Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.
It was a "grave mistake" to blame Saddam for Anthrax attacks
guardian.co.uk — In this article from 2001, Scott Ritter warned us that Iraq was not the source of the Anthrax attacks. He was right. Now he is warning us that Iran is not a threat. He is right again. Will we learn from history?
FrankHope- 1406 diggs
- digg it
- FrankHope, on 08/07/2008, -4/+63FTA: "It would be a grave mistake for some in the Bush administration to undermine the effort to bring to justice those who perpetrated the cowardly attacks against the US by trying to implement their own ideologically-driven agenda on Iraq."
- dkapuchino, on 08/07/2008, -9/+12Please tell Argentina, which suffered terrorist attacks sponsored by Iran, that Iran is not a threat.
- sodade, on 08/07/2008, -4/+4News to me. Link please?
- dkapuchino, on 08/07/2008, -1/+5http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940 ...
- tomarocco, on 08/07/2008, -3/+9Since when are we providing security for Argentina? Weren't they our staunchest ally Great Britain's enemy?
- kingmanic, on 08/07/2008, -3/+11Iran is a threat. A Theocracy full of crazies. But starting a war with them is not a way to deal with it. It strengthens them domestically in the same way "Terror" has strengthened support for a weak president in the US. 8 years ago the theocracy was under a lot of internal demand for change by the growing demographic of young "moderates". The actions and rhetoric of the US in the last 8 years have given the theocracy an excuse to not change and to silence the voices pushing for moderation.
In effect the only winners from this lopsided brinkmanship are the idiot zealots on both sides. - trer, on 08/07/2008, -2/+22Please tell Iran, which suffer a coup-de-tat of democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddeq and the subsequent brutal regime of the Shah sponsored by America, that America is not a threat.
- banthis, on 08/07/2008, -1/+5If you never heard of the Argentine Terrorist attack of 1994, just grab that old dusty world history book and read it.
- dkapuchino, on 08/07/2008, -3/+2kmanic, why assume an attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities means war? Both the syrian and Iraqi nuclear facilities were attacked, and that never started a war.
- kingmanic, on 08/07/2008, -1/+3dkapuchino: Is there a difference to the propagandists?
- sodade, on 08/07/2008, -3/+4What happened in Argentina sounds pretty ***** tame compared to the assrape of Iran by America.
dkapuchino, you are contantly outputting a litany of all the evil deeds of the marginalized (Iran, Palestine,etc), yet I have never seen you engage in a real conversation of the root causes of this marginalization (i.e. Israel, USA, etc). In my book that makes you intellectually dishonest.
I can see perfectly well how ***** up these ME theocracies are - we are all ***** aware of that, but to ignore the way that WE enabled these wackjobs to take power is to miss the forest for the trees.
If you are not just a pro-Israel troll, why don't you man up, watch this video: http://digg.com/politics/US_Intervention_in_Iran
and then try to have an intelligent discussion about the situation in the Middle East? - jerrycurley, on 08/08/2008, -1/+0sodae...don't you EVER talk about "intellectual" anything ever again. You have no intelligence. You just spoiut the same old "It is the US and Israel's fault!" that the anti-everything websites spout.
If you wanted an honest intellectual debate, you sure as ***** better stop with the idea that our enemies have never done anything bad ever. You are a ***** joke that is not even worth the time to debate. You would never win a debate, but would claim that you did. Your life absolutely sucks, and you will die a lonely, lonely man at your own hands. You know you have thought about it. And recently. Probably already have the method planned out, and possibly have already written a first draft of the note.
- theskillwithin, on 08/07/2008, -14/+9Iran is not only intolerant to Christians and Israel, but they would happily die a tourcherouse death if it meant the same for their enemy's because they celebrate death and believe they will be rewarded. So on their childerens TV shows they tell the kids with cartoons to kill Christians and Jews. They do not hide this so its pretty well known.
- NJank, on 08/07/2008, -5/+6please link to anything showing these cartoons.
- dkapuchino, on 08/07/2008, -6/+6burried for telling the truth.
- jabberwolf, on 08/07/2008, -5/+5You forgot to mention:
*Basijj children they sent (with plastic keys to heaven) to walk over landmines and charge enemy fire unarmed.
*The blood fountain they erected to commemorate the Basijj children.
*Weapons they sent to Hamas and Hezbollah.
*The prayers for the 12 imam to come ( which symbolizes Islam's annexation of the world) and also wishing for the end of the west. Yes this prayer before most of Ahmadinejad speeches.
So when you realize all of that Iran doesnt really care about the deaths of their own citizens for their own religious beleif, do you want to take a chance with them having nuclear fuel?!?! - jabberwolf, on 08/07/2008, -5/+6Links to these cartoons:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWadBz0eFTI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS1SrR3xQ2w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enjqFbkLCaQ
Here are some children shows to hate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LgFZGiszXU&feature ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1xL7prrDSo&feature ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm8w7_P8wZ0&feature ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tneSE6nJiLw&feature ...
Yes the Hamas rabbit will eat the jews. I mean seriously I couldnt even try to make this ***** up! - catbeller, on 08/07/2008, -2/+4And we live in a country that openly advocates that Jews will all be repatriated in Israel when at last the Lord will arrive at the end of days to throw them into a pit to burn for ever and ever.
This is a thing "America" believes, by your logic. Actually, a hell of a lot of Americans believe that they support Israel so that Jesus will return and tip the Jews into hell for eternity. So therefore we are a threat to Israel. They should bomb us.
See your fallacy, please? Because some are crazy doesn't mean that America is a "threat" to Israel. I can counter every "proof" you produce that Iran wants to kill Jews with ones that "prove" America is hankering to enable God to do the same.
Iran has a history with the USA; we toppled their democratically elected government in 1952 to install the Shah so that British Petroleum would not lose its wells to nationalization. We put them through decades of hell, then used Saddam as a proxy to put them through ten more years of hell. They are not mad at us because they are religious, they are mad because we tortured them for generations. - PhilLesh69, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1That's funny when you consider the reality, and do not allow your perceptions to override the facts:
In the midst of tensions between the U.S and Iran and between Iran and Israel, Iranian-Jewish Americans and Israelis offered money to the remaining Jews in Iran in order to help them relocate to California and/or Israel. In August 2007, the Iranian Jews in Iran, responded by saying they "resent such transparent political enticements."
Iran's Jewish community is officially recognized as a religious minority group by the government, and, like the Zoroastrians, they are allocated one seat in the Iranian Parliament. Maurice Motamed has been the Jewish MP since 2000, and was re-elected in 2004. In 2000, former Jewish MP Manuchehr Eliasi estimated that at that time there were still 30,000–35,000 Jews in Iran, other sources put the figure as low as 20,000–25,000.[36]
Today Tehran has 11 functioning synagogues, many of them with Hebrew schools. It has two kosher restaurants, an old-age home and a cemetery. There is a Jewish library with 20,000 titles.[5] Iranian Jews have their own newspaper (called "Ofogh-e-Bina") with Jewish scholars performing Judaic research at Tehran's "Central Library of Jewish Association".[37] The "Dr. Sapir Jewish Hospital" is Iran's largest charity hospital of any religious minority community in the country;[37] however, most of its patients and staff are Muslim.[38]
- nickbertovich, on 08/07/2008, -2/+6"Will we learn from history?"
No. - jabberwolf, on 08/07/2008, -10/+4If we learn from History would we be in a hurry to leave Iraq... A SECOND TIME?!?!
Oh that's right, the average age of someone on Digg doesnt remember we were there before and that General Schwarzkopf warned us not to leave. That we would be back....
Well so much for learning from history. - jabberwolf, on 08/07/2008, -8/+3You forgot to mention a little history about Iran:
*Basijj children they sent (with plastic keys to heaven) to walk over landmines and charge enemy fire unarmed.
*The blood fountain they erected to commemorate the Basijj children.
*Weapons they sent to Hamas and Hezbollah.
*The prayers for the 12 imam to come ( which symbolizes Islam's annexation of the world) and also wishing for the end of the west. Yes this prayer before most of You forgot to mention:
*Basijj children they sent (with plastic keys to heaven) to walk over landmines and charge enemy fire unarmed.
*The blood fountain they erected to commemorate the Basijj children.
*Weapons they sent to Hamas and Hezbollah.
*The prayers for the 12 imam to come ( which symbolizes Islam's annexation of the world) and also wishing for the end of the west. Yes this prayer before most of Ahmadinejad speeches.
*Ahmadinejad used to be a Bassij instructor. Though he doesnt have much power, he was elected to represent Iran.
So when you realize all of that Iran doesnt really care about the deaths of their own citizens for their own religious belief, do you want to take a chance with them having nuclear fuel?!?!
Letting you guys know what airs on Iranian TV:
Links to these cartoons for kids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWadBz0eFTI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS1SrR3xQ2w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enjqFbkLCaQ
Here are some children shows to hate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LgFZGiszXU&feature ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1xL7prrDSo&feature ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm8w7_P8wZ0&feature ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tneSE6nJiLw&feature ...
