Slashdot Mirror
Powell Aide Says Case for War a 'Hoax'
PBS recently aired an interview with Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson (Ret), Chief of Staff at the Department of State from Aug 2002 - January 2005, addressing some of the skepticism surrounding the pre-war claims made by the Bush administration. Wilkerson claims in no uncertain terms that he "participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council." This is not the first time that Wilkerson has spoken out against the administration and intelligence community.
Well I agree with your other points, except this one. Keep in mind that it wasn't until the late 1940's that the US had anything resembling control of the global currency base. Up until the 1940's, everything was pounds sterling. And even then, it probably wasn't until the 1960's that the pound was passe.
I have to agree. And yet, congress voted for it and the unwashed public thought it was on the level. By what this guy says, Colin Powell thought it was on the level. What happened? Does the average American actaully not have the two neuron minimum?
The fact that everyone in congress voted for it, and that many of those guys were not stupid enough to believe it wasn't a hoax, suggests that there would be plenty of recriminations to go around. The legislative branch will actively squelch this.
c) the public at large isn't going to get outraged about this (or anything else) unless gas prices go back up to $3/gal
No, $2.50 was enough. The speed that this sort of thing will move depends exactly on the price of gas, but $3 ain't the tipping point, $3's just the acceleration point. But you're right, at $3 it would move fast. As is, it'll be a big part of the eventual pullout shenanigans.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 - June 21, 1940), nicknamed "the fighting Quaker" and "Old Gimlet Eye," was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps and, at the time of his death, the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. Butler was awarded the Medal of Honor twice during his career, one of only 19 people to be so decorated. He was noted for his outspoken left-wing views and his book War is a Racket, one of the first works describing the military-industrial complex. After retiring from service, Butler became a popular speaker at meetings organized by veterans, communists, pacifists and church groups in the 1930s. Butler came forward to the U.S. Congress in 1934 to report that a proposed coup had been plotted by wealthy industrialists to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
The problem is that politicians could lie and get away with it. Before the war Bush & Co were pretending that we were in danger from Iraq, and now that they've been proven wrong no one called them on the original claims. If I call the police and falsely claim there's a robbery when there isn't, I will be fined for false call. Bush made a false call which caused 2,000+ Americans and unknown number of Iraqis to die - and he just got away with it.
We need some sort of accountability system that would force politicians to pay for their mistakes. Require them to publicly estimate cost of war and take all outstanding costs from their personal bank accounts. Wolfowitz estimated war to cost around half a billion, and so far we ended up with more than $200 billion (yes, two hundreen billion US dollars) of extra costs. If Bush & Co were forced to pay all outstanding costs, they would've estimated the cost of war honestly, and people wouldn't be misled into supporting war.
Same thing for human cost. Require pro-war politicians to gather signatures. It's way too easy to say "I support a war" while sitting at home in front of TV. Make a law that starting a war would require million or so legally binding signatures from people to cover in case we run out of troops. There's always so many vocal pro-war supporters, but when it comes to actually fighting the war we always seem to run out of people. Make war supporters actually carry the cost of war, and they will actually start using their brains first.
Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !
Actually, you are very close to being correct in refuting my "since 1913" idea, but I have been spending a LOT of time lately reading up on how the US helped prop up the Sterling for decades and it seems that they/we may have done so in order to help it crash and be replaced. I'm hoping that I'll have performed enough research to back it up in the next few months -- which is why I am holding to the theory.
Here are some current "facts" from the Bush administration that are being accepted without question by the media and most of the US population:
If we withdraw from Iraq the terrorists will win.
This statement seems to imply that unless the USA maintains 100,000+ troops in Iraq for many years then the insurgents will overrun Iraq and set up Bin Laden as a dictator of Iraq. This is obviously false at a number of levels. At a most basic level, the insurgents lack the capability to defeat the Shiite militias. In the broader picture, even if the USA sets up a stable democracy after many year of occupation, there is no guarantee that the Iraqi people will not elect a government with strong ties to organizations that the USA considers to be terrorist organizations. Whether it is a good idea for the USA to maintain substantial trooop levels in Iraq for many years to come is unclear without substantial impartial detailed study. If these studies have been done at all, the results have certainly not been presented to the American people. Instead, we are merely given some simplistic message about how the terrorists will win unless we do what the Bush administration wants.
Social security is broken.
The way social security works is that people who are working pay into the system and that money is used to pay benefits for people who are retired. Strictly speaking, it's not possible for the system to break. The government just transfers the money that is collected from the workers to those receiving retirement benefits. In order to cushion the effect of the baby boom generation, however, the government was collecting more than it was paying out. The problem is that the rest of the government started borrowing against this surplus and now the Bush administration is looking to avoid having to pay it back. Whether the current system is optimal is certainly open to debate but the idea that the system is "broken" is obviously false.
