Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I think the point is not how much of a liar Bush is. The point is that Papa Bush was a liar, that Clinton and Albright were liars, that the press forgot to look into their own archives from 5 years earlier to call bullshit on the claims that Iraq threw out the inspectors, and that the entire political, bureaucratic and journalistic elite in the US is hell-bent on death and destruction. Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 04:57:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry Migeru. I say the same thing below that you said, but I hadn't seen your post yet.

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
by LEP on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 05:17:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're a little easier on Clinton's coterie ;-)

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 05:17:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Something completely missing in most of the stories about the Democrats' recent, poll-driven anti-war "awakaning" is that Bill Clinton himself supported the invasion of Iraq until at least 2004. Repeating the discredited nonsense that kept coming up as excuses:

...Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

The above quote should be seen under the light of Scott Ritter's statement that:

I can tell you what the Intelligence communities of the world were saying. And there was 100% agreement that Iraq had been fundamentally disarmed by 1998. There was not a single intelligence agency out there saying we have hard data that Saddam retains huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction or that he has reconstituted a meaningful WMD program. Not a single agency! And the reason is that because we had weapons inspectors in place and we could bring facts to table to show that Iraq did not had these weapons, that we had accounted for the vast majority of its weapons and there was no evidence of a reconstituted program.

This was a bi-partisan crime.

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 09:57:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ehm: "awakening"

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 09:58:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I added a link to the first quoted article in the conclusion, thanks.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 5th, 2007 at 01:22:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
More instructive is this quote ;-
Secy. of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it

What was the "it" ? What is it that they wanted ? Saddam overthrown ? The vatican sized embassy and permanent bases ? What was so important it was worth telling all of these bare faced lies ?

Whichever, it suggests that there was a bipartisan view that, post Gulf War 1, something was worth overthrowing Saddam for, or at least coralling him over. If GB1 was a part of that view, then one wonders if the deliberate ambiguity in response to Saddam asking for permission to invade Kuwait was deliberate. However, it's worth remembering that the US took a lot of convincing that an invasion was justified. Personally I think he was out of the loop.

It was Albright who seems to have defined the problem and been belligerent when clinton seemed ambivalent at best. Of course, Cheney would have bought into the idea and been well placed to bamboozle bush. But what did they want ? Oil is almost too banal, although the country that controls the oil effectively rules the world.

So was Albright a PNAC co-signer ? Or does it come back to likud and AIPAC after all that ?

What was it all for ? What was "it" ?

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 11:16:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Albright left us with a lot of shit. Two things I can think of immediately:
1- Unfinished Iraq.
2- Expanding NATO into Eastern Europe.
Big political mistakes can last for years if not decades.

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
by LEP on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 11:33:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What a revelation for me. That's why I wondered why this debate over Bush and MSM lies in the run-up to Iraq war just refuses to die down.

Of course I agree with your point but think of it in more mellow terms - they did it all for your sake (not forgetting their friends in MIC) to prolong the West's domination in the world. This is natural.

The curious thing in all this affair is outrage of public over the exposure of liars - Westerners apparently thought they lead the world as moral authority. Western society long ago used to self-congratulating reports in media so it's not surprising.

by FarEasterner on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 01:12:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd say there is a spectrum of views in the West (both across countries and within countries) regarding how much they buy into leading the world as moral authority, and how much self-congratulatory reports there are (the West isn't any more monolythic than the East, Orientalists notwithstanding), but in general, you do have a point. For centuries, imperial policies have been sold as moral crusades.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 5th, 2007 at 01:28:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

Oil? American exceptionalism? American imperialism? Capitalism? What's the disease?

by Magnifico on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 03:28:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series