Watch Ray Walston in his pop culture role as Uncle Martin in My Favorite Martian, right after he finished his top secret role of documenting nuclear weapons development.
I find the truth is somewhere in-between this and the account of the administration. Iraq had plenty of time to ditch the stuff they had behind, also supported by the top Iraqi Air Force general who said many were secretly flown to Syria.
The terrible thing is that some elements of the administration cooked up some evidence as well, for an insurance policy, so to speak. It has not been determined if Bush was aware of it, since some elements of his early administration (who have since been dismissed) acted on their own in many cases.
No, this is all too convenient an excuse for the Bush apologists. This war was personal. "Saddam tried to kill my daddy" and all that.
The reasons for not invading and keeping Iraq penned in, but in one piece, were the same as they were in Desert Storm. To prevent Shia domination of the region and to act as a bulwark against Iran and Syria. Bush Sr knew that and the military knew that. Cutting off the head of the serpent has just created a snake pit in the region with Iran and Syria more powerful now than before the decapitation of the Iraqi regime and defacto break up of the country.
The real threat was ALWAYS Iran. Now there is little will to something about a far more sinister regime that has both the desire and the PROVEN capability to manufacture nuclear weapons in the very near future.
A cock-up of global proportions........
Blake Tewa (5 mt)
Joined: Jun 25, 2007
Posts: 680
Location: Florida
Posted:
Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:26 pm
There is an arena in place for the discussion this topic is leading to. As for the lack of will to disarm Iran, only time will tell FF.
Please don't try to close down debate in this manner. It was not I that first brought up the subject of Iraq and not I who defended Bush in earlier posts. Such posts, defensive of the current regime and policy, will be responded to.
It is up also up to Sonic to move this thread, should he so wish, and not you. Finally, please also note that you are now in a British forum, not an American one......
Many Thanks
FF
Graviton Mike (10.4 mt)
Joined: Sep 03, 2006
Posts: 1317
Location: USA
Posted:
Mon Aug 06, 2007 8:19 pm
Who ever said I was defending Bush?
I only defend that Bush might not have been aware of all of the secret actions of those behind the scenes, since rationality has it that there must be concrete evidence that he was aware of it or not, which has not turned up ... yet.
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, already a former personal lawyer for supercrook Marc Rich of the Jewish mafia (sarcastically dubbed "Kosher Nostra" after the Italian version), already made secret deals around the UN's sanctions against Iran and Iraq throughout the later 1980s and 1990s. Bill Clinton even pardoned Rich for his additional influence in Israeli AIPAC, which is VERY powerful in USA. Rich and Libby also were at the center of the looting of billions from Yeltsin handing proverbial keys to Jewish Russian mafia that sent at least US$15 billion in Russian state assets to banks in Haifa, Israel.
Another interesting character is Michael Ledeen, a central figure in allegedly concocting "insurance policy" evidence for the Iraq invasion and toppling of Saddam. Long ago he was named visiting professor of the University of Rome, where he built up vast connections with Italian security officials, through which the fake evidence was later introduced by his neoconservative allies, and likely without the knowledge of GW Bush, since no evidence has come forth to support his participation. Notice that two witnesses (including Franklin) have turned Grand Jury evidence to give testimony of Ledeen's role in this operation.
I can also go into a number of other participants that all focus directly on the influence of AIPAC/Israeli "Likud Lobby." Take note that Likud also split in the Iraq War's early years, conveniently distancing important figures like Ariel Sharon from a direct role in AIPAC, which is largely managed through Likud.
GW Bush has not been determined with evidence to be central in this plot, and it is widely known that AIPAC has more than enough influence to concoct these plots.
An important question to ask is how the neocons hijacked the Republican Party, fraudulently in the name of Reaganism, which neoconservatism IS NOT. Was GW Bush behind this vast power grab of AIPAC? I think not. There is furious debate going on concerning classic conservatives politically warring to kick the neocons out of the party.
I am disappointed how so few know these facts and much more, and yet the obsession of totally misinformed masses around the world focuses on GW Bush and Dick Cheney. This obsessive focus only apologizes and promotes AIPAC's grip on USA politics.
One cannot discount the power and influence of American Jewry on both US political parties, this is doubtless true. As I pointed out on the old Forum, check out " U.S. Financial Aid To Israel: Figures, Facts, and Impact" at
It is difficult to see just how this one sided largesse benefits ordinary Americans and as such the "Kosher Nostra" (just love that expression) need to be exposed.
Nevertheless, as one President once said "The Buck Stops Here".
