Monday, 27 March 2006

Political Flies Buzzing Around The Corpse of Truth

Three political issues are bugging me at the moment, so in no particular order I'd like to share my worry with you...…

1. Bush's war on the US media for making it look at as if Iraq is a hellhole, when in reality things are going very well indeed thank you and stop being so damn unpatriotic.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry, have people not heard of shooting the messenger? Iraq is a mess, Iraq is a warzone, the murder rate (as in non-military casualties, so Iraqi on Iraqi crime killings) has shot up from 11 (for most of 2005) to over 30 a day! A murder rate of 30 a day! That's worse than Washington DC which has 0.7 murders a day!

Iraq is not going well but (all conservatives please read the following before you go mental) I for one didn't expect it to, nation building and supporting Iraq in defining itself and stabilising the infrastructure is not going to be quick or painless, so I don't necessarily see the terrible state it's in as a Bush failure but more of a sadly natural path that has to be endured on the way to hopefully better times. However, pointing the finger of blame at the US media and saying that they aren't showing all the good stuff that happens and they are supporting the terrorists is not only offensive but also flawed. I'll leave you with some thoughts, by it's own targets the US is failing on the rebuilding programme: 77,000 jobs created instead of the 1.5 million promised; 44 water plants working out of 187 promised, the list goes on. Also, Iraq is a security nightmare, journalist's movements are restricted and success stories are not only slow in the making but are put in danger by media coverage.

2. Iran needs to be invaded/bombed/destroyed because they are bad and they have nuclear weapons.

This is terrifying to me because it all seems so arbitrary and unfounded on any evidence at all and you get the feeling that whoever Bush turns his sights on, he can get international leverage to invade/implement sanctions. The case against Iran seems to be based on two things: the fact they didn't co-operate with the IAEA and the comments by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad concerning Zionism.

There is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, no one out there will be able to provide me with any because there is none, not a jot. In fact the body of evidence out there points in the opposite direction and all that Iran wants to do is develop an alternative source of power (as the US government itself suggested and helped Iran do throughout the 50s, 60s, 70s and early 80s). IAEA visited Iran February 2003 and stated that there was 'no evidence' that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons. On December 18, 2003 Iran signed the Additional Protocol at the IAEA headquarters and acted in accord with its provisions pending completion of ratification of the protocol. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005. In September 2005 the International Institute for Strategic Studies concluded in a report that Iran was still many years away from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

The agenda here is clear, Iran was marked out some time ago as a member of the axis of evil and reasons now have to be invented to position them as a global threat, that's why it is so inconvenient that like Iraq, Iran had nothing to do with al-Qaeda either. That's what makes the comments of President Ahmadinejad so frustrating because it feeds the propaganda beast but there is no doubt that many of his comments have been taken wildly out of context. Why? Ahmadinejad is an interesting character and one that no doubt worries the neo-cons in Washington, no only is he populist (and popular) in his policies (for instance he is ploughing much of the oil revenue into a programme to support young couples into their first home, first job and a good start in life) but also very religious. This couldn't be a worse mix as far as Washington is concerned, add the fact he is virulently anti-Zionist and you have a worse case scenario.

3. Saddam Hussein did have connections with al-Qaeda even though he and Osama Bin-laden couldn't stand one another and are from opposite ends of the political spectrum but we found new documents! Honest!

