A very detailed and important article. Includes a refutation of the apparently bogus proof Sadamatempted to assassinate Bush I. Point by Point Refutation.
It's meaningless, glynch. Saying 'the President is wrong' or misled' is not a refutation. For the 'supported' refutations, we can find links to a discussion board for 'Campaign Against Sanctions for Iraq' (?!!!) Or even letters by Wanniski, the writer of this article (and a political econimist, not really a specialist on Iraq). He even refutes that Iraq gassed its own people...did the US produce those videos or what? I could go on.. I feel embarrassed for being suckered in and reading this.
Very entertaining article. Best piece of fiction I've read in quite some time. Nice use of Scott "Mr. Impartiality" Ritter as a source. Nice attempt to say that the Saudis backed Iraq in 1990...of course it was the Saudis that asked us for protection. The article complains that Bush's claims are not substantiated. Strange coming from a totally unfounded, unsubstantiated article. In sum, the author starts out trying to use sources for his preise. Of course they were sources that are dubious at best. Later in the article the author delves into pure conjecture with no facts to back up his points. All I have to say about this article is...
Not sure about all the facts here. But it sure feels strange that more than one former ambassador to iraq say on the MSNBC that Bush's representation of oil for food program is not correct, it actually went through UN and Iraqi govt gets 0 penny of cash out of it. This article claims the same.
I thought it was particularly interesting that the author cited famed reporter Seymour Hirsh for proof that the often reported laim that Sadam tried to assassinate Bush I is not credible.
This section is linked to the infamous April Glaspie talk with Iraq where she supposedly said the US would not do anything when Iraq invaded. This has been fairly strongly debunked - she denied it (the transcript of the meeting was released by Iraq after things had started) and later an upper level Iraqi official admitted that they were never told that and knew that the US would get involved. Man, glynch, that is a terrible "article." Surely you can find a better response to Bush. Cohen is right - most of it is not worth mentioning because it is simply "Not true - Bush has been misled" responses. It is really impssible to discuss the erits of such points (and I do agree with Haven that you can't prove a negative, but you can be a better writer and try other devices to sway opinion). The info for the Bush assasination attempt was better, but it doesn't prove that Saddam was not behind it, but that some experts didn't agree with a published connection the Gov had made. Who knows if there was more, if that was it, or what...I can't remember, but isn't it now public record that the US has tried to assasinate Saddam on more than one occasion?
I've also heard that rumor in debates with other people. They claim that Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq's reserves and that American diplomats told Iraq it was okay to attack. So the Gulf War was American sponsored... When I asked for sources, they said it was a common fact in the Middle East...
Let's assume for the sake of argument that they were slant drilling and that the US gave Iraq the "green light" to attack. Giving the green light to attack is very different from giving the green light to conquer and annex...which is what Iraq attempted to do. That being said, I do not believe we gave Iraq the green light to do anything. That is speculation at best.
Rimbaud, You find the article I cited weak. Would you care to cite us to an article you approve of that reflects your own views on this matter? Or is this too personally risky and involving? Do you know it is much easier to critique others than to put forward a political viewpoint of your own? .
Seriously, glynch, you are being ignorant. My views are pretty well known and documented on this bbs. You seem to be the only one who does not know. Risky? That is hilarious.
You're right about the annexing, Ref. I wish I could find an article of some sort dealing with that though. It's some fixation of mine to look at things from both angles...
Rimbaud, insults aside, I really don't know much about your political beliefs. You seem to be somewhat liberal. Mostly you seem to feel above the fray somehow. Perhaps you made your positions clear on a lot of issues before I started on this board. I don't know. Maybe your comments on political issues are of the quick, minor point type, with no follow up, so they don't stand out. If you do wish to be seen as having any strong opinions or beliefs on the issues, to at least newer posters, you might want to consider changing your style a bit. I will try to start paying more attention to your political posts. Maybe I'll even go back and research some of them.
Thanks for the support. I really didn't expect the article to explain the differences between military strikes and full annexation...after all it comes from an INVESTMENT website, not a NEWS or FOREIGN POLICY publication.
Glynch rarely posts relevent information, he only posts very SLANTED info, he is as one sided as a lanolium floor. DD
We are all totally misled. Saddam is a selfless, sweet guy who cares for his people while we are mean and ruthless and are responsible for children starving. The following is a report on NPR showing that Saddam will personnally make $2.3 BILLION this year (while Iraqi children starve). NPR Audio: http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/atc/20020918.atc.13.ram Report's source: Coalition for International Justice : http://www.cij.org/pdf/saddam_money.pdf
Didn't you get the memo? Bush is just an evil warmonger bent on world domination in the name of oil. Saddam is justmisunderstood and any attack against him is totally unjustified.