Yes the Hamas rabbit will eat the jews. I mean seriously I couldnt even try to make this ***** up!- catbeller, on 08/07/2008, -1/+5And as I've said, fundie Americans support Israel so that Jesus will come sooner to toss them into a pit to burn forever and ever. We're as crazy as the Iranians are - if you pick and choose what to look at.
- theskillwithin, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1The hatred Iran has is not comparable to anything found in America. In America we don't teach kids to eat Christians and Jews on TV.
- KungFooJesus, on 08/07/2008, -5/+1It is a logical fallacy to say "he was right about X, thereofre he MUST be right about Y". Poor reasoning. I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty that iran will or will not attack the US or US interests abroad. What we know for absolute certainty is that there is a large portion of the population with control over much of the government that detests the US and its foreign policy. They were building an enrichment facility at Natanz for a covert nuclear program until some defectors told the world about it. (The fact that it was secret violated the NNPT. however, now that it is overt and access has been allowed to IAEA inspectors, it is no longer an illegal facility.) They are openly hostile with the US and its allies (the capture of British sailors on the high seas and the the dog and pony show that followed, not to mention support of Hezbollah).
Knowing just those facts, should Ritter's skepticism be taken at face value as correct as suggested in the title? I think it is a regional power play by iran and they are provoking the US and its allies because they are in the legal right to build all of those things. So they gain power and get the US to act prematurely. I don't think they are quite dumb enough to use nuclear weapons on us or Israel, but I would never write off a country as peaceful that chants Death to America at congressional meetings.
- dkapuchino, on 08/07/2008, -9/+12Please tell Argentina, which suffered terrorist attacks sponsored by Iran, that Iran is not a threat.
- FrankHope, on 08/07/2008, -7/+25As far back as 1998, the CIA was "warning" us about an Anthrax attack by Iraq using unmanned planes:
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/26/iraq.weapon/
An intelligence official told The Associated Press, on condition of anonymity, that Iraq was trying to convert an L-29 trainer jet into an unmanned delivery system for nerve gas or the biological agent anthrax.
---
And after 9/11 there were reports that the attackers had tried to acquire cropdusters.- SocialPoison, on 08/07/2008, -0/+6[citation needed]
- dexter411, on 08/08/2008, -4/+1Great find.
Yet Keith Olbermann still runs segments calling Bush a criminal and a moron for not taking the CIA "bin Laden determined to attack in the United States" and implementing sweeping reforms. Can't have your cake and it, too, kids. - PhilLesh69, on 08/08/2008, -0/+9If you are talking about the Aero L29 Delfin built by Czechoslovakia (I know, it is now Czech Republic and Slovakia, but the planes were built in 1963) then how was Iraq going to use a plane with a 900 km range to attack the United States?
Please, tell me.
Were they going to use their vast fleet of aircraft carriers to ferry them off of our coast?
Stop buying into the propoganda and ideological *****.
Fear is an emotion. Try using reason instead. Studies have shown that people who follow reason over emotion in times of duress tend to have higher survival rates. The people who react emotionally end up being killed. The people who react with reason end up making it out alive.- AeroMerde, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1I suggest you try using this thing called "reading" before you "reason" things out.
FTA
"The jet would have a range of about 500 miles, great enough to reach targets in Israel as well as most of the U.S. force concentrations in the Persian Gulf, he said."
Your sarcastic post doesn't sound so funny anymore, does it? - dexter411, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Why exactly was AeroMerde's fact buried while the ignorant "Stop buying propaganda" was dugg up? Oh, that's right, because it's only ***** if you disagree with the politics.
- AeroMerde, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1I suggest you try using this thing called "reading" before you "reason" things out.
- LoJack, on 08/07/2008, -13/+5Why not? We now have a military base in the M. East - which produces oil. Hehe...
- shutaro, on 08/07/2008, -3/+4LOL
- pgoetz, on 08/07/2008, -2/+14At a cost of ... $2 billion per week? That's great, just great. Listen, I'm tired of paying for my share of this and am getting out of the deal. Presumably you and the other right wing dumb asses are going to be willing to pick up the tab for all of this when the smoke clears?
- catbeller, on 08/07/2008, -2/+1The cost is not to the oil people. It's to you. You don't count.
- altgeeky1, on 08/07/2008, -4/+3>Why not? We now have a military base in the M. East - which produces oil. Hehe..
Yeah, and at the COST of middle-class American kids whose lives and idealism and generosity you just took a big crap on. Must be nice in that insulated world of yours.
- roosevans, on 08/07/2008, -6/+12Scott Ritter was a courageous and honorable inspector in the Iraq WMD search. Wish he would go to Iran and confirm or disprove the Iranian assertion that they are not pursuing WMDs.
- AchaIemoipas, on 08/07/2008, -1/+13It's already been done.
"U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offering evidence to refute its central claims."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
The entire world knew Saddam didn't have WMD's, that didn't stop the US.- buddypriefert, on 08/07/2008, -12/+5There's no way to really say this politely, but you are an idiot.
"The entire world knew Saddam didn't have WMD's"
I'm sure that 5 years ago you were busy finger banging your teenie friends while playing XBox so let me fill you in. England, France, Austrailia, and many more leaders in the entire world believed that WMDs were in Iraq.
A few months ago a violent storm on Krylen beach in Western Denmark swept away the sand, exposing glimpses of the cement and iron structures of a German bunker which was buried under those sands since 1945. We are not speaking about a small hut built for two Nazi midgets but a sizable building. Amazingly it has been hidden under sand dunes for over 63 years. For perspective, Denmark is ten times smaller than Iraq and yet this bunker, on a beach yet, was not found for more than half a dozen decades.
What makes you (and others) so sure there are no WMDs in Iraq? Because they told you so? FYI - the deserts of Iraq are about 20 times the state of New Jersey. About 50 trillion cars could be burried under the state of New Jersy. I could pack about one million tennis balls in one car. One tennis ball of Anthrax could wipe out an entire metropolitan city. Three years ago, troops uncovered 30-40 Iraq jets under 10 feet of dirt ( http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2006/06/wmd_not_s ... )
Again, there is no way to politely say that you are an idiot. - jerrycurley, on 08/07/2008, -9/+4Actually, most of the world thought he DID have WMD. They just differed with Bush on how to contain it.
Do me a favor...if you are going to rewrite history, could you have me win the $350 Mega Millions jackpot that happened last year? - AchaIemoipas, on 08/07/2008, -1/+10http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EywYDhPeY8
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/313593 ...
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/ekeu-o18 ...
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/CIA_Warned_Bush_Of ...
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0319-08.htm
I guess it's normal that Americans and the British believe they weren't the only ones duped, being the only ones that were duped. - apackofmonkeys, on 08/07/2008, -5/+1@AchaIemoipas: And we thought we'd discovered all the Nazi hideouts too, until we discovered a huge hidden bunker within the last few months. That only took 60 years. But it was there all along.
- AchaIemoipas, on 08/07/2008, -2/+4Don't worry pack of monkeys, if you wish hard enough, one day the lies of your leaders will become true. Then America will go back to 1949 and everybody will be white and christian.
- Naieve, on 08/07/2008, -4/+1Let's dissect the statement "No WMD".
"No" is the numerical equivalent of 0, or ZERO.
"WMD" refers to chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
500 shells containing mustard gas and sarin were found in Iraq, along with thousands of tons of precursor chemicals to produce more.
Thus the saying of "No WMD" is a logical fallacy.
The correct answer is there was some WMD, and some ability to produce more.
For real people, stop lying and let's go over the points rationally, because with your fallacy of No WMD you immediately lose the attention of anyone who knows that is a bald faced lie. - Caffeinate, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3Naieve, you were just offered about 6 links above you that said NO WMDs. None made after 1991.
You are distorting the truth, if you aren't telling a bald-faced lie. I won't even address precursor chemicals because "mustard gas" is chlorine gas, and I have the two precursors for it sitting in my house right now - bleach and ammonia. You learn that in chemistry 101. You would be hard pressed to go *anywhere* in America that doesn't have precursors to mustard gas.
You are lying, and you hope you can produce enough doubt that someone will believe you because they want to believe you, but it just plain isn't true. Face it, WMD's is an old ass argument that has been proven time and time again that they weren't there. - PhilLesh69, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Naieve,
500 shells of out of date, barely chemically potent mustard gas and sarin sounds like a good reason to send 4000+ American soldiers and who knows how many innocent Iraqis to their deaths?
Come on, man. Stop watching the right wing pundits. They are chicken hawks.
You should read a book called "The War I always wanted" by Brandon Friedman. http://www.brandonrfriedman.com/
"Brandon served as an infantry officer in the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division in Afghanistan and Iraq. In March 2002, he led a rifle platoon into Afghanistan's Shah-e-Kot Valley in order to engage Taliban and al Qaeda fighters as part of Operation Anaconda—a battle later written about by award-winning journalist Sean Naylor in Not a Good Day to Die. A year later, Brandon commanded a heavy weapons platoon during the invasion of Iraq. He led troops during combat operations in Hillah, Baghdad, and Tal Afar." - Naieve, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1"Naieve, you were just offered about 6 links above you that said NO WMDs. None made after 1991."