This old chestnut has been resurrected by some new documents (in fact old documents but translation takes time) that have been released. Let us be clear, as is happening with Iran, a case for war was built around dubious evidence to convince the US public that direct, pre-emptive action (please see Abe Lincoln's thoughts on this) was necessary. As with Iran and nuclear weapons there is still no evidence and this goes for the latest papers. Before I talk about these let me paint the picture of how bloody unlikely it is that Saddam and al-Qaeda worked together:

1. 9/11 Commission said there was no connection
2. CIA and FBI said there was no connection
3. Bush's Presidential Daily Briefing on the issue said there was no connection
4. Saddam was interested in a secular Arab empire, not an Islamic nation state and wanted to expand this across the region, utterly at odds with al-Qaeda
5. Osama saw Saddam as a devil and motherfucker with his secular policies and funded Jihadists in Iraq to carry out attacks on Saddam forces, as well as sending al-Qaeda members to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War

Now onto the new papers themselves, we have no idea of their authenticity, accuracy or the quality of translation. Also, the source of these documents as with much of the data used by the US to take the country to war came from the Iraqi National Congress, a group set up by the US to oppose Saddam after the first Gulf War. Can you see where this is going? I'll say no more apart from I have no doubt whatsoever that representatives of Iraq's government under Saddam met with members of al-Qaeda, just as representatives of the American, French, British, Israeli and Iranian governments have met with members of al-Qaeda.

Have a nice day.

25 comments:

  1. Dear Terrorist-Loving Liberal:

    Let me rebut your claims point-by-point.

    1) It's painfully obvious to me that this is true. The media IS distorting the truth about Iraq. Yeah, there are bombings, murders, and disembowelments on the streets of Baghdad, but no one's reporting that in southwestern Iraq, a soldier gave a little girl a toothbrush.

    2) Unfortunately, she might have been a terrorist, so he shot her.

    3) As I've noted before: It's very easy to hide and/or destroy enriched plutonium and biohazard material. Getting rid of paper is incredibly difficult. That's why we have the documents about the weapons, but not the weapons themselves.

    Sincerely,

    Wingnut J. Redstate


    Yeharr

    ReplyDelete
  2. Being an actor with a very strong political belief system, I have a slightly off topic/topical question for you that will mix your insights into your art and political beliefs:

    What do you think of the new James Bond? (the actor)

    Do you think it's responsible of the Bond filmmakers to be making the new film with what appears to be a right wing slant? (Bond chases a killer known as The Bomber; the lead baddie is raising funds for terrorist organizations)

    Have you ever thought about making your own poli-film?

    Thanks a lot for taking the time. Your insights on this blog have been spectacular, to say the least!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with the Col. If we are going to invade or otherwise preemptively strike any country that may have nuclear weapons development, why not N. Korea? Oh yah, that's right, no oil!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Interesting! Being a moderate, I may agree or disagree with you at times, or agree or disagree in quantities but let me tackle this.

    1. As to the media, you are correct. Bush (and his administration) have long waged war on the media in an attempt to shackle them and turn them into mouthpieces. Like him or hate him, anyone who is cognizant about what is going on in the press knows of this. Some members of the press who are actually pro-Bush have been frozen out for periods at a time (one example was shut out for a year) simply because they repeated something that Bush actually said, but made him look bad.

    2. Interesting point about Iran. I'll grant you that they've never said "We are going to make a nuclear bomb and destroy America". I had read somewhere else that they had and found it alarming. But I cannot find anything to substantiate the charge that they have claimed to be devloping a nuke. However, I also must point out that it's difficult to buy that they are only developing a nuclear program for energy when they are very rich in oil, etc. If we don't take Bush at his word, why do we feel the need to take anyone in Iran at theirs, when Iran has an even worse reputation?

    3. Even back in 2004, The Clinton Administration's take on Saddam and Al Qaeda was discussed. If Saddam didn't like Osama, he sure loved Al Qaeda! Now of course that means that he may not have had a direct tie-in with good ole Osama, but he most definately believed in aiding and abetting our enemies.