Trying to buckpass to get Bush off the Iraq hook just isn't going to work. That dog don't hunt, as they say.......
FF
Graviton Mike (10.4 mt)
Joined: Sep 03, 2006
Posts: 1317
Location: USA
Posted:
Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:39 pm
It's a mistake and bigoted to say it's "Jewry." It's super rich foreign and domestic political interests out of control.
I don't care if it's Canada, NObody foreign nations can get a free pass by just having the money to buy off politicians of ALL parties. It's simply not a party issue from either side, since both parties deeply suffer from their bonds to $pecial intere$t$, domestic and foreign.
Our head of Homeland Security, Chertoff, also has never renounced his Israeli citizenship. Go figure.
I also warn deeply against Arab money buying off deep political favors. The Bushes have a critical connection with this problem, seeing their personal relationships mingling with the Saudi Royals.
The Clintons and other key liberals here are deeply gripped by big money foreign and domestic political action groups.
It's still obsessive to put Bush and Cheney as the greatest villians, seeing the FAR longer controls over BOTH parties. It deters from the greatest problems that we face, FAR deeper than any one person's role.
You referred to the "Jewish Mafia", "Russian Jewish Mafia" and "Kosher Nostra". I refer to "American Jewry" and I'm the "bigot"?
No, I am calling a spade a spade as are you. No issue there. Don't go getting all PC on my a**!!
You raised the issue of this particular foreign influence and I agree. Nothing bigoted about it. It's just a fact.
Can't believe your head of national security is a foreign national. People complain about our Red Ken Livingstone and I'm sure he would like to put Ayman Al-Zawahiri in charge of London anti-terror ops but people would notice and complain. How come a foreign national gets to run your national security and nobody notices?
Talk about a red rag to a bull......
FF
Graviton Mike (10.4 mt)
Joined: Sep 03, 2006
Posts: 1317
Location: USA
Posted:
Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:20 am
fastfission wrote:
You referred to the "Jewish Mafia", "Russian Jewish Mafia" and "Kosher Nostra". I refer to "American Jewry" and I'm the "bigot"?
No, I am calling a spade a spade as are you. No issue there. Don't go getting all PC on my a**!!
You raised the issue of this particular foreign influence and I agree. Nothing bigoted about it. It's just a fact.
Can't believe your head of national security is a foreign national. People complain about our Red Ken Livingstone and I'm sure he would like to put Ayman Al-Zawahiri in charge of London anti-terror ops but people would notice and complain. How come a foreign national gets to run your national security and nobody notices?
Talk about a red rag to a bull......
FF
I did not say you were a bigot. I meant American "Jewry" is too sweeping of a statement, and is therefore bigoted, since the idea of Jewry has no clear meaning, and Judaism as a religion is FAR wider than any organization. Being Jewish for secular Jews is also an ethnic phenomenon. We must pick our targets more carefully.
Russian Jewish mafia is clearly defined by the overwhelming ethnic Jewish members and their ties with Israel in looting Russia. The Jewish mafia also has deep ties with Israel.
If you recall, the "political arena" on the old forum was only generated to placate Tsar. This is not Tsar's forum. In reality it is impossible to separate politics from nuclear weapons. The interesting aspects of the subject (and of course the Cold War itself that created this entire topic) is inherently political. Separating politics from discussions of nuclear weapons is like separating alcohol from beer. It can be done but the result is entirely unsatisfactory.
Therefore I propose that all discussions of any kind, including political, be allowed to progress in the threads that create them. Labelling a discussion as "political" (especially if you don't like the politics expressed) is a form of closing down debate and not helpful.
FF
Blake Tewa (5 mt)
Joined: Jun 25, 2007
Posts: 680
Location: Florida
Posted:
Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:44 pm
fastfission wrote:
If you recall, the "political arena" on the old forum was only generated to placate Tsar. This is not Tsar's forum. In reality it is impossible to separate politics from nuclear weapons. The interesting aspects of the subject (and of course the Cold War itself that created this entire topic) is inherently political. Separating politics from discussions of nuclear weapons is like separating alcohol from beer. It can be done but the result is entirely unsatisfactory.
Therefore I propose that all discussions of any kind, including political, be allowed to progress in the threads that create them. Labelling a discussion as "political" (especially if you don't like the politics expressed) is a form of closing down debate and not helpful.
FF
Ok. I expressed nothing about my opinion of the debate, only the thought that it was "political", and that there is a "political" area of the forum. I guess I'm just insane.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