The Bush administrion did nothing illegal in order the NSA to listen in on American phone conversations
From the Bill of Rights in the US constitution:
I'm not a constitutional scholar but that seems to rather clearly state that some kind of warrant is required. Maybe there's a loop hole and maybe there isn't but it is certainly not factual to blatantly assert that it is legal for the US government to listen in on American phone conversations without a warrant.It was all about oil (for long term goals)
I think that's so but in a very roundabout way . . . the war clearly and predictably resulted in loss of short-term production, and the upcoming Iran war will even more so; but, if the Empire can manage to build bases in the region, that will help it control access to oil to some of its potential rivals over the next century (China, Russia, India, possibly the EU).
So there is a long-term benefit to the Empire, but one paid for by the loss of countless innocent lives. That in my mind makes it completely unjustifiable. But, besides that, it also means these nations will be forced to choose between imperial control of resources they desperately need for their own continued survival, or war - and probably the first large-scale war since WW2 - in order to attempt to liberate them.
There are tough times ahead.
Nonaggression works!
Maybe you should have read the story. You see, he responded that -- until 6 months ago -- he did not know there was dissent among the intelligence community that gave him the information he relied on to make his case. You can argue that he was stupid, or anything else you like, but he relied on his staff, and the intelligence community, to let him know what was fact and what was in dispute. According to him, this was not presented. He was told the information was "rock solid."
Give the man credit for speaking out once he found out that the system was broken. He makes a very strong argument against the way the Bush administration works.
Building WMDs on any large scale is a HUGE undertaking. Sure, anyone with a little knowledge can cook up poison gas in their bath tub but to make it on a military scale is very complex you need:
1) Chemical plants (or bio incubator sites) to make tons of the stuff.
2) Railrods or fleets of trucks to bring in precursor chemicals.
3) A source for the precusros, either from overseas or from plants in country.
4) Then you have to develop some sort of delivery system, shells, bombs, planes, boats etc.
5) You need thousands of people to support the operation: scientists, engineers, security people, administrative people etc.
6) Power plants to run the various factories.
7) Then you ned to train people in use of the delivery system.
During WWII the Germans tried to proect ahd hide some of their plants in caves. The locations were usually easy to spot due to the huge infrastructure needed. And even though many of the factories were deep enough not to be damaged by bombs, many of them could effectively be shut down by cutting off access to power or the transportation net. And factor in that there were UN inspectors on the ground as well as electronic survelliance, and the possibility of Sadam developing stockpiles of wepaons on the sly becomes slim to none.
We were definitely lied to.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
As a non-USian, I'm sure I speak the sentiments many others have by saying it wouldn't be nearly as frustating, nearly as fucking annoying if only the USA would stop prancing about with all its self-congratulating double-speak and admit it's just greedy/doesn't care just like everybody else, PICK A SIN AND RUN WITH IT ALREADY.
As if the phrase "Opeartion Iraqi Freedom" (yes, Iraqis gained some freedoms, but at the expense of others) wasn't bad enough, they actually had the nerve to go and mock real people's blood and guts with it.
Because it's anti-Bush. Since 80%+ of /. readership is liberal, it gets posted.
In response to the article, I think it's the general consensus of everyone involved that we invaded Iraq for no good reason. Problem is, now that we've done so, we have to stick it out until Iraq is able to run themselves again.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
First, and with respect to your service, impugning the character of Jack Murtha is beneath you. It's little better than when "Mean" Jean Schmidt did so on the house floor, and is disrespectful of the Representative's service and, even more importantly, his dedication to the well-being of our troops.
Second, you mischaracterize Rep. Murtha's proposal. Should you care to read it, it's available here. It calls for large-scale redeployment at "the earliest practicable date," which Murtha has in the past estimated as requiring about six months. This is hardly equivalent to "leaving right now."
Third: rather than debate the "immediacy" of the representatives plan, many supporters of the administration have chosen to take issue with the notion of an "artificial timetable." Obviously you're free to agree or disagree with the idea, but keep in mind that a sizeable portion of the Iraqi National Assembly recently released a statement in which they called for that very timetable. Even more recently, they repeated that demand: tellingly, they condemned terrorism, but defined terrorism in such a way that excludes insurgents who attack the US Military.
So, respectfully, I would suggest that the Iraqis that you fought to "liberate" have spoken, and what they're saying is, "Thank you. Now get out."
Video: http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=event&EveI
Transcript (pdf): http://www.newamerica.net/Download_Docs/pdfs/Doc_
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
I don't think most rational humans want to see Iraq become a terrorist state. This is why we need to stay the course at this point and why playing politics with the Iraqi war is going to do more damage than good to a potential presidential canidate.
Would you personally be willing to die to "stay the course"? Would you ask your children to die for this cause? You're assuming that we can win the war in Iraq. If we can't win, then letting more of our bravest and most patriotic citizens die needlessly is equivalent to murdering them.
If anyone in this administration, including the president, lied or ignored evidence in order to push this war on the people, then they should be executed for treason.
The strikes against Afghanistan were legitimate, if largely ineffective; the strikes the same night against Sudan were not.
Depends on how you define ineffective. Opium production came out of a slump after the attacks.
Seriously, I almost agree that the attack on Afghanistan could be deemed legitimate. I have no conflicting evidence.