    As for WMDs, I must honestly say that I believe they did exist, but were probably hidden out there somewhere, perhaps buried in the desert, where it would be impossible to discover. And Saddam's refusal to submit to inspections was suspect at best.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I saw the Roches in concert the other night and they played a song which kind of sums up how I feel about all this political discussion wankery. Here are the lyrics:

    I like to watch tv
    listen to the news
    hear what everybody is saying
    there's a lotta talk about God
    peace and safety and
    war and fear and
    there goes a girl in a bikini

    this guy's saying that guy's an idiot and
    she's on the right he's on the left and
    everybody's screaming and yelling at each other and
    calling each other jerks
    it's a party

    who cares where the truth lies
    who cares where the truth lies

    guys dressed up in suits and ties
    look you straight in the eyes
    telling lies
    but I really wish I knew
    what they were talking about
    meanwhile human beings
    are being strung up on bridges and
    little kids are getting their legs blown off and
    young soldiers are coming home no more

    if you live in new york city
    keep your eye on he sky
    afraid to take a subway ride
    wondering about the next time
    the next time

    who cares
    who cares

    so I look inside my own angry heart
    the violent world
    of my misdeeds and my mistakes
    my old messy heartbreaks
    and fantastic fakes
    the good intentions paved in gold
    another war story gets told

    I like to watch tv
    listen to the news
    hear what everybody is saying
    I think that I'm a dove but
    maybe I'm a hawk and
    someday I will fly away

    who cares where the truth lies

    ReplyDelete
  6. Saur, you're waging an illegal war against a nation innocent of any charge worthy of invasion.

    There IS no "moderate" side. Thanks to your political fuckmasters (we righteous few laugh at the idea that Fourth Reich bullying resembles "republican" politics and scoff), the only "moderate" angle is regurgitating prefabricated lies fed from the propaganda machine.

    You claim to be "moderate," but "marginalised" is more apropos. You're "fine" as a "moderate" until you fail to toe the line perfectly--which is extremism.

    Look. Your nation is waging an illegal war. It cannot do anything to turn lead into gold here. It is in violation of good faith.

    The gunman cannot blame the hostage for getting into the car. That would be stupid, and any kind of support whatsoever for the illegal war in Iraq is just as nonsensical.

    It is an illegal war. Period. Deal with that fact before claiming moderation.

    Just like your government says, there is no negotiating with terrorists. Then why give them such leeway in this? They are wrong, and the only correct path is an end to the war, a complete American withdrawal, and timely, hefty compensation for the crimes.

    It's that simple, and the world won't wait forever.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1. Iraq is now a fun place and one of the worlds leading holiday destinations, there is no such thing as global warming and the US national debt is under control. How can you doubt Honest George or trust the evil journalists?

    2. But you must remember that George is guided by god and that only he is responsible and trustworthy enough to control nuclear weapons.

    3. erm... I'm trying to say something positive and avoid the term 'lying fuckwit'. But it just aint happening.

    Now I'm off to do some secret shopping & become incredibly wealthy. (could anonymous actually be honest George bringing even more wealth and happiness to us all?)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Col. Dr., I know you love to attack and belittle, but unfortunately you are wrong about so much, and I have so little time right now, that I can't address it all. However, I suspect that even you believe very little of what you say, so I doubt I need to seriously refute anything. And simply because you declare that there is no moderate side doesn't make it so. Sorry, I fail to see you as an expert.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Aaah Iran, who cares if they do develop a Nuclear weapon, we have tons of them, and America have tons of them and America have a Religious Fundamentalist waiting for God to tell him to push the button.

    Really America are so worried about the Iranian Oil Burse trading in euros devaluing their already worthless toilet paper money they'll attack anyone.

    The sooner people realise there is no god the better off we'll all be. I mean religious people basically go to war and argue with each other quoting ancient people with the minds of today's average 10 year olds view of the origins of man... yet they also thought the world was flat ? Fools.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Not germaine to this thread, Daniel, but s big plus for Montana is that it's the home of David Sirota. www.davidsirota.com


    Yeharr

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon: not really thought much about James Bond and don't know the film to comment, most of the films use certain stereotypes to make baddies tick our prejudice boxes, such as disability, Arabic, metnal health issues or some kind of tic.