"500 shells of out of date, barely chemically potent mustard gas and sarin sounds like a good reason to send 4000+ American soldiers and who knows how many innocent Iraqis to their deaths?"
Nice qualifiers.
None made after, or not totally potent, fyi WW1 mustard gas is still dangerous and this stuff was 70 years newer and retained about 80 percent potency.
No = None
No does not equal, none made after 1991, or none with full potency.
You guys are full of *****, and say I'm distorting the truth? You are the ones changing the ***** facts from none to none made after 1991. And you wonder why people automatically ignore you?
Did you even listen to Powell when he told the UN what we thought they had?
Because ladies and gentlemen, what we found is almost exactly what he said.... - Naieve, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Hey guys I understand your position now.
My friend really doesn't have a kid after all, he isn't that good after all and was born before 1991.
Man if only he had known that before his divorce, he could have save ALOT of money.
- buddypriefert, on 08/07/2008, -12/+5There's no way to really say this politely, but you are an idiot.
- staunchcentrist, on 08/07/2008, -1/+3Courageous and honorable really depend on your point of veiw, and for the most part which view you take about the war in Iraq. While I consider him a bright man and a qualified weapons inspector, his quotes between the time he ceased being a weapons inspector in Iraq and when he came out agaisnt the Iraq war are inconsistant.
31 Aug 1998 News Hour with Jim Lehrer: "I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their developing of nuclear weapons. program."
War on Iraq: What the Bush Team Doesn't Want You to Know (2002) "There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited... We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war."
Having even attended a lecture by him at this time, he gave no indication as to what changed his stance from between 1998 and 2002. Or really offered any evidence to the fact just saying they didn't have significant weapons of mass destruction. Which has proved to be right thus far. However Ritter has said nothing even remotely similar about Iran's nuclear program, infact it would seem Iran is following the same pattern of behavior that India and Pakistan followed. While the US can handle a nuclear capable Iran, and even live with it. It's better for our intrests and many world wide if Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. But I'd still like to see him weigh in on the issue.- Naieve, on 08/07/2008, -1/+3Didn't Ritter receive 400,000 dollars from Iraq to make a documentary that came out in 2000?
I'm sure nearly a half million dollars had nothing to do with his change in opinion.
I'm all to listening to differing opinions of people with some knowledge, but when you flip flop after taking nearly half a million dollars of Oil for Food Scandal money, I have a little trouble believing you.
Does Scott know that money was supposed to be goods supplied to starving Iraqis?
I wonder how much $400,000 in Oil for Food money is worth once you take away the cost of paying off all the people involved in the scandal and factor in the exchange rate necessary to make it profitable for Western Corporations to violate UN Sanctions.
- Naieve, on 08/07/2008, -1/+3Didn't Ritter receive 400,000 dollars from Iraq to make a documentary that came out in 2000?
- RawShark, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2Why the hell are we still even talking about this 2x would be child molester? Are you ***** me?
- AchaIemoipas, on 08/07/2008, -1/+13It's already been done.
- lemur, on 08/07/2008, -13/+14Good article, but hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it ;)
- pintomp3, on 08/07/2008, -2/+18scott ridder was debunking the reasons for the war BEFORE we invaded, it just wasn't reported in the corporate media.
- ordig, on 08/07/2008, -1/+8Only for people with blinders on.
Alot of people knew in 2001 that this was going to happen - Waiting2awake, on 08/07/2008, -1/+6ordig - true, but they were primarily outside the reach of the American MSM. Heck, 50% of Americans still thought Saddam was responsible for 911 even years after 911. That was the power of the MSM franticly regurgitating the Bush talking points.
- macweirdo42, on 08/07/2008, -5/+1It's not the media's fault that most Americans are sheep. Let's face it, no matter what the media said, a lot of people still would be convinced that Saddam was somehow behind 9/11. The attack came from the Middle East, and everyone knows Saddam, so it's a really easy connection to make for a lot of people.
- Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2It's not the media's fault that they feed people inaccurate information?
- Caffeinate, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1The hell it isn't the MSM's fault. They profited from the war right along with the defense contractors, egged it on, and knowingly put propaganda on the air.
You can be condescending about people being "sheep" now when there are plenty of available facts, but we had propaganda drilled into our heads everywhere we went in late 2001 and all of 2002.
- ordig, on 08/07/2008, -1/+8Only for people with blinders on.
- richbleak, on 08/07/2008, -4/+5But foresight isn't always 20/20. This guy and many others knew this was all *****. They were ignored for being "anti-American" and "giving aid and comfort to our enemies". The people who shouted down those that got this thing right before the mistake are still heralded as valid voices in current debates. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly. I guess when you have an attentive audience of complete knuckle-draggers it doesn't matter if you actually get things right or not.
- kigcoopa84, on 08/07/2008, -4/+2we didnt blame iraq for the antrax attacks... Not one goverment press release will back that up.
- richbleak, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Nowhere in my comment does it say a single thing about the government stating Iraq was to blame for the anthrax attacks. You are rebutting an argument that was never made. It is, however, well documented that right-wing pundits (you know, the people that I directly mentioned in the comment that you are supposedly replying to) linked the Anthrax to Iraq; just as they linked Iraq to 9/11, buying nuclear materials, possessing automated attack drones, operating state-sponsored terrorist training camps, having the technology to get a missile to the U.S. mainland, and breeding sharks with lasers on their heads (not the last one). Republican politicians (including John McCain) also went on television and talked about a possible link. Hate Obama, his policies, and his party all you want, but let's not revise history to make it seem like his opposition in the media and government is some kind of group of saints.
- kigcoopa84, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1You would be revising history if you are saying only republicans supported. Should I remind you of all the promonite democrats that voted for the war (including your savior) Our intelligence failed and it is pure speculation that our president deliberately misled the country into war. To say otherwise is an insult to history.
- richbleak, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2a
- pintomp3, on 08/07/2008, -2/+18scott ridder was debunking the reasons for the war BEFORE we invaded, it just wasn't reported in the corporate media.
- onyxcoltrane, on 08/07/2008, -4/+49Scott Ritter wrote this article on 10/19/01.
On 10/18/01 McCain said: "The second phase is Iraq. There is some indication, and I don’t have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have come from Iraq." This is a very irresponsible statement.- IPublius, on 08/07/2008, -3/+8I'm not sure what you are trying to say. He stated something might be true the day before someone else said it wasn't. How is that irresponsible?
Or are you implying that he knew or should have known on the 18th what Ritter was going to say on the 19th?
McCain has done many irresponsible things, but I am failing to see how this is one of them.- onyxcoltrane, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2What facts was McCain basing his statement on? He could just as well have said "France may be behind the anthrax attack". Making this statement while the Bush administration was starting to make the false connection between 9/11 and Saddam is suspicious. It seems to me that he was either echoing the propaganda from the White House or part of the propaganda. By making that statement one more seed was planted on national TV, even when he uses the word "may". As a result of statements like this we ended up in the fiasco in Iraq; the American people were lied to continuously between 9/11 and Mar 2003.
- IPublius, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Honestly though, there were a lot of Democrats as well who said much the same thing in those days. Hindsight is 20/20.
Who knows what facts he was basing his statements on. Maybe he had some information that later turned out to be wrong. That happens frequently in the intel world. Politicians and those who deal with the media have to always walk a fine line as they try to decide which possibly incorrect report to publish to public.
I am not trying to excuse, I just honestly fail to see how this particular statement was any more irresponsible than others that are made all the time. You got a lot of diggs because the war in Iraq is unpopular, but incorrect statements have also been made concerning Afghanistan and Iran but are not considered irresponsible, or at least not yet.
I would also make the assertion that the American people have been lied to almost continuously since the Spanish American war.
- DulcetTone, on 08/07/2008, -2/+5I don't see that statement as irresponsible. It was qualified, stated as preliminary, and likely the truth. He sure was spot-on that Iraq was the second phase. Whether or not advocacy was wise, saying Iraq was the second phase is indisputably true when we look back.
- onyxcoltrane, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2What truth are you talking about? What facts was McCain basing his statement on? He could just as well have said "France may be behind the anthrax attack". Making this statement while the Bush administration was starting to make the false connection between 9/11 and Saddam is suspicious. It seems to me that he was either echoing the propaganda from the White House or part of the propaganda. By making that statement one more seed was planted on national TV, even when he uses the word "may". As a result of statements like this we ended up in the fiasco in Iraq; the American people were lied to continuously between 9/11 and Mar 2003.
- jabberwolf, on 08/07/2008, -2/+5He was an inspector from 1991 to 1998 in Iraq.. that was all
Then there was nothing for about 4 years.
There were other reports AFTER ridder's visits ( in that 4 years time) that led DEMOCRATS to believe Saddam had chemical weapons as well.
- IPublius, on 08/07/2008, -3/+8I'm not sure what you are trying to say. He stated something might be true the day before someone else said it wasn't. How is that irresponsible?
- jstohler, on 08/07/2008, -3/+30America will learn never to fall for propaganda again, until it forgets and does so again.
Bush will learn nothing.- macweirdo42, on 08/07/2008, -1/+6America will never learn not to fall for propaganda. Hell, take all the people who still believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11. You could take these people, explain to them that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and it wouldn't do one damn bit of good, because it requires an actual understanding of global politics.
