Posts by Jayson

203

Poll suggests world hostile to US

by Simon in

an interesting read:.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2994924.stm.

some key bits:.

Jayson

David A. Keene

U.N. should move to Paris and get into Chirac's bed

June 10, 2003

President Bush is trying his best to let the French know that he leads a magnanimous nation -- one that's willing, to an extent at least, to let bygones be bygones. After all, we managed to win the war in Iraq even without Jacques Chirac's assistance and are used to the fact that the French are prone to act as they do. But it's tough. Bush might have to be nice to the man, but the rest of us don't. The French president didn't just oppose the United States on Iraq in the United Nations; he was an accessory before, during and after the fact in Iraq. France had good reason to oppose our policies out of pure self-interest. The billions of dollars in lucrative contracts held before the war by French concerns were directly traceable to the goodwill of Saddam Hussein. Chirac had no incentive to try to be part of the solution to the crisis in Iraq for the very simple reason that he and his buddies were part of the problem.

His concern for peace, justice and the European Union's (EU) way has been demonstrated time and time again over the last few years. As if defending Saddam Hussein were not enough, in the midst of all this, he welcomed Robert Mugabe, the dictator-cum-thug who rules or tries to rule Zimbabwe, to France in a desperate attempt to curry favor with the man by legitimizing him when most world leaders were suggesting that he is no longer fit company for anyone who claims to be civilized. Zimbabwe, once an exporter of food to the rest of Africa is today a nation whose people are starving and dying thanks to the policies and tender mercies of this "friend" of Chirac's.

Mugabe may be a racist and he may send thugs out to beat up his opposition while denying Zimbabweans who aren't able to prove their loyalty to him and his party access to the humanitarian aid we send to his country, but he is also a friend of France and the political correctness for which Chirac is fighting.

Thus, Mugabe has turned down more than 10,000 tons of American grain in the past year to show solidarity with France and the EU's "moratorium" on importing genetically modified food products. Other nations have also banned importation of grains from the United States because they fear that if they accept or purchase such products from us, the EU will retaliate by banning their products from Europe.

Mugabe doesn't have to worry about being shut out of Europe, of course, because his nation can no longer feed itself, but he does crave the prestige of being counted a buddy of Chirac.

Now, it turns out Chirac has another new idea that has the advantages of being targeted against the United States and might produce monies that could be used to purchase French products for transshipment to starving Africans and others. It will be cheered by the politically correct and is at heart no sillier than some of his other suggestions.

Consider this one: Chirac is suggesting an international tax on the sale of guns to individual citizens to create what a Brazilian supporter of the scheme describes as a "global fund capable of giving food to those who are hungry and for creating conditions to end the causes of hunger." Reports coming out of the G8 Summit say Chirac favors the tax on individual purchases because he doesn't want to tax firearms manufacturers (some of which are French) and because the bulk of the money thus raised would come from "wealthy" U.S. citizens who are, after all, about the only individuals around who have a legal right to buy guns. It would, of course, be administered by the United Nations.

This new scheme seems very attractive to Chirac and would allow the U.N. to further both its desire to ban the purchase and ownership of arms and find a way to impose an international tax that would allow member nations to get directly into the pockets of the people of this country. What an idea.

I dug my old "get the U.S. out of the U.N." bumper strips out of a box in the garage some time ago and I'm ready to put one on my car. This is an organization that should meet in Paris, where its friends reside and where the heads of member states not welcome here can go to sip chardonnay with Chirac while their people starve.

203

Poll suggests world hostile to US

by Simon in

an interesting read:.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2994924.stm.

some key bits:.

Jayson

Asked who is the more dangerous to world peace and stability, the United States was rated higher than al-Qaeda by respondents in both Jordan (71%) and Indonesia (66%).

And this shows just how out of touch these people are. Also just how bias this "poll" is. It is irrelevent.

208

The kind of Man GWBush is.

by Yerusalyim in

at walter reed medical center in washington dc recently the sergeant major of the army, jack tilley, was with a group of people visiting the wounded soldiers.

he saw a special forces soldier who had lost his right hand and suffered severe wounds of his face and side of his body.

the sma wanted to honor him and show him respect without offending, but what can you say or do in such a situation that will encourage and uplift?

Jayson

Thanks for the thread Yeru. Copied and sent to those who will pass it on.

Thanks again.