    Saur: the 'oh my they have lots of oil so why do they need nuclear power' arguement is a classic, the fact that the US thought it'd be a good idea to develop alternate sources back in the 50s says it all, for a nation to be dependent on one power source is not good economics.

    I have also seen the 'mutual foe' arguement for Saddam and al-Qaeda, trouble is that wasn't the case and it typical American-centric thinking; as in the US is the only target. Both wanted exspansionist empires but one secular and the other Islamic, the US supported the secular exspansionism of Saddam whose mild brand of socialism was acceptable to them. Saddam actualyl had quite a soft spot for the US, esp Reagan and the trouble with the mutual foe analogy is that al-Qaeda was a mutual foe of Saddam and the US. So you see how flawed it is to justify collaboration from political polar opposites?

    Also there were no WMD and that has been commonknowledge for some time, I'm surprised that you still persist in believing there was when we have not one piece of evidence but a stack of evidence saying Saddam did not have WMD, this is like Iran again!

    Doogie: nice to have you on board man!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Saur:

    It is not an attack to point out that there is no moderate side to your nation's illegal warfare against Iraq. In exactly the same way, there is no moderate side between the rapist/murderer and his victim, and pointing out that she had it coming because she has the world's largest breasts is plain disgusting.

    Iraq was attacked because it has the oil your President admitted you are addicted to. There is no legal basis for the aggression against Iraq, no natural resources worth exploiting, no political situation requiring "assistance."

    Your leaders falsely connected Iraq with their faked attack on the World Trade Center--which even if it was perpetrated by Al Qaeda leaves it committed by an American asset--and then falsely accused Iraq of possessing WMD.

    Neither of these pretexts were true, and no nations other than Spain and Ghana even pretended to believe them. The Dutch figured they would get while the getting was good, and the British are just your junior partners in crime.

    To claim there is a moderate side in Iraq is to face the reality that in ten years, a hell of a lot of people are going to actually call you names, like baby-killer and "stupid American pig."

    I just pointed out the unipolar aspect of the propaganda package you have bought into. You say you are "moderate." How are you able to demonstrate this? Can you urge your Congressman to any effect to withdraw for the parts of your "moderate" argument which prove America should not be in Iraq?

    Of course not. America is in Iraq to propel its artificial military-industrial complex economy a little further down the line. This is not even a war. It is a prolonged bandit raid on a helpless people, made worse by those who allow themselves to be enchanted by the idea that America protects democracy and fights terrorism.

    Using Bush's own words, I pointed out how the shoe feels on the other foot. ANYONE who is not with the free people of the world, is with the American murderers, and due to the extreme nature of this conflict, anyone who does not prevent their aggression is an accomplice.

    This goes for nations, states, and individuals who, in the end, are alleged to construct the governments who commit these crimes. I have not "attacked" you personally, but again, showed how the shoe looks on the other foot.

    Of course, if that shoe happened to fit, the least you could do is wear it and not imitate your gangster leaders by hiding behind some form of respectable, nonexistent dissent.

    As for belittling, there is no sense in tiptoeing around people who do not have the sense of history, the spirit of justice, or the plain common intelligence to prevent their political fuckmasters to destroy the world.

    In a post-Vietnam world, The People were supposed to have taken democracy back, but El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Haiti, et alia ad nauseum prove The People are only interested in watching Friends in their nice homes on new televisions.

    Such humanistic impotence while millions die is truly worthy of jaded scorn. If you truly want to appear "moderate," then I suggest you attempt to face the brutal reality that your nation is waging a war of aggression worthy of mass death sentences a'la Nuremburg.

    After that fact is realised in your mind, then you are prepared to, should you truly want to be "moderate," become politically involved in the cessation of the illegal war, the immediate withdrawal of American troops, and a reevaluation of American socio-political values, in order to estimate what measures will be necessary to return America to its once-noble democratic roots.