- TypeEE, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1It's not just Aemricans, it's all voters. The average voters forget the past and only look at what's presented to them the year they vote for a president.
- Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5People swore after WWI that they would never fall for propaganda again. And to our credit, we have not fallen for WWI-style propaganda since.
Unfortunately there are a million different ways to do propaganda.
- blatant3, on 08/07/2008, -5/+13It doesn't matter. The government will do whatever it wants. They will go to war if they want, and they will send you off to die if they want. There is only one thing that can be done to stop this, and nobody is willing to do it. So why does it even matter?
- krnldmp, on 08/07/2008, -3/+3Do you work for the government?
- Jareth86, on 08/07/2008, -0/+4Start a real third party?
- CrazedLeper, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1Correct on all points. It must play out.
- catbeller, on 08/07/2008, -0/+4Wanna stop it? Stop pretending you're helpless and start doing your duty by getting involved with your government. The neocons once were clowns, and they worked for decades to accumulate power. They didn't think they were helpless.
This is a government of the people; the people who never want to get their hands dirty learning politics. Freedom is hard work; harder work than even going places and shooting people on command. Freedom means you have to be the government, to spend time learning about current events, to spend yourself - your life your fortune and your sacred honor - if need be.
There is a psychological condition called "learned helplessness". Shock an animal, torture it regardless of what it does, and eventually it just lies down, apathetic, and won't move. This is what we have become. But it is *****! They are afraid of us, and not because we have a glock under our pillow. they have bigger guns. They are afraid that we will learn, get a new media news outlet, take responsibility back for our country's actions, tax the hell out of them, and take away their power. Every dime spent on the new surveillance state is to stop us from talking, protesting, organizing against them. THAT'S the real problem -- it will be impossible to oppose the bastards in a few years, just as Chinese activists say they can no longer fight in China today. Fight now, or lose forever. - Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2I'm willing to do it.
- SoyJames, on 08/07/2008, -5/+43Well, damn... So Iraq had no wmds and no anthrax after all.
Why didn't anybody tell us that BEFORE we attacked Iraq? Oh wait...- PhilLesh69, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2step 3.... profit.
- ssn697, on 08/07/2008, -0/+53And STILL, ABC News has not revealed their four "government officials" that told them blatant lies about the anthrax, which was then used to convince America we had to attack Iraq before they poisoned all of us.
- dkapuchino, on 08/07/2008, -2/+1they never existed. The Media has an agenda of its own, regardless of the governments agenda.
- ssn697, on 08/07/2008, -0/+8Your non-answers aren't helpful to resolving this. We need a full accounting from ABC, then follow through.
This story isn't about who did it, as in Ivins (or whomever), it is about who knowingly lied to help drag us into war. THAT is the real question. Get that answer, and the whodunit part of the story will fall into place. - Caffeinate, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2I disagree with you a lot of the time, SSN, but I whole-heartedly agree with you on this issue. ABC either lied to the American people knowingly, or were lied to themselves. We deserve to know which one it was, because there is a gaping credibility wound here. The American people were lied to by proxy, and we need to know where that particular lie originated and why.
I have my suspicions, because if you follow the money trail, it tends to lead to the same place, but that is beside the point. - Gregbertt, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Digg it down all you want, but the fact remains that these quotes are out there, and can not be 'unsaid'. This is only half of your 'answer', however, because the following quotes are all from Democrats. It should be noted that there were plenty of Republicans saying the same things at the time. You asked, though:
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003 - Caffeinate, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2But this particular question is who are these 4 government officials that told ABC news that the Anthrax had bentonite?
And by the way, I don't care which political party a person is in if they knowingly lied to the American people - the key, though, is who did it *knowingly* because the lies started somewhere. I can buy that some people weren't any more in the loop than the American people were - they, like us, depended upon the information they were given. - Gregbertt, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1You're right. I think I completely skipped over that. If there was willful misrepresentation by these four officials - and if that can be proven - someone should be on the hook for that. Whoever it is.
- ssn697, on 08/07/2008, -0/+8Your non-answers aren't helpful to resolving this. We need a full accounting from ABC, then follow through.
- dkapuchino, on 08/07/2008, -2/+1they never existed. The Media has an agenda of its own, regardless of the governments agenda.
- tunapez, on 08/07/2008, -1/+41Grave mistake?....yes.
Convenient mistake?....yes
Convenient timing that they caught/suspected/killed(?) the "perp" as the the election furor begins to crescendo?...who knows. The spin is all about the angle, not fixing problems.
VOTE OUT THE INCUMBENTS!- CrazedLeper, on 08/07/2008, -0/+4For a certainty, no mistake was made. Only lies are being told to try to cover it up.
- bffoley, on 08/07/2008, -0/+4Well, I'm not going to be a conspiracy theorist and say they killed him, but I think they were going to railroad the guy and make him the patsy so Bush can leave office saying that Anthrax issue was solved. The guy killing himself just saved them the trouble of having the trial.
- ssn697, on 08/07/2008, -1/+4He certainly can't be 4 people. If they claim it was just him, who were the 4 people telling ABC that the anthrax contained Iraq's tell-tale signature, when no test EVER confirmed that?
- bffoley, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2ssn697: I think they're just trying to wrap this all up before Bush leaves. Remember when they found those aluminum pipes after the invasion and the White House said that this proved the WMD thing and Fox News said "THE WAR IS JUSTIFIED HUZZAH"? And then some actual experts said that those pipes were used for oil pipelines and couldnt be used for missiles? Of course the media didnt parade that around though. I'd imagine most conversations on the topic go like this:
Idiot #1: Whatever happened to those WMDs?
Idiot #2: They found them, remember? Pipes or something?
Idiot #1: Oh, that's right.
Replace WMD with Anthrax Killer and thats what the Bush Administration is aiming for. A half-caring country who barely remembers things a few months afterwards.... - Caffeinate, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Think about this. They started administering Anthrax vaccine to soldiers in August 2001, long before the Anthrax scare. *ONE* company makes that vaccine for the government. That company was under heavy fire for FDA violations, and the vaccine has serious side affects for a fairly significant portion of those who take it.
Doesn't it make sense to ask what company that is, and who owns shares in it, and profited from an Anthrax scare because they make the vaccine that suddenly was very much in demand, despite other problems it might cause? Doesn't it make sense to investigate there? Oh wait, they are proposing giving that company 865,000 dollars for security...all of the sudden. - PhilLesh69, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Of course they didn't kill him. I'm not even sure he was being investigated. I think a guy related to the place previously determined to be the source of the anthrax, Ft. Deitrich, happened to kill himself for whatever personal reasons, and somebody figured that it would be an easy closure to the case to blame it on him. We all know how public the FBI was about investigating Hatfill. Unless they had a special compartmentalized investigation going on, there's always a bunch of FBI guys seeking glory and their time in front of cameras. Very few FBI investigations occur without a lot of publicity and subsequent media attention on the suspect. When did we ever hear about this guy? Not until he committed suicide.
That whole "he had a fixation on a sorority at Princeton, near where the letters were mailed" just sounded a little bit like a contrived bit of evidence, it has a ring of sexual perversion, so everyone will automatically believe the guy was twisted and must have done it.
Caffeinate, don't worry about the profit from the vaccine. Of course, it was a person in the Bush Administration who profitted from it, but that was just an example of "insider trading", knowing in advance that a product or company was going to see a surge because of some future event.
The real issue is WHY. Why was there an anthrax attack? The Patriot Act was getting some resistance. WHO was targetted? A handful of democratic legislators, and the media.
I work less than a block from the White House. I remember that they had to shut down an entire congressional office building, the one that happened to have received a letter addressed to Tom Daschle. And who were the media targets? The first was a guy at the National Enquirer, in Florida (obviously to make it look like a general media attack) and then Tom Brokaw and other "liberal" news organizations.
- arjie, on 08/07/2008, -0/+9http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/08/0 ...
We were pretty close to being told it was Al Qaeda.- CrazedLeper, on 08/07/2008, -0/+3There is no Al Qaeda. Do your homework.
- wukillabee, on 08/07/2008, -4/+2who else has to type captcha for a message? i used to not have this :(
- obliviousfool, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2It seems to be a glitch. Hit refresh.
- apackofmonkeys, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0What are you talking about? I've always had to do it.
- Caffeinate, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1You have to if you use IE, but since I haven't used that in an eternity, I was surprised when I had to use it earlier. LIke he said, refresh the page or close FFox to dump the cache and then it is fine.
- PhilLesh69, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1It is a glitch. It was doing it to me all night last night, and now it isn't doing it at all. And I haven't closed my browser or rebooted or anything. I'm even still using a few tabs from last night that were hounding me for the captcha, and it isn't doing it anymore.
I think they had a bad line of code where ever it tries to detect potential spam submissions, or something.
- Lynx55, on 08/07/2008, -2/+17I remember listening to Scott Ritter on many news channel practically begging America to listen and to NOT support the war mongers. We didn't listen. Most of us believed the rhetoric. Sad times when one can't trust their government, at least in the case of war. I feel so bad for the parents who lost children needlessly. They and the Iraqi people are the victims of this.
