Taken from http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/24/sprj.irq.wrap/index.html

"Meanwhile, senior Pentagon officials said that the U.S. military is prepared to seize Iraq's oil fields to prevent Saddam Hussein from destroying his country