Any person that can think and read that does not believe that the "War on Terror" and the Iraq war are made up is a moron. I flipped off Rumsfeld the other day while watching TV in a store. He was crying wolf again about the "War on Terror".
Just last week or so, a tunnel was discovered that went from Mexico to the US. It was 2400 feet long, had a cement floor, took over a year to build, and some chump got caught with 1 ton of Mexican swag.
Now, that was one operation. I forget the estimated tonnage of pot that comes from British Columbia every year (not much better than Mexican swag, but I digress). But its a bunch.
Oh, and sometimes people bring in tons of cocaine. And other stuff.
Now, how difficult would it be to replace the multi-ton cargo with say a few tons of explosives, poisons, or whatever nasty stuff a "terrorist" can think of? Zero.
The "War on Terror" is such a joke, that a few weeks ago, CNN broadcasted that there were "confirmed" bin Laden tapes saying that he was planning to attack the US or something. Read the disinformation here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/19/binladen.tape/
Nothing happened. No response. The terror "threat level" did not raise up from "elevated" than it has in years. Remember that Bush used to jack up the terror threat level during his reelection campaign for the fun of it.
The American people are being lied to and they simply accept it.
There is nothing you can do to stop a well funded suicidally driven person. Period.
Just ask Ireland when they really had issues with terrorism.
I always get modded all over the place with posts like this from insightful, informative, overrated, and flamebait. So here we go again.
The war in Iraq is about profit, inflation prevention, and basic economics. Or was it really about WMDs? Or was it really for 9/11/01? Well, WMDs were a farce, and Saddam didn't have anything to do with the plane thing.
Oh, but North Korea is next, right?
So you're claiming that the inspection crews being booted was a hoax?
In a way- according to the same PBS program that presented the interview, inspection crews were able to inspect 100% of the sites listed by the intelligence agencies, and were only truly booted out by the US government 48 hours previous to the second invasion. EVERY single one of those reports showed no WMDs. And the Germans had already told Cheney personally that Curveball's reports were not reliable.
All of this happened prior to Powell's speech- so I guess the real question was why the Administration was feeding known false information to the Secretary of Defense. The "hoax" label comes not from me- but from Powell's aide, who feels abused and defrauded by our government.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I'm a bit of a leftie, and these days, we have fairly short fuses when it comes to accusations of treason or unpatriotism, and tend to see them where they really aren't. So my bad there, and thanks for clearing that up.
I did read the release that you linked. The full quote reads, "According to The LAT, Murtha called for beginning withdrawal immediately with completion in six months. He also urged a rapid deployment force remain in the region." That is a substantively different stance than "everyone out now," but the issue has been politicized so far by both sides that it's easy to lose the distinction.
This argument makes little sense to me. How would having a timetable make terrorists more likely to attack after the US withdraws than not having a timetable? If terrorists are waiting for the US to leave before stepping up attacks, why wouldn't they go into hiding and stop their attacks, then resume once the Bush Administration declares that we've won, packs up their things, and goes home?
The only answer I can come up with is that it's the very presence of the US forces that are provoking the attacks. In fact, once again from the PDF you linked to, a State Deparment study released in 2004 indicated that terrorism was on the rise in Iraq, and concluded that the US presence in Iraq was actually exacerbating the problem.
The Iraqi politicians are condoning attacks on US troops because it's what their constituents want to hear?
Do you really find that comforting?
That is probably and optimistic figure, at least a according to Joseph Stiglitz:
The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.
This is from an article in the British newspaper The Guardian about a month ago.
Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. --Niels Bohr
The American Right increasingly uses the logic of non sequitur and ad hominen in their less than substantive attacks upon the left. Ironic, as well as a further indication of Contemporary Conservatism's continuing plunging fall into the abyss of moral relevance, which began in 1968 when Nixon played his "southern strategy", and openly courted the racist vote.
One ugly godawful thing to have done to the party of Lincoln.
Nixon won, and the GOP has never looked back. Now neoconivving trotskyites speak for contemporary conservatives, and self-confessed American traitors are welcomed with open arms in under the Big Circus Tent of Republican Inclusiveness, the party of nothing, for everybody.
Ever stop to think that maybe some people who wish to harm Americans are reacting self-defensively to previous Administrations' wrongful actions against them? You solution for this is 10 eyes for an eye?
And he spake a parable unto them,
Can the blind lead the blind?
shall they not both fall into the ditch?
--Luke 6:39
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
I honestly don't think a Clinton invasion of Iraq would have put the presidency in Al Gore's hands. For better or worse, Conservatives and the Republican part 'own' national security. When Democrats are seen as doing anything to promote security, the right wing takes it as the Left playing politics with the military. Remember, the strikes Cliton ordered on Sudan and Afghanistan were on the eve of his impeachment. Remember all the 'wag the dog' talk? How much worse would it have been if Clinton had invaded Iraq? I don't think he would have had much support o n the left for his invasion either.
Though it would have played out much betterif Clinton *had* invaded Iraq -- there might actually be a stable democracy there right now. Clinton did a great job in the former Yugoslavia, with no combat casualties.
Hell, I don't know.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso