shameless and greasy economic hitman in chief! I haven`t forgotten why he wanted us in Iraq - regime change, regime change, regime change! These neocon maggots think that most of us have short attention spans and memories. We are not that stupid nor ignorant, however.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:30 amLIES, LIES AND MORE LIES.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:31 amWhat is Al Gores Wifes name again?
December 9th, 2005 at 12:32 amWell looks like Wallace has disappeared in a puff of irrelevance….
December 9th, 2005 at 12:39 amconspiracytheorist,
Apparently plame worked for brewster jennings, and they caught an illegal shipment of VXNerve gas in turkey that was headed for Iraq. Apparently it was being shipped by the US through middlemen in israel to ‘fabricate’ evidence of iraqi WMDs. They apparently were ‘pissed’ because this was enough to bring down the whole fake war premise.
The practice is called ’salting’.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/11/19/82552/557
December 9th, 2005 at 12:48 amRyan Neat
December 9th, 2005 at 12:52 amJust recently in the News , they were trying to say Russia was selling Iran nuclear missles. Coincident?
Russia is selling missiles (not nuclear) to Iran, but not nuclear ones…
December 9th, 2005 at 12:57 amHere’s W’s current theory on where the WMDs are:
December 9th, 2005 at 1:06 amIn February of 2003, Saddam spake with Allah and asked what to do with his WMDs. Allah said unto Saddam , “Hide them in the center of your galaxy, no prying eyes of the infidel – excepting Stephen Hawking, shall see because there is an enormous black hole existing there.†Saddam said unto Allah “How will I get them back?†And Allah said unto Saddam “72 virgins will rise and bring them to you.†. And Saddam said unto Allah “Screw the WMDs, but move them anyway, I’ll take the virgins.â€
Walt, do you live in Portland, by any chance?
December 9th, 2005 at 1:08 amWhere in Florida is Portland?
December 9th, 2005 at 1:12 amIssOK, I have a friend in Portland (Oregon) called Walt who thinks like you…
December 9th, 2005 at 1:14 amwhere in portland is florida?
December 9th, 2005 at 1:17 amTerrytheTurtle
December 9th, 2005 at 1:20 amI hope your Walt is not in a padded cell!
LOL - maybe….
December 9th, 2005 at 1:29 amAhhh, the Zionist speaks…..only 100,000 deaths too late. But I’m quite sure his holdings in oil and gas are more than scecure. Wolfowitz speaks for Israel not the US, the same with Pearle, Feith, Zakiem, Lieberman and the rest of the gang. It’s all about Israeil power and domination in the region - at the expense of American lives, of course.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:38 amUsing WMDs, Middle East democracy, Hussein’s brutality or any of the other ludicrous reasons as justification for war is like saying the North faught the South to free the slaves in the US Civil War, or the US joined WWII to liberate the concentration camps.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:59 amJafari,
December 9th, 2005 at 2:07 amThe reasons for the war in Iraq were before the the invasion. In the other wars you cite, they were an aftermath.
Nite, nite kiddies - this old man is going to bed.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:16 amThanks for that Link Ryan,
December 9th, 2005 at 3:51 amthought to point Trollips to SALE of WMD and ensuing Coverup of said Sale—
~~
The Bush 2 administration’s main priority at Al Qaa Qaa was to have the incriminating evidence of binary VX nerve gas from the United States removed. A British hazardous material team removed the canisters with U.S. serial numbers. Although the Bush 2 administration highlighted documents presented by the Saddam Hussein government to the United Nations showing the sale of weapons and other embargoed equipment by French, Soviet (and Russian), German, and Yugoslavian firms to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and after, it quickly classified the documents pointing to the sale of U.S. and British weapons (including WMDs) to the Saddam Hussein regime.
Posted:
And the Oil is Mentioned
202 Results
Comment by freedom is not free! — December 8, 2005 @ 10:48 pm
Um, you do realize the “oil” has absolutely nothing to do with the crude stuff that comes up from the ground, and everything to do with the stuff that’s pressed from olives? For crying out loud, no one’s going to occupy Iraq because of the “oil” mentioned in the Bible.
December 9th, 2005 at 8:45 amOh, would you clarify your (for lack of a better word) reasoning behind the number of times “east” and “west” are mentioned. I’m certain that both words appear in the works of Shakespeare a fair number of times as well with as much connection to the modern world.
I agree with Saul and Seth, the 2 Jewish sounding named posters about denial of the Holocaust.
December 9th, 2005 at 9:20 amPROOF THE HOLOCAUST DID NOT HAPPEN AS STATED
December 9th, 2005 at 9:42 amIf there had been gas chambers and six million jews died then why would Zundel have been held without charges in the U.S. and Canada. In todays world when a person is denied a trial, it is because the governement is trying to coverup a lie. For example, deny Jose Padilla a trial to coverup his role in the OKC bombing (John Doe #2). They use secret trials and claim national defense to deny fair trials. The last thing they want are the facts to be made public in a proper trial. In the ‘trial’ of Ernst Zundel this is also the case. The ‘judge’ in the case, Dr. Meinerzhagen , made it clear that Zundel’s lawyer would be held on criminal charges for bringing up any arguments to defend Ernst Zundel. The last thing the judge wants is for facts on the holocaust to be put into court transcripts. It is very similar to the ‘judge’ that tried Irwin Schiff on tax evasion. That ‘judge’, Kent J. Dawson, would not allow Irwin Schiff to bring up any laws in the courtroom. (Irwin Schiff is possibly the foremost authority on the internal revenue code in the country). In both cases, these judicial scum are trying to cover up a lie by convicting principled men of character who stand by what they believe in. No Virginia, there were no gas chambers and there is no law that requires Americans to pay income tax.
Also read:
The Zionist War On Your Freedom Of Speech PDF By John Kaminski skylax@comcast.net 11-20-5
Why the Sudden Clampdown on Revisionists? PDF Rixon Stewart ? November 20, 2005 - Are historical truth and the memory of dead holocaust victims being defended? Or is it one of the foundations of the New World Order, modern Zionist power?
WWallace,
I’m not one of the most regular regulars around here, but I’m sure you’ve read my posts from time to time.
I’m glad to see you exhorting people to hew a line of polite discourse; my continual drumbeat is that despite people’s radically different concepts of proper governance, the role of the media, what constitutes reality, and the definitions of a whole host of terms, there’s no excuse for not being polite to one another.
A major idea of reasoned debate is that there are rules, and that one party may not call another party names or hurl personal insults. Our ideas and our persuasive skills rule the day, not who can shout, insult, and insinuate the loudest.
So thanks and I do agree with you. I always urge fellow Left-leaners to be respectful and polite. I’m encouraging you to remind Right-leaners to do the same. They may listen to one of their own, is my reasoning. I’m not too comfortable with this continual reference to right-wingers as trolls, Nazis, etc. It simply doesn’t help and doesn’t convince anyone of anything, except that adults are few and far between. I am obviously dismayed by people continually calling me a traitor or worse as well.
Just remember, most of us want the same thing: a free society which is prosperous, safe, with a government which is transparent and un-corrupt, and the rule of Law to prevail. To be a beacon of freedom and democracy to the world. To use our immense power and good fortune to help the globe. not dominate it ruthlessly. A singular nation that lives up to its ideals. A place where our children can grow and thrive.
There’s no need to hate one another.
So for the record we may agree on absolutely nothing but I don’t hate you.
BTW, if the holocaust never happened then some of my family members are really, really late in getting home!
Peace to you.
December 9th, 2005 at 9:45 amDid World War III Begin on March 20, 2003?
H. G. Wells wrote a book in 1933 called The Shape of Things to Come, in which he accurately forecast that World War II would start, “out of a conflict between Germany and Poland circa 1939â€. In the same book, Wells also wrote that World War III was to commence, “from some future [unidentified] event in Basrah, Iraq.†Is he is 2 for 2 in his predictions?
WWII started when Hitler invaded Poland with a preemptive strike. It was actually a series of events but history chose that event to mark the beginning. I doubt that Germany or the rest of Europe had any inkling that they were in WWII. Not until much later that is. Many times people caught up in historical events fail to see the significance at the time and only do so when public attention focuses on them in retrospect. WWII and the war in Iraq were probably started by the same illuminati group that put Bush in power and have visions of a one world government.
The American Imperialist forces invaded Iraq primarily through their staging area in Kuwait in the southern portion of Iraq, near Basrah. They had planned a northern invasion but Turkey’s Parliament voted against allowing American troops to use their country.