    Until you, and every tax battery who pays for the bombs killing the world's innocent civilians is ready to do this kind of soul searching (which, again, is what the 70s were supposed to be for), the world will have nothing but scorn for you, personally.

    Until every American determines to abandon their inbred sense of arrogant superiority, they will continue to be treated with a mix of increasing rage, and amused contempt.

    Believe me, I do not want to attack and belittle, but like any war, we must engage the enemy with combined force. My experience as a world-renowned professional, beloved and adored by hundreds of thousands, has also taught me that the strongest reactions come from people who cannot deny what I tell them.

    Therefore, I urge you to examine your own civic identity. If you truly are a good person trying to get out, then you must face the truth of how much your government has abused your intellect.

    If you are unable to do so, well, it's not like you're the only American I know in denial. I can truly say I only know about ten or eleven thousand who have come to grips, most of whom have served willingly.

    It never fails, that those who believe the lies to the point where they will die to defend them, only to be rudely introduced to "the way things work" make the most convincing arguments for the realignment of the democratic system.

    Longest story shortest, I apologise if my words bit too deeply. Let me just leave you with the same ultimatum your criminal President presented to the world: Either you are with the compassionate victims of the world, or you are with the (American) terrorists. You decide.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Daniel: I have also seen the 'mutual foe' arguement for Saddam and al-Qaeda, trouble is that wasn't the case and it typical American-centric thinking; as in the US is the only target.

    It just occurred to me that prior to the illegal war in Iraq, when Al Qaeda was operating against Russia through the Chechens, America kept howling for their new "friends" to observe human rights and let Chechnya pursue their own independent destiny. See, that's the "democratic" thing to do, they preached to the Russians.

    As you point out, the story changes when America is on the receiving end of terrorism. And let's all remember post-Soviet Russia never invaded Iraq or Afghanistan for their alleged protection of Al Qaeda.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Saur - I would like to know where you got the idea that Saddam refused to submit to the UN inspectors? They were on the ground searching and had to leave when $hrubco gave Saddam 48 hours to get out of Dodge.

    Read it at this wingut source.

    ReplyDelete
  15. cranky:
    What do you make of reports, including opinions of David Kay, weapons inspector, that WMD were moved to Syria, that Iraq was in fact in breach and that the general inspection process was severely flawed, a game of cat and mouse.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html
    and
    http://www.useu.be/Categories/GlobalAffairs/Iraq/Jan1903IraqSmokingGunKay.html

    That is not an attempt to justify george jumping the gun, but I don't agree with the blanket statements "there were no WMDs and never were (after 1991)". It doesn't take a lot of space to store these things.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It seems you are at peace with Wyoming.

    Your listing is correct. Contradictions where significant amount of life is lost, are the main issues.

    I see your emotional response. Where does it lead?

    ReplyDelete
  17. If people here are going to insist in believing that WMD were in Iraq then I'll have to put up a post destroying that as an issue, I'm collating data as we speak for a mother of all posts on the matter so people can get on with being angry at Bush for misleading them into war.

    ReplyDelete
  18. No, surprise, but I think Saddam moved them, which means according to your logic system, it must be true!!!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Cranky, what Bud said.

    Col Dr., it's easy. I cast no aspersions on you, even though we might disagree on some things. And just because you think it's not possible to take a moderate stance doesn't make it so. Some of your points I agree with or admit they're a possibility. But some I don't agree with. Since when does someone have to agree with you 100%? Where is that written?

    I believe that you are being exceedingly melodramatic, which is an inherent character flaw when it comes to the ability to make clear-headed decisions or a truthful analysis of any situation. And that is not an attempt to call you names, brand you, or humiliate you. I'm just telling you what I see.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Saur, you pretend to cast no aspersions, and claim I have a character flaw? And that this is not an attempt to call me names, brand me or humiliate me? You truly are a daughter of the American revolution.

    Being maganaminously greater than passive-aggressive stabs in the back, however, I'll step by your attempt to hijack my stating "it is simple," as you obviously require primitive language to comprehend.