33

Are You In The Real World What You Seem To Be Here?

by minimus in

jw
friends

in all honesty, are you pretty much like you are at home or in the workplace when you post here?

i wonder whether or not you are the same personality in person as you are here on the internet board.......i'm very much the same only i don't ask people questions in real life.

but my basic personality and wonderful wit is always there.

Jayson

Mini I swear you have done one like this if not this before. Anyway, I AM who I AM.

8

Patriot Act - Good, Bad, & Ugly

by Amazing in

jw
friends

well, thank to a sharp poster named countrygirl, (sec.

211) amends the communications act of 1934 to permit specified disclosures to government entities, except for records revealing cable subscriber selection of video programming from a cable operator.

whew!!!

Jayson

Amazing post!

So I can stop waiting for the sky to fall? whew!

203

Poll suggests world hostile to US

by Simon in

an interesting read:.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2994924.stm.

some key bits:.

Jayson

The Discovery documentary "In Search of 9/11" goes into depth about the reasons that people have this feeling in the Arab and 3rd worlds about America. Did you ever take the time to watch it Simon?

Russian TV is of it's own propaganda. No more tanks to Saddam:( It's funny that attitude where horrid policy for decades are only shouldered on this President; The only one to make real and what will be lasting change in the Middle East. Maybe some people had a vested interest in keeping the conflict alive. The US had a vested interest in it ending.

Now, on to the Palistinian Civil war. Hamas will you be going?

30

Why the US is great despite Bush!

by Realist in

jw
friends

all the heated debates about iraq have caused many americans here to think that several of us anti bush guys hate america and hate americans.. this is not the case!

i want to state emphatically that the us is a great country with great people!

i have lived in ny for 3 years and had a fantastic time there.

Jayson

We're not unlike you. We drink, eat, have shelter, and live. We want to live in peace and harmony. Our expectations, like yours or anybody else's ar the same. Our government has taken over.. and we just are too apathetic to enforce our rights. Nothing new, nothing surprising. They've been eroding our rights for the last five years, and I think everyone's too apathetic to stop it.

Wow now that is cool. But can I say 50 years and still be in agreement with you?

865

WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon in

now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

Jayson

The French the Russians the Germans all said that WMD existed Simon. Blix said that WMD existed. Your grasping at your denial. And still avoiding the bigger good of the liberation of Iraq from Saddam. As Realist has pointed out so clearly this is about the left mudslinging at Bush & Blair nothing more.

865

WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon in

now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

Jayson

Waldos of Mass Destruction


By Dale Franks	06/16/2003

TCS

Less than two months after the conclusion of the war in Iraq, President Bush's critics have begun complaining loudly about the lack of results from the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) there. Many of Bush's critics argued before the war that the UN needed more time - perhaps as much as a year - for UN Inspectors to find the Iraqi WMDs. Now, after barely two months of post-war searching, these same people feel that the Bush administration has had more than enough time.

Indeed, many of Bush's critics now accuse him of intentionally fabricating the excuse that Iraq had an active WMD program solely for the purpose of invading that unhappy country. To believe this is true, however, one must believe a large number of improbable things.

First, one must believe that, in addition to duping the American people, President Bush also duped the intelligence services of Russia, China, France, The United Kingdom, among others, into believing that Iraq had a WMD program as well. Over the past eight months, the leaders of each of these nations, presumably informed by their own intelligence services, indicated their belief that Iraq did have an ongoing WMD program. Moreover, by their unanimous approval of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, these nations stated that Iraq had failed to meet its obligation to disarm itself of WMDs that it was known to possess in the past.

As UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix put it, Iraq provided "no credible evidence" that those prior WMD arsenals had been destroyed. So, even if one argues that the intelligence regarding recent Iraqi WMD programs was too spotty to justify claims about WMD activity, one is still left with the fact that Iraq was incontrovertibly known to have had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, whose status and whereabouts were still unknown.

Unknown, because Iraq never provided the required evidence of its destruction, other than unsupported claims it had done so. Iraq presented no documents signed by the destroying officials. It presented no films or videos of the destruction process. It did not allow inspectors to visit the supposed sites of such destruction. The plain fact is that there was simply no need for President Bush to try to create some sort of false impression that Iraq had an active WMD program. The Iraqi regime was already doing a good enough job of that for itself. So, to accept on the mere say-so of Saddam Hussein's regime that the Iraqis destroyed those WMDs, one must believe, in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, that Saddam Hussein was trustworthier than George W. Bush.