As you may recall, Russia had billions of dollars of oil agreements with Iraq and with the invasion those agreements may become void. Russia has also indicated that it will not allow further imperialist drives to take place in that region.
The U.S. has been sending Israel bunker busting bombs and has given the green light for an Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran. If Israel does strike Iran or Syria, nuclear retaliation could result. Would this be the beginning of WWIII or just the escalation of the war that has already begun.
For more visit the Three World Wars website.
December 9th, 2005 at 9:53 amTo use our immense power and good fortune to help the globe. not dominate it ruthlessly.
December 9th, 2005 at 9:54 ammoahahahahaha, not!
You have immense power and good fortune ???? Why dont you help fellow americans ?
December 9th, 2005 at 9:58 amTo use our immense power and good fortune to dominate the globe ruthlessly. not help it .
\immense power and good fortune was used to dominate America.
I’m sure those who fund ThinkProgress will be very happy to learn it has become a site where Holocaust denial is right out in the open.
December 9th, 2005 at 10:30 amIf Israel does strike Iran or Syria, nuclear retaliation could result.
Nuclear retaliation by whom? The reason Israel would attack Iran would be to destroy their nuclear capabilities … like they did with Iraq.
December 9th, 2005 at 10:33 amI attended ‘christian’ seminary you idiot. I know more about the bible that you could conceive, and frankly based on your postings you know very little of it. I am a hindu, not a christian, because frankly it’s a more useful set of religious principles.
- Comment by Ryan
Wow … where’d you go to seminary? Don’t you mean you’re Hindu because you found it to be “true” and not, as you said, more useful (this sounds like you’re wielding religion, not practicing faith)? I’m not attacking you so chill … just clarifying.
December 9th, 2005 at 10:37 amSo it’s Hinduism that makes Ryan so filled with hatred and bigotry? I find that hard to believe, frankly.
December 9th, 2005 at 10:40 amHey Wallace, got any facts today?
December 9th, 2005 at 10:56 amOh and Wallace, the dude with the holocaust denial never showed up with any facts and disappeared in a puff of irrelevance, apparently you and he have something in common.
December 9th, 2005 at 10:58 amIf you want to understand christianity, you have to study the gnostic texts. The ‘christian bible’ is both deficient and misleading on christian teachings.
Which gnostic texts specifically … from what I’ve read in the Acts of Thomas, Acts of John, etc. they may differ (docetism comes to mind … maybe borrowed from Islam?) some, but much of, especially Thomas, is similar to the canonical gospels, namely Mark. Care to expound?
December 9th, 2005 at 10:59 amTerry
It is scary that he felt safe to post that garbage though (I’m not inferring that he only felt safe here, but that he felt safe in general) … why on earth do some people insist on “debunking” the holocaust … what does that possibly accomplish?
December 9th, 2005 at 11:01 amAfter the show of force in Afghanistan, the next logical cost effective step in removing terrorism would have been to broker peace between Israel and Palestine.
December 9th, 2005 at 11:03 amThere was no way that was going to happen with Wolfy and the other necons beating the Iraq war.
It took Binyamin Netanyahu a whole 9 days after 9/11 to start his sales pitch for proxy wars.
“There is no international terrorism without the support of sovereign statesâ€
“To this should also be added Saddam Hussein’s escape from destruction at the
end of the Gulf War, his dismissal of UN monitors, and his growing confidence
that he can soon develop unconventional weapons to match those of the West.â€
It was very magnanimous of Benny to help; last thing he wanted was the US to force peace on their conflict.
Why are the most religious people here the most angry, judgmental and vengeful? I thought religion was supposed to make you polite, loving and non-judgmental?
December 9th, 2005 at 11:07 amUnbelievable
More specifically, to whom are you referring?
December 9th, 2005 at 11:11 amunbelievable, the tactic of using God to get votes shows what they are really about. They want power and that is all. They will go to any lengths, just like Jesus, right? With all of their Christian talk, it is only talk. And yes, their VERSION of Chritianity comes with anger. It is their signature.
December 9th, 2005 at 11:27 amThe Administration knew that Iraq had no WMD and they knew that the Iraqi military was pathetic. They got this through very good intelligence out of Iraq. The World knew all this was true. The Administration used a rumor and innuendo as a pretext then used dr.’d reports and coerced evidence to justify an invasion. Why? Because they knew the US Military would kick the shit out of Iraq with relatively little casualties. And we did. That is why Bush pulled the “Mission Accomplished” B.S. Elections - Politics and a desire to be forever imortalized through American History, instead of a footnote to the success of his father. He was the “War President.”