    However, you seem like you may have broken the mould, and graduated high school, perhaps even driven past a community college, so I'll level up a tiny bit, in my maganimity, and explain something YOUR nation demanded of history.

    YOUR president, and believe me, there are plenty of good Americans who loudly proclaim he isn't THEIR president removed the possibility for a moderate position when he set the rules for the War On Freedom.

    You are either with him, or with the people he murders on an hourly basis. HIS WORDS. HIS DEMANDS.

    You cannot, therefore, be with the terrorists, and also be "moderate" when contemplating their victims in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. You must, BY HIS WORDS, either completely follow him (seig HEIL, mein business failure cokehead rancher!), or you are with the peace loving, compassionate victims of the world.

    You, and nobody else in the world, has any basis to claim, or even pretend there is a moderate position. You are with with the terrorists, or you are with the rest of the world.

    Had Herr Bush not conspired with his evil empire cronies to either directly attack the WTC, or make goddam sure their Al Qaeda asset would follow through on their threats, there may have been room for him to take a few months and sensibly sort out who did what, and follow up with a righteous military action which could pass the test of "national defense."

    However, Bush pissed his pants with glee, and the smirking grin he had pasted on his face for the next three weeks was because, no matter how much he fucked up, he'd be popular. Boy was he wrong.

    Still, the Goebells-inspired media did their job to poison and distract the weak-minded public into believing invading Iraq was a good thing.

    It was not.

    It was illegal.

    Your nation lied to the UN. Your fuehrer made the statement that he didn't even care where Bin Laden was anymore, and the inaction since Canada chased Al Qaeda into Pakistan proves that the attack on the World Trade Center was a Gleiwitz-style sham excuse to wage aggressive war.

    Now, doubly, you have no basis for claiming "moderation." Not only are you either with the innocent global citizens, or you're with Bush's Nazi terrorist murder machine, but the pretext upon which you are either with one or the other is completely false.

    Even had the WTC been a real attack, which we have just proven it was not, the scope of military action would have been limited to the destruction of the aggressors. Now is where you should pay attention.

    In 2003, when 25K American soldiers were trapped by Al Qaeda in the mountains of Tora Bora, the Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry were called to the rescue.

    About 2,500 Pats began operations with far inferior equipment to their American chargees, but managed not only to free the 10X greater American force, even without smart bombs and WMD, but were in hot pursuit of the remaining Al Qaeda/Taliban forces left in Afghanistan.

    As they neared the Pakistan border, the Canadian forces were ordered, BY THE AMERICAN HIGH COMMAND, to cease their pursuit. The Canadians tried to explain that our superior and always-accurate intelligence indicated that the primary operatives sought by American justice were in the group which would be taken within hours.

    Again, the order to halt was issued by the American high command. Frustrated, the Canadians explained that Osama Bin Laden was very likely a member of the group, and would be taken alive. Al Qaeda's leadership was tired and disorganised, and the best opportunity ever for his capture had just presented itself.

    Without explanation, the Americans ordered the Canadians to halt.

    Now, Saur, you tell me who protects Al Qaeda and gives them aid and comfort. They are an American asset, and as such, serve a role as providing the pretext for illegal wars.

    Thus, as Braustich, Halder and Canaris found out, opposition to the illegal operations of one's government, even claims of "moderate" resistance, must be met with actions which attempt to stop the illegal activity.

    These leaders of the so-called "anti-Nazi" movement through WWII claimed "moderate" positions, and at Nuremburg shouted to high heaven that they weren't all in favour of Hitler, and even had secret meetings where they planned to overthrow his regime.

    YOUR nation wasn't impressed by these Nazis, and it boggles the mind that, merely 60 years later, YOUR nation is guilty of the exact same crimes, and you sit there, claiming some kind of moral high ground because your natural sense of guilt must assuage itself somehow.