Next, one must also believe contradictory things about George W. Bush. One must believe him to be, on one hand, a calculating, Machiavellian conspirator who managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people in order to justify starting a war. On the other hand, he must be enough of an amiable dunce to forget to arrange for WMDs to be "found" in Iraq after the war. In fact, our inability to find such weapons so far is the best evidence that Bush did not fabricate the administration's fears of Iraqi WMD. Why would he jeopardize his credibility over an issue he knew to be fabricated, knowing a) that he would not find a WMD arsenal in post-war Iraq, and b) the lack of such an arsenal would invite closer scrutiny of the administration's pre-war arguments? If Bush were smart enough to create the extraordinary conspiracy with which his critics have charged, you'd think he'd be smart enough to address that question before committing himself to pursuing it.

Additionally, the large number of people who would have to be involved in such a conspiracy makes its very existence highly unlikely. In addition to requiring the silence of most senior administration officials, a large number of career intelligence and defense officials, diplomats, and civil service workers would have to be silenced. In the past, such large secret actions, such as the Nixon administration's military actions in Cambodia, or even Watergate itself - with a far smaller number of conspirators - have proven remarkably immune to secrecy for any length of time. To argue otherwise, one must believe that a legion of both political and career officials, many of whom are presumably not Republicans, have willingly signed on to such a conspiracy, rather than leak it to, say, The New York Times.

In the end, we may not find any Iraqi WMDs at all. Perhaps, as some have suggested, the Iraqi regime removed the evidence prior to the start of the war, either by destroying it, or transporting the weapons to Syria. Some have hypothesized that the Iraqis may have pretended to have ample stocks of WMDs they didn't actually possess, in order to provide a deterrent effect (if true, this was a less than wise policy, as it turned out). Or perhaps, as others have suggested, Saddam Hussein's demands on the treasury for palaces and other monumental structures were too great to allow both an active WMD program and an active program of monumental architecture, so Iraqi officials pretended to keep their WMD efforts current in order to placate him.

Prior to the war, no major figure in American politics and no serious world leader doubted that the Iraqi regime had something to hide, mainly because the Iraqis, at every turn, acted as if they were, in fact, hiding something. Indeed, the Clinton administration in 1998 explicitly charged that the Iraqis had an active WMD program, a charge repeated many times since then by every major Democratic Party leader. To believe that George W. Bush created a fictional Iraqi WMD program in order to justify a war there is to forget the previous 5 years of history, and to forget that the previous administration - good Democrats, all - believed it long before George W. Bush made an issue out of it.

865

WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon in

now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

Jayson

Well-Placed Democrats Insisted Saddam Had WMD

by Joseph A. D'Agostino Posted Jun 16, 2003

In the build-up to the Iraq War, President Bush was not the only U.S.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D.-Ind.)
Intelligence member
Statement, Oct. 3, 2002 "I believe that Saddam Hussein rules by terror and has squirreled away stores of biological and chemical weapon." Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.)
Intelligence member
Floor speech, Oct. 10, 2002 "The people of the United States and the rest of the world are at risk as long as Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Last night, the President . . . made the most effective case to date that the risk of inaction is too great to bear." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D.-W.Va.)
Vice Chairman of Intelligence Committee
Statement, March 18, 2003 "For the last 12 years he’s [Saddam’s] ignored U.N. resolutions and embargoes while rebuilding his illegal chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is dangerous. I believe he needs to be disarmed." Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D.-Md.)
Intelligence member
Floor speech, March 18, 2003 "In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an un-inspected four-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them... .The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new." Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.)
Foreign Relations member
Floor speech, Oct. 9, 2002 "On Monday night, President Bush, I think spoke for all of us. I know of no one who really disagrees at all. He described Saddam Hussein as a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction. It is that addiction that demands a strong response. We all agree on that. There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons." Sen. Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.)
Foreign Relations member
Floor speech, Oct. 9, 2002 "I believe if Saddam Hussein continues to refuse to meet his obligation to destroy his weapons of mass destruction and his prohibited missile delivery systems, that the United Nations should authorize member states to use military force to destroy those weapons and systems." Sen. Carl Levin (D.-Mich.)
then-chairman of Armed Services
and member of Intelligence
Floor speech, Oct. 9, 2002 "He [Saddam Hussein] stockpiles biological and chemical weapons." Sen. Jon Corzine (D.-N.J.)
Foreign Relations member
Floor speech, Oct. 9, 2003

Joseph D'Agostino is Associate Editor of HUMAN EVENTS.