They just didn’t care about the nation building and winning hearts and minds. It was over for them and they just ignored it and figured it would take care of itself. It was and “excercise” in testing a new army, new interrogation techniques, the higher participation of civil contractors, which made money for all of them, (a nice byproduct BTW), and to use as club over the Democrats to get everything they wanted passed in the Congress, without people dissenting to much. It would be unpatriotic to do so. Their plan worked until the corruption started boiling over and people are fed up.
So everything they say is just backwards spinning to coverup their FUBAR in this War and the Country. The real truth will never be reveiled.
December 9th, 2005 at 11:37 amSome religious thoughts:
The Thomas gospel is actually quite far philosophically from the synoptic gospels in one key respect: Thomas held that Jesus’ message was that the path to God is within us all and we can reach him without going through the power structure of a church organization.
In short, Thomas held that the locus of God’s grace is in the individual. The Gospels as eventually spoon-fed to the sub-literate Christian world stated that the only way to God is through Jesus, and that the only way to Jesus is through the (Early Catholic) Church.
Jesus was a Jew. Period. He did not want a new church. If he did indeed claim to be the Messiah, it was the Jewish Messiah, not some half-man, half-God conceptualized in Greece. The Jewish concept of Messiah was and remains a mortal who compels a return to Torah, and that by returning Jews to observance of their religion, thus initiates the kingdom of God.
Actually, the prophecy was that the Messiah would bring the kingdom of God and that no new churches would ever need to be founded. If Jesus was the Messiah, then this world IS the kingdom of God, according to the prophecy by which he lived his own life in his own time.
Also, the Jewish concept does not have within it any concept of the Messiah willingly sacrificing himself for the sins of the Jews (not mankind - Jesus didn’t concern himself with gentiles until decades after his death).
A knowledge of Jewish history and philosophy tells us that this concept is laughable. The Messiah would be a Warrior King compelling religious observance both with love and by the sword. Remember, old-testament Jews were fearsome, deadly fighters doing the will of God. The same God who told Abram to take all of Canaan by force. The Jew was a cunning warrior, a killer, a powerful and fearsome enemy.
The problem with Christians is that they think Jesus was one of them and don’t bother studying the actual beliefs and practices he followed in his own life. For example, the synoptic gospels put Jesus before the high council (Sanhedrin) on the eve of Passover. Not possible. Jesus also could not have been condemned to death by the Sanhedrin, since he hadn’t committed a capital crime. Claiming Messiahhood was not a crime; several other key Jews did so as well and none were condemned to death by their own. All crucifixions were a gift from the Romans, period.
The Romans absolved themselves of the guilt for Jesus’ death by placing the blame on the Jews, sparking all of the millions of anti-Semitic murders since that time. The idea that Pilate would have suddenly shown mercy to an enemy of the State that paid his salary is not historically supported. In fact, extra-biblical sources point out that Pilate was an exceptionally brutal and aloof ruler who was removed from his post by Rome for being TOO brutal and ordering TOO MANY crucifixions…
Just doesn’t make sense, unless you take off the blinders of faith, which tell us that these events were both historical and divinely inspired. There was nothing divine about the Roman occupation.
More: The Sanhedrin, the religious body empowered to enforce religious law, would not have met after sundown. The Sanhedrin would not have met on the evening of a holy day. These would have violated religious law. It’s like saying the Rabbi held office hours in his pork store - not factual, not believable - just wrong, and politically based. It’s hard to convert your empire to Christianity when your empire killed Christ to begin with.
Yusef, Miriam, Y’shua - these are the real names. The make-believe ones are Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. In fact, Y’shua in English is not Jesus, it’s Joshua. To find the origin of this incorrect translation we must look to…
Greece?
December 9th, 2005 at 11:56 amgun toting liberal.
Jews themselves loved torturing,
even the priests have tortured witches.
Jewish men AND women AND children were Free and Chose to have Jesus Crucified, TORTURED Jesus,Threw Stones At Jesus, Spitted On Jesus, Whipped Jesus! Chose to HATE Jesus. Chose to have Jesus Killed!.
P.S> Jews love Torture!