    How can someone be melodramatic in the face of wholesale murder? How can one overreact to the destruction of an innocent people?

    Innocent.

    Innocent.

    Innocent.

    The Iraqi people never did a single thing against the people of the United States. How can anyone, under any circumstances, believe that creaming their undefended nation into oblivion is justifiable?

    How can anyone who is flabbergasted that quasi-intellects who claim "moderate" positions on extreme, falsified pretexts for war, be accused of having a character flaw?

    It is truly in the stereotypical image of an old-school Nazi that Daniel's readers may understand your statement that I have an inherent character flaw because I refuse to become comfortable with the idea of such ugly, ignoble thuggery, as to expend the entire resources of the world's most powerful nation against a weak, oil-soaked country.

    After universal justice has again embarrassed your people, and you are humiliated for the atrocities you pretended you didn't know about, will you be like the German people who wept about how sorry they felt for the SIX MILLION Jews they looked the other way on?

    Do you really think I'm trying to pick on you, Saur, to single you out for kicks? Do you really think there's something that special about you that I'd risk a flame war on my friend's blog?

    I never attacked you. I attacked the all-too-common attitude of Americans who think they can stand by, reaping the benefits of feeding of the dead, and then have a leg to stand on when the wheels of justice roll over top of them.

    If you decide, in your irritation, to become the champion of this attitude, then, by all means, you may assume I am attacking you. If you want to be representative of those who are too timid to face the fact that their government is a criminal organisation so long as it operates on a criminal basis, then yes, you can assume that I am filled with feelings of revulsion, contempt, and a sort of amused shock at how soft the human mind can become.

    I will never apologise for being on the side of those who your, or anyone's corrupt murderous government attacks. Nor will I apologise for immediately assuming that any action the American government takes is illegal, and intended to inflate the American economy through stimulation of its military-industrial complex.

    I will never apologise for hating the fact that your nation would have dried up and blown away decades ago, if you didn't continually start illegal wars, and for hating the fact that otherwise loveable people turn into such fucking asshole nazis whenever the flag is waved.

    It is not melodrama, or a character flaw you're reacting to in my words, Saur. It is hatred.

    Undying hatred, to be exact, for the evil of premeditated murder passed off as patriotic duty. If it cannot be put to you thus, and you cannot respond with a similar revulsion, I will end this non-defense of my extremely popular, highly-qualified, sought-out opinions, I would challenge you to reexamine your own humanity, and ask yourself if you have yet found, or lost, your soul.

    Please, let me try to quell the flames by saying that for the most part, I've found your comments to be very good. It's just the idea of moderation on this war has been taken out of your hands by your president's diktat, and I reacted to seeing you fall for it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. MOVED THEM?

    NO! HE DIDN'T MOVE THEM, HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY IN THE FIRST PLACE!

    I will blog on this to dispell the myths!

    ReplyDelete
  22. "I don't think they existed. What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the [1991] Gulf War and I don?t think there was a large-scale production program in the 90s."

    "It turns out we were all wrong."

    - David Kay resigning his post as Chief of the $hrubco WMD search known as the Iraq Survey Group.

    "There are always possibilities that you don't or can't examine. ISG didn't go to Syria looking for weapons Saddam might have transferred. So we can't say with 100% certainty that there are no Iraqi weapons in Syria.

    My fundamental belief is that weapons weren't moved to Syria because ISG found no evidence that they had been produced. And ISG found contrary evidence that they had not been produced. Would it have been better if we had gone to Syria and been able to look? Absolutely. But that was just not in the cards. " David Kay in a CNN interview 8/2/04

    ReplyDelete

Please do not be under the misapprehension that this blog has a laissez-faire comments policy where commenters can get away with whatever they want to say on account of their ‘freedom of speech’.

Blurred Clarity has a stringent comments policy. So anything off-topic, diversionary, trollish, abusive, misogynist, racist, homophobic or xenophobic will be deleted.

Cheers duckies.