- krnldmp, on 08/07/2008, -1/+3Most of us believed the rhetoric. Sad times when one can't trust their government,
*****. Most of us did Not believe the rhetoric, but the argument was Silenced.
Trust the government? WHO THE ***** TAUGHT YOU TO DO THAT? Tell me who.- ssn697, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2*****. polls showed over 80% of America supported the run up to the war. America was more than happy to go after Saddam, because he had Anthrax, and WMD's. He was going to kill us all.
Now, you can say many people (including me at the time) saw it as a fait accompli, even though I knew it was foolish (if we are after radical Islam, why exactly is Iraq our target?).
I will admit to being in the "ain't nothing gonna stop them now" fatalist camp at the time. But America as a whole? TOTALLY on board... - Caffeinate, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Again, ssn, I agree with you here too...I'll try not to make a habit of it.
I must admit, that it took me quite a while to wake up to the fact that there was no one "out to kill us all". I thought we were all going to be poisoned, at the time, my company was freaking out even over mail. There was so much momentum for war, it was hard to avoid. Frankly, I feel betrayed by the MSM and by the government who hid all of this.
They duped America, and frankly, I'm still pissed about that.
- ssn697, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2*****. polls showed over 80% of America supported the run up to the war. America was more than happy to go after Saddam, because he had Anthrax, and WMD's. He was going to kill us all.
- VictorMancini, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1read my comment below about how he was silenced
- DulcetTone, on 08/07/2008, -1/+3But RItter offered no solid basis to believe these weapons did not exist. They'd been KNOWN to exist, and there was no traceable documentation trail showing their destruction. Being right and being able to prove yourself right at the proper moment are clearly different things.
- catbeller, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1Ritter was one of the inspectors who torched the anthrax supplies and facilities. There is no one better to testify as to Iraq's capabilities.
- krnldmp, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1The whole reason that communist and fascist societies are feared and loathed is because they have blind faith in the power which Automatically leads to insane corruption. If you think it is sad that government cannot be trusted you're part of the failure. If you want freedom and legitimate government YOU have to guarantee it.
- PoleCatz, on 08/07/2008, -2/+0How on earth did anyone believe that ***** for one second!? What a fscking transparent scam the Iraq invasion was.
People are thick. - OC73, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1"I remember listening to Scott Ritter on many news channel practically begging America to listen and to NOT support the war mongers."
You obviously haven't been following current events that long, since you don't remember the different tune Scott Ritter was singing before he got $400,000 from one of Saddam's apologists.
- krnldmp, on 08/07/2008, -1/+3Most of us believed the rhetoric. Sad times when one can't trust their government,
- CrazedLeper, on 08/07/2008, -4/+6What will we learn from history? Nothing. Americans don't learn. Mark my words, this situation is headed here:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Is_the_handwriti ...
Print it out, date it, save it before you get shocked and awed again and don't have the presence of mind to do it later.- bitbytebit, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1What will we learn from history? Nothing. *humans* don't learn. Mark my words, this situation is headed here
FYP
- bitbytebit, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1What will we learn from history? Nothing. *humans* don't learn. Mark my words, this situation is headed here
- sodade, on 08/07/2008, -4/+10If you think Iran is a threat, I urge you to watch this video: http://digg.com/politics/US_Intervention_in_Iran
- theskillwithin, on 08/07/2008, -3/+3that is opinionated political propaganda.
- sodade, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1WTF - ignore any opinions in this and talk about the facts please. Do you think he is lying? Are you unaware of Operation Ajax? Are you just a troll?
- elrabendino, on 08/07/2008, -2/+1the morals guiding the iranian religious leaders is quite different from the set of morals guiding the western world. most important here are the sanctity of life (even of its own people), which doesn't exist in fundamentalist islam, and violently enforcing your religion on others/killing "infidels", which doesn't really exist in the western world anymore,
as such, i will not be surprised if iran, once it had the capability, will harm the western world. the threat of retalition (ie, not attacking israel, for example, since israel will probably destroy tehran in response) does not exist there, since destroying israel, or the rest of the western world, is what they think that Allah wants them to do, no matter the cost (billions of iranian lives lost).- AchaIemoipas, on 08/07/2008, -3/+2You're so ***** ignorant, it's making me depressed.
- elrabendino, on 08/07/2008, -2/+1that's your opinion, and that's fine.
my opinion is based on my experience and how i view things. btw, when i'm talking about iran/iranians, i'm referring to their fundamentalist leaders. i have no doubt that the vast majority of the iranian population just want to live their lives, like the rest of us.
in the future, it may be a bit more civilized to provide some arguments, instead of throwing around such statements. otherwise, you might appear ignorant. - AchaIemoipas, on 08/07/2008, -2/+2Yeah, yeah, I can turn on the grammar if I want to pretend I'm smart too.
You're a ***** bigot, not use arguing.
Iran hasn't attacked another nation in 200 years. And they're not even remotely seeking nuclear weapons.
Plus you didn't even make an argument, you just said they're bad people who enforce religion violently and by killing people (completely unfounded, they just have a theocratic judicial system instead of one based on "morality") and somehow jumped to the conclusion that they'll attack the west if and when they can.
That's verbal diarrhea, not an argument. And you dare use the word "civilized", trying to justify crimes against humanity and preemptive strikes and mainly denying a sovereign state's right to self-determination because of bigotry towards their belief system. - elrabendino, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1i'm glad you turned grammar on in order to pretend you're smart.
i did make an argument. i said that fundamentalist islam has a different set of moral values than that of the western world, and as such we need to be in a different mindset when trying to interpret their intentions.
if you understood from what i was saying that i just said that all iranians are bad people, then kudos on your reading comprehension.
perhaps the iranian government-trained suicide brigades (http://www.meforum.org/article/1059) should be some support to my argument. - AchaIemoipas, on 08/07/2008, -2/+1Am I supposed to not be able to read your first comment now that you pretend you made that new argument that's still not a ***** valid argument?
And no, it doesn't support anything. Perhaps you should go back to high-school and take a basic debate class so you can learn the meaning of "argument "and how to formulate one.
The fact that suicide brigades exist and are not used actually demonstrates their lack of hostility, ignorant *****. - loki49152, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1So the guy hanging out on the playground, drooling at the sight of your 3-year-old daughter doesn't concern you. He's obviously not a child molester because he's not raping her *right now*.
Right? - AchaIemoipas, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2No he's not, the guy's who's a concern to me is the insane ***** who imagines that people are child molestors and wants to kill them before even being able to demonstrate that they are in fact child molestors.
Especially when he uses ridiculous hyperboles to make a semi-argument without anything to back it up. - elrabendino, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1how about if the molester was pointing at your daughter, saying that it would be awesome if this little girl was ganged-raped?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206823,00.html
would you still accuse others of being "***** bigot"? - AchaIemoipas, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Yup.
Fake story. It's a blatant lie.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16 ...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/2 ...
http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html - elrabendino, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1yeah...
this are great, credible sources.
particularly the 2nd one: conspiracy theory, here i come.
i hope that's not where you get your daily news feeds. - AchaIemoipas, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1HAHAHAHA, you link to FOX news and criticize my sources?
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/26/mcclellan-fox- ...
Still looking for WMDs? - elrabendino, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1one of many other REAL sources: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ... with real reporters around the world, and editors, and fact checkers.
not some weirdo with obvious paranoid and obsessive personality, writing from his basement while the real world goes by. - AchaIemoipas, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1HAHAHA.
Story from the Jerusalem post.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/1 ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11b ...
You're an idiot. - elrabendino, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1i can post numerous anti-american, anti-israeli, anti-semitic statements/actions by your peace-loving iranian leader, but that would be a waste of time, since you're too much into conspiracy theories.
so good luck with that.
- theskillwithin, on 08/07/2008, -3/+3that is opinionated political propaganda.
- geekee, on 08/07/2008, -3/+6There is so much wrong with this story that I don't know where to begin. Almost immediately it was determined that the anthrax letters were from inside the US. This has nothing to do with Iran. Even Europe thinks Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
- AchaIemoipas, on 08/07/2008, -3/+5No, your news say Europe thinks Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
Only people to believe such idiotic crap are Americans and Israelis.- VBDon, on 08/07/2008, -3/+3Please explain why Iran is trying to refine much more nuclear fuel than it needs for its current and any future nuclear power plants, but enough for nuclear warheads. Also, explain why it is refining nuclear fuel "in-house", when it is more cheaply available from outside sources, which would help it avoid environmental pollution issues (e.g. Russia, France, Germany).
- AchaIemoipas, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3Please justify those claims with a credible source.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6753017.stm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& ...
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcirc ...
- AchaIemoipas, on 08/07/2008, -3/+5No, your news say Europe thinks Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
- krnldmp, on 08/07/2008, -2/+7I think it was a grave mistake for the FBI to "convict" Bruce Ivins by simply making a case in the media after he was dead.
We don't need a trial anymore in USA. All we need is a circumstantial case vigorously sold to the media and justice is served.
I don't think so. - lokisez, on 08/07/2008, -2/+11I met Scott Ritter during the lead up to the current adventurist fiasco in Iraq, and found him to be sane, smart and focused on justice. At the same time I met Ed Peck, former Ambassador to Iraq, who trusted Scott and shared his frustration. It's not a matter of what we learn if we don't admit that the NeoCon agenda calls for long-term de-stabilization of the Mideast, and invading Iraq, Iran and Syria to accomplish their goal of unhindered access to the energy deposits in the "'stan" countries.
- eggballs, on 08/07/2008, -4/+0No.
- kyle6677, on 08/07/2008, -4/+0no way!
- RogueGenius, on 08/07/2008, -3/+3I just don't understand why this type of thing is news anymore. If I lied to my wife as many times as this president has lied to the people she would have long ago left me and never believe anything I ever said again. Of course, my wife is not the fool most republicans are.
- kayfouroh, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0Republicans? I think you mean Americans.
- TypeEE, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1but the average voters are not sleeping w/ a republican.
- tsotha, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0Your wife says hi.
- twertyto, on 08/07/2008, -12/+2Buried for inaccurate, misleading story description. That's not a place for your opinions.
- gnocchi1442, on 08/07/2008, -0/+5Comment buried for not understanding how those little quotey things work.
- twertyto, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1I don't see any quotey things in the story description.
- gnocchi1442, on 08/07/2008, -0/+5Comment buried for not understanding how those little quotey things work.
- Jareth86, on 08/07/2008, -4/+12History is for wimps and communists! Lets go bomb some more brown people!
- Svengalus, on 08/07/2008, -2/+2It's not racist if you're just joking right?
- Jareth86, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2No, its not.
- azhura, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Crap, I better lose my tan then.
- Svengalus, on 08/07/2008, -2/+2It's not racist if you're just joking right?
- IPublius, on 08/07/2008, -0/+5"Will we learn from history?"
If we examine our history, the answer would appear to be no.- Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3People stopped learning from history and started relying on their own reason right around the Enlightenment.
So far I'd say the net result has been less than positive.
Experience is a better guide than reason for the same reason Linux is a better operating system than Windows.
- Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3People stopped learning from history and started relying on their own reason right around the Enlightenment.
- dagnabbit, on 08/07/2008, -1/+8Tell that to John McCain, who pushed the idea that Saddam was behind the anthrax attacks like good little Bush lapdog.
- spkrcity, on 08/07/2008, -0/+8McCain blames Iraq for anthrax attacks on Letterman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlAUj4s6sT0 - ElDiablo6870, on 08/07/2008, -10/+4You guys are right. Israel and the US should wait until Iran nukes Israel. Once that is done, we will know for sure. Until then, lets sit back and watch the Iranian regime continue to develope its nuke program. Now, I would take a different position if I knew for a fact Iran wanted to blow Israel off the map.If I knew that, it might make sense to be proactive in defending our ally... oh, thats right. We know their intent. The US has the luxury of sitting back and watching. Israel is not so fortunate.
- azhura, on 08/07/2008, -3/+7I somehow doubt that Iran will be the first to attack. More likely Israel will attack first, like they almost always do. How many countries has Israel attacked? I've lost track...
In any case, the EU and US need to stop propping Israel up and stop pushing the other countries around Israel down. That's what caused the animosity in the first place. No one likes to be repressed. - nblsavage, on 08/07/2008, -3/+8Israel's problems are Israel's. Not ours. They made their bed so they can go ahead and lie in it.
- throop77, on 08/07/2008, -0/+5If Iran nuked Israel, wouldn't we nuke the ***** out of Iran? Why would Iran invite its own destruction? Do you know why the Soviet Union never nuked the US during the cold war?
- Caffeinate, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4Oh, those poor Israelis! Think of the poor Israelis who will benefit if we get into a war with Iran. The pitiful Israelis that start a fight with everyone on the block because their big brother the US will come protect them. Yes, let's rush to protect people that start trouble continuously.
If Israel would sit down and shut up for a while, the Middle East would be a much more peaceful place. - thecoolestguy, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3The US shouldn't fight Israel's battles.
Any way, according the Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli scientist imprisoned for 2 decades for revealing Israel's secret nuclear weapons program, Israel has been separating plutonium for 3 decades and has enough nuclear warheads to destroy all the major cities in the middle east.
Iran meanwhile is under a strict IAEA inspection regime and no evidence has been found of a weapons program.
Get your head out of your ass.
- azhura, on 08/07/2008, -3/+7I somehow doubt that Iran will be the first to attack. More likely Israel will attack first, like they almost always do. How many countries has Israel attacked? I've lost track...
- VictorMancini, on 08/07/2008, -1/+10Ritter was the victim of the ultimate hatchet job by Washington. Before the Iraq invasion, he was on every talk show saying how Saddam had NO WMDS. Just when people started listening to him a report suddenly materialized about some 17 year old he hit on in a bar years ago when he was drunk. Except the media replaced "17 year old" with "underage girl" and took out the part about how it happen years ago.
- svendm, on 08/07/2008, -0/+6So was Hans Blix. So were all the diplomats, weapons inspectors and other knowledgeable individuals who knew something about Iraq and were opposed to the war the Bush administration had already decided to start.
And they were correct. But the real tragedy isn't the reputations of these guys. History has absolved them. The real tragedy is how long it took for the American public to wise up to the propaganda.
Not to mention the sacrifice of the US troops, fighting a war based on lies.- ronaldinho, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2They said that whoever is against the war is not supporting the troops, but I think we are not supporting our troops either if we are sending them out to fight a war that we should never be in in the first place
- catbeller, on 08/07/2008, -0/+3You forgot about the "kiddie porn" the FBI found on his home computer in a sudden raid as well, in an amazing coincidental investigation of child porn in Scott Ritter's home.
The charges were later dropped. After he was radioactive on talk shows. Amazing.
Bush's bastards are playing the big cards. I'd imagined he would have suicided on an empty bike path if the American media had still permitted him to guest on news programs. A lot of suicide going around these last few years. - PhilLesh69, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Yeah, well there was one inspector who ended up being suicided.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL12 ...
LONDON (Reuters) - A former U.N. weapons inspector, whose death caused one of the biggest crises of Tony Blair’s premiership, did not commit suicide as official accounts state, an MP claims in a new book.
David Kelly was found dead in woods near his home in July 2003, just days after it was revealed that he was the source for a BBC report that said Blair’s government had deliberately “sexed-up” intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.
News of the death rocked Blair and his government, with critics saying Kelly’s identity had been made public in order to discredit the BBC’s story.
The Ministry of Defence had confirmed to reporters that Kelly was the BBC’s source and the mild-mannered microbiologist was then subjected to a high-profile mauling by a parliamentary committee two days before his death. - VictorMancini, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1This is just sickening, the lengths they'll go to to silence people. Who knows, maybe Ritter did have kiddie porn? Maybe it was just some japanese mange or something innocuous too. Even if he did he still spoke the truth and the probability that he would just happen to get caught while he is raiding a ruckus has got to be something like a million to 1.
- svendm, on 08/07/2008, -0/+6So was Hans Blix. So were all the diplomats, weapons inspectors and other knowledgeable individuals who knew something about Iraq and were opposed to the war the Bush administration had already decided to start.
- dafragsta, on 08/07/2008, -2/+3Nobody is doing anything. Pure 100% corruption in the government and noone is doing a ***** thing. I'm not even thinking about this ***** anymore until I hear that people are amassing in Washington to demand answers. Until then, I'll just be another sheep. Knowing what we know now and that not a ***** thing has been done about it is just too depressing even acknowledge anymore.
- krnldmp, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1You no longer have to physically assemble to rally and control your government. Lots is being done about it.
"Knowing what we know now and that not a ***** thing has been done about it is just too depressing even acknowledge anymore."
What is that some kind of psychic thought projection?- dafragsta, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1I'm sorry. How many times has the house shelved something in the judiciary committee to never see the light of day again? How is that not depressing? How many articles of impeachment? How many tampered documents, destroyed records, secret orders, and ***** tax dollars wasted before BushCo gets their day in court?
- LenBaird, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Talk to people you know. It is only hopeless when YOU give up hope. You have more power than you realize, you just need to claim it by first believing you have it, then taking action. Start small, and locally.
- dafragsta, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Talking to people I know doesn't change the omnipresent and ever growing government. The fact is that there has been plenty of dirt that exceeds getting a blowjob in the oval office by billions and billions of dollars, thousands of lives, a significant amount of the judiciary branch, and who knows what else. Talking to people you know is what people who don't worry about this ***** do. They talk and they don't talk about this ***** because it's depressing. Talking has gotten us a Democrat House and not a single shred of action against all these illegal activities.
- krnldmp, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1You no longer have to physically assemble to rally and control your government. Lots is being done about it.
- merlin5, on 08/07/2008, -5/+0I guess the Isalmic slogans that the maniac wrote all over the letters he used, and the fact that they coincided with the biggest terrorist attack on American soil doesnt have anything to do with why people thought that. I hope Dr. Bruce Edwards rots in hell for that, his role in the lead up to the war in Iraq is very significant. Reminds me of Charlie Manson and his goofball club.
Oh, and Ritter is a fool. - buddypriefert, on 08/07/2008, -12/+5FOR LIBERALS EYES ONLY:
What makes you liberals so sure there are no WMDs in Iraq? Because they told you so?
A few months ago a violent storm on Krylen beach in Western Denmark swept away the sand, exposing glimpses of the cement and iron structures of a German bunker which was buried under those sands since 1945. We are not speaking about a small hut built for two Nazi midgets but a sizable building. Amazingly it has been hidden under sand dunes for over 63 years. For perspective, Denmark is ten times smaller than Iraq and yet this bunker, on a beach yet, was not found for more than half a dozen decades.
FYI - the deserts of Iraq are about 20 times the state of New Jersey. About 50 trillion cars could be burried under the state of New Jersy. I could pack about one million tennis balls in one car. One tennis ball of Anthrax could wipe out an entire metropolitan city. Three years ago, troops uncovered 30-40 Iraq jets under 10 feet of dirt ( http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2006/06/wmd_not_s ... )
Andy by the way, why do liberals always stick up for the Muslim Jihadist? Isn't Islam exactly the polar opposite of liberalism? You whine about conservatives, but Islam chops of the heads of gays, is against free speech, is for a religious ran world, and the list goes on. Funny how you all go to bed with such stange bedfellows.- svendm, on 08/07/2008, -1/+5What makes you so sure there ARE any WMDs in Iraq? (And what makes you so sure that there aren't any in, say, Denmark?)
Iraqs WMD facilities were destroyed. Everyone involved says so, except the few 'sources' the CIA used in the run-up to the war, which have all been since discredited.
So a bunker was uncovered in Denmark after 60 years. So? I'll bet you anything that there were plenty of people who knew about the existence of that bunker, even when it was under the sand. And that there were documents, maps, et cetera that documented its existence. And I bet you nobody was looking for it either. It was never missing.
Weapons inspectors from the UN, and later, the entire US occupation force, have been looking for WMD facilities and evidence. They found nothing to prove Iraq had a WMD program going on in 2001. There are NO documents or reliable witnesses who claim that Iraq had any kind of WMD program after the 90's. And all the documents and witnesses found all testify to the exact same thing: The Iraqi WMD program was dismantled in the 90's. Just like they said all along. Just like this guy said.
What you are proposing, is the existence of some gigantic conspiracy among the hundreds if not thousands of people involved.. due to what? Loyalty to a dead dictator? - bigcynic, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1Conservatives -- i.e., fascists -- *want* the invasion to be justified not because of any evidence but because all war -- any war -- empowers their movement. It gives them the excuse to shout down all dissent and eventually browbeat Congress into giving their leader the authority to toss any American into jail without charge or torture them legally.
Oh, wait. Bush already has those powers. So, the next step is secret prisons and a private paramilitary.
Oh, wait. Bush has those, too.- buddypriefert, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0Blah blah - same retoric, same old liberal lack of skills. When you point them to a dissagreement, the return with the same old blah blah fascists, blah blah Bush, blah racist, blah blah the US is evil, blah blah.
- obliviousfool, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1I may not be qualified to reply to your post, but I'll give the last part a stab.
I've been an active member of Amnesty International for almost 20 years now. Take a look at their website if you want an indication of the kind of work they do. This is one of the most important activist organizations of our times, and the reason for this is simple. Human Rights is the prime issue. Unless human being are free to act upon their beliefs, and free to say what they wish, any other issue will never be resolved.
Many years ago, I wrote letters to officials in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, and Syria asking them to be lenient on their (often wrongly) imprisoned souls. Often I was pleading for them to not cut the heads off gays, so to speak. I wasn't against these extreme governments per se. I was for human rights. I still am.
Now we find ourselves in a situation where the USA has become the aggressor, and has stolen the rights of many, many people. And again, until those rights are re-established, no other problem will be solved.
Maybe these people are Muslim Jihadists, maybe they aren't, but they are all humans, and therefore, they are all my brothers. They all deserve equal rights. They deserved the right to a fair trial then, and they deserve that same right now. They deserved the right of habeas corpus then, and they deserve that right now. They deserved to not live in fear then, and they deserve that same right now.
I hope that answers your last question there.- buddypriefert, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1Very well formed response. Along the same line, I do believe that the human rights priciple is overlooked by many. In the midst of America hating and drawing conculsions that we are the aggressor (which, while may be the case in a few examples, but the vast majority are not and I would be glad to list out those), I'd like to ask, where are the human rights advocates recognition of all of the atrocities that, the man we removed from power (Saddam) imposed on the Turks, etc.? Over 200,000 civilians died at the hand of Saddam alone. Even after the first Gulf War (where he invaded a no-threatining country) and he was kindly patted on the hand to resume leadership, the world asked the guy to "knock it off" and yet, he still continued toying with his country, his people, and the fear among bordering countries. No one stepped in. People were dying. These are the facts. There were no "good" alternatives and yes, we failed in many areas. My crystal ball says that had we not taken him out, there would have been far more human lives taken in the following years from that man.
- obliviousfool, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1My experience writing to Iraq (before the war) was mostly concerning his sons (i.e. rape rooms and such), and individual political prisoners. Amnesty International tends to stay away from genocide and war as those are theoretically problems that others are already dealing with.
I often wondered why Saddam was never taken to any sort of world court before his final show trial. Likewise, I wonder why the Saudi royals don't find themselves under similar treatment, but that's besides the point.
I've done quite a lot of reading to this effect. I've came to the sad realization that, as bad as Saddam had been, he was propped up by the United States for decades. Any sort of trial in the open would have uncovered some bad facts about the way that we supported him.
Take a little time and look at our historic involvement in Iraq prior to the war. I really encourage you to research this. We were still selling arms to Saddam and his enemies when the Iran Iraq War had devolved into children killing children.
In 1986, specifically, the US and Great Britain blocked a security council resolution condemning Saddam's use of chemical weapons. Why? Because the CIA had been training Saddam's troops in the use of mustard gas, and the US Department of Commerce had approved the transfer of anthrax and weapons grade botulin to Iraq. This happened repeatedly in the late 1980's.
We finally stepped in when it became politically astute to do so; when the world was distracted by 9/11. Any action before then would have uncovered the fact that many folks inside the United States (and other seats of power) were complicit in Saddam's crimes.
Saddam was an enigma. I believe that there are people who believed that by giving Saddam what he wanted in the way of arms, we would have a controlling hand in OPEC. He eventually proved those people quite wrong. - buddypriefert, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0@obliviousfool: Can you please point me to a source on the "US Department of Commerce had approved the transfer of anthrax and weapons grade botulin to Iraq". This is quite disturbing and my gut reaction is sceptical and is that this type of approval by the US would be a huge newsworthy story out there for the anti-American press.
Your other points are quite valid.
- wunksta, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1"What makes you liberals so sure there are no WMDs in Iraq? Because they told you so?"
this statement can be applied to anything. i dont operate on what COULD be and ask that it be disproved, its much better and rational to require evidence to believe in something.
"Andy by the way, why do liberals always stick up for the Muslim Jihadist? Isn't Islam exactly the polar opposite of liberalism? You whine about conservatives, but Islam chops of the heads of gays, is against free speech, is for a religious ran world, and the list goes on. Funny how you all go to bed with such stange bedfellows."
i wouldnt say anyone really sticks up for them, but invading another country for bs reasons is pretty bad. also, iraq wasnt muslim jihadist. but it is now, so good job there.- buddypriefert, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0"Invading another country for bs reasons" < what then was the reason Saddam invaded Kuwait?
Try telling the 200,000 dead Turks and Iraqui people under the knife of Saddam, that the US had "bs" reasons for taking Saddam out.
Further, for the record, the migration movement of the gypsy-like Jihadist to Iraq from Afghanistan, then on to Pakistan and back again is irrelevant to their cause or reason - good job there.
- buddypriefert, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0"Invading another country for bs reasons" < what then was the reason Saddam invaded Kuwait?
- wunksta, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2@"I'd like to ask, where are the human rights advocates recognition of all of the atrocities that, the man we removed from power (Saddam) imposed on the Turks, etc.? Over 200,000 civilians died at the hand of Saddam alone. Even after the first Gulf War (where he invaded a no-threatining country) and he was kindly patted on the hand to resume leadership, the world asked the guy to "knock it off" and yet, he still continued toying with his country, his people, and the fear among bordering countries. No one stepped in. People were dying. These are the facts."
actually, he was put in power and his actions were condoned by the people currently in power
THOSE are the facts
but i agree, we should never have allowed those actions as a global community, just like those of the saudis etc but all of this simply goes to show you that we only do stuff if the elites benefit from them - wunksta, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1@Try telling the 200,000 dead Turks and Iraqui people under the knife of Saddam, that the US had "bs" reasons for taking Saddam out.
what about rwanda? shut up, you know its about oil. furthermore, iraq invaded kuwait because of kuwait side drilling oil reserves. and iraq under saddam was SECULARIST, not jihadist, your point was irrelevant.
and if bush's dad didnt like what saddam did, they shouldnt have hired him and gave him weapons. so STFU - wunksta, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1@"Blah blah - same retoric, same old liberal lack of skills. When you point them to a dissagreement, the return with the same old blah blah fascists, blah blah Bush, blah racist, blah blah the US is evil, blah blah."
haha while we may not be "evil" we have done a LOT of ***** up things in our history and they were all for the benefit of the elite. any government that controls and uses military for for subjugation and dominance over foreign powers for the benefit of its ruling class while suppressing and brainwashing its population, i would consider it fascist.
heres a fun fact, hitler took tips from us and we hired the nazis after the war instead of putting them through the war trials
- svendm, on 08/07/2008, -1/+5What makes you so sure there ARE any WMDs in Iraq? (And what makes you so sure that there aren't any in, say, Denmark?)
- MattB123, on 08/07/2008, -4/+5Why does he hate America?!?!
;) - ZenMojo, on 08/07/2008, -7/+2Scott Ritter? You mean this "crazy" son of a bitch?
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=scott+ ...
He's unpatriotic! - nastronomical, on 08/07/2008, -9/+2He was a Liberal Lunatic Democratic.
- saigumi, on 08/07/2008, -5/+2Yeah.. also, you need to remember that while he may have WROTE this in 2001. The Anthrax-Al Quaeda-Iraq stuff came to a head once in 1998 when the US cruise-missled an aspirin factory over in Sudan.
Guess who was captaining the helm at that watch (aka President of the United States) and gave a cheery "thumbs up, we got them terrorist bastards, mission accomplished" speech? His named didn't include a Bush anywhere in it.- catbeller, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1When did Clinton invade Iraq again?
- Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -0/+11998, Operation Desert Fox.
- PhilLesh69, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Clinton maintained the no-fly zones, and there were countless incidents over the years of US jets bombing radar installations, anti-aircraft batteries and other incidents.
But saigumi wasn't blaming clinton for invading Iraq. He was bringing up the fact that anthrax has been used as a boogeyman before, to attack a Sudanese baby formula (not aspirin) factory, that was owned by Bin Laden or the Bin Laden Group.
- PhilLesh69, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Makes you start to see that it isn't a party thing, it is an agenda thing. The people who really run this country can get either party to fall into line anytime they need them to.
BTW, it wasn't an aspirin factory. It was a baby formula factory, and it was owned by Osama Bin Laden, or at least the Bin Laden Group LLC or the Bin Laden Family.
But the point is, no matter which party is in power, the same agenda has been progressing on a timeline, regardless of anything.
- catbeller, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1When did Clinton invade Iraq again?
- ASSASSYN360, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2Lies on top of lies will lead to an inevitable attack on Iran.
- PhilLesh69, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1lies on top of lies and an overly naive and credulous citizenry will lead to an inevitable attack on Iran.
- Suzilla, on 08/07/2008, -3/+4Apropos of yesterday being the 63rd anniversary of the first use ever of an atomic bomb, it's worth pointing out that there were several high-level officials in Truman's administration, who argued against dropping the bomb. Japan's reticence in surrendering "unconditionally" was that the Potsdam Proclamation (the US's call for them to surrender) made no mention as to the fate of the emperor, whom the Japanese believed to be a god, central to their national belief and identity. The choice, to them, seemed to be a choice between how their nation would be annihilated. Proud people that they are, the Japanese chose to go down fighting. The fight, however, was largely over. The US had shut off all supply lines that Japan needed to continue its war effort, Germany, Japan's sole ally, had surrendered, and Russia had reneged its neutrality agreement with Japan and was now threatening invasion as well. The emperor wanted to surrender, but he had no formal say. The cabinet, who did have the final word, could not bear the idea of seeing their emperor deposed and the soul of their country consequently extinguished.
The more dovish US advisers to Truman suggested modifying the Potsdam Proclamation so as to preserve the emperor if Japan would agree to a constitutional monarchy, which is what was ultimately put in place anyway. The hawks, including deputy secretary of war Dean Achison, advised Truman that this was unacceptable and that surrender must be abject and unconditional. We all know who won that debate. Years later, Achison would admit that he and the others were wrong to insist on unconditional surrender, and that the war could have been ended without the use of nuclear weapons and without the much-touted loss of American lives.- scratt, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2It's very nice to see someone on Digg who truly has a grasp of reality.
- trollick, on 08/07/2008, -7/+6***** you. Two of my friends died because of this grave mistake.
- catbeller, on 08/07/2008, -2/+3Apparently being angry your friends were killed for a lie gets you dugg down. I'm guessing none of them lost more than sleep watching the broadcast of Bush's splendid little war.
- PoleCatz, on 08/07/2008, -0/+5Vote out all incumbents this November. Vote them all out. Straight-ticket anti-incumbent vote.
Failed Congress, failed administration, failed government. Get OUT of the people's houses you FAILED. - kigcoopa84, on 08/07/2008, -3/+3If you think Iran is not a threat you really don't have any sense. You people are so ratical even your own party does not support you. You guys are what is wrong with this country stop trying to put the blame everywhere else. Get a F**kin life
- MWeather, on 08/07/2008, -0/+5Scott Ritter was the leading expert on what Saddam did and did not have. He is not even close to an expert on what's in Iran, though.
Not that he isn't right.- LenBaird, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1He is a first hand witness to lies being used to justify a war in the case of Iraq.
- katorga, on 08/07/2008, -1/+3When peace is your overriding, only concern you are always at the mercy of the most ruthless entity. It has always been that way, and always will be that way. The most ruthless always win, always.
- LenBaird, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1I was talking to a friend the other night who works at a college, and he told me that (in his opinion) most of the students "wanted nothing to do with " war, and the corruption, and all of the problems that face us. I told him that those students would be bulldozed by people who are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their agenda if they continue to think like that.
- FelixdaaHack, on 08/07/2008, -0/+3Thank you for reminding us of this. It's the little details that get lost in history. Yet another justification for going to war in the toilet. Hopefully the history books will make the effort to piece these inconsistencies together.
- Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1This nation cannot afford another toilet war. Do you have any idea how much it would cost to build a navy that small?
- jwbales, on 08/07/2008, -2/+1Given Saddam's past actions and his known capabilities he was, at the time, a credible suspect in the anthrax attacks. It wasn't him? Oops! Never mind.
- crackberri, on 08/07/2008, -6/+0"Now he is warning us that Iran is not a threat. He is right again."
Buried for being an IDIOT............. - ralph12c41, on 08/07/2008, -5/+4Scott Ritter was at one time a consultant to Saddam Hussein. Scott Ritter has a need to stay in the press. Scott Ritter is not a credible source for anything.
- chaserm, on 08/07/2008, -7/+1As long as the Zionist pigs run the show in Washington things will never change. Iran is a big imaginary enemy to them and they do anything to have an excuse to get the USA to attack them.
- CHANNELOCK, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0Welcome to minus diggville
Ha ha
Its like the ***** Roman coliseum with those thumb down hands to the left of comments.
The trick is to fool them with fancy words,not honest bluntness
- CHANNELOCK, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0Welcome to minus diggville
- amightywind, on 08/08/2008, -6/+2Even though the Anthrax attack seems to have been an inside job, I blame the vile muslims for raising the terror threat.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 08/08/2008, -2/+3Jesus loves you....Jesus loves America best.....America is #1, and you, being an American, are also #1 by association, and by the same association Jesus loves you best...the entire world needs to be Americanized/Christianized...the Constitution means nothing and the American Empire means everything...
Isn't this your mindset? Be honest. - Akairenn, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2Terror threat? You mean that colored bar nonsense? Is that even still around?
Or do you mean the risk of dying from a terrorist attack on US soil, which for the average American is about as likely as dying from a heart attack while having sex with Jessica Alba?
Excuse me, Ima gunna go'n cover my winders with reynolds wrap'n duct tape. Can't be too careful with them terrirsts runnin' about! THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS! - xEn1gma, on 08/08/2008, -2/+3Amightywind is an idiot on so many levels.
It's almost to a point of retardation. - banderwocky, on 08/08/2008, -2/+3Even though Santa Claus brings presents every Christmas to all the good boys and girls, I blame the Leprechauns.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 08/08/2008, -2/+3Jesus loves you....Jesus loves America best.....America is #1, and you, being an American, are also #1 by association, and by the same association Jesus loves you best...the entire world needs to be Americanized/Christianized...the Constitution means nothing and the American Empire means everything...
- ancientshoes, on 08/08/2008, -5/+3Iran isn't a threat? I guess all the treats Iran's president has made in the past few years regarding how he will destroy israel and the US was just my imagination.
- scratt, on 08/08/2008, -2/+5Either your imagination, or stupid, badly translated, US propaganda filled ***** news coverage.
- ancientshoes, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1yeah, completely (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-08-iran ... my (http://www.cfr.org/publication/7195/lack_of_engage ... imagination (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/08/world/ma ...
- LenBaird, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3He has said that he will defend himself if he is attacked. He knows who the attackers will be. In fact, the United States is already attacking him, and he has shown restraint to this point. He knows they are trying to get him to react, so they can launch a full-on war.
Don't believe what you see on the news. They lie.
- jessehadden, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4In fairness, it wasn't your imagination. It was the imagination of the American media's good old yellow journali
- scratt, on 08/08/2008, -2/+5Either your imagination, or stupid, badly translated, US propaganda filled ***** news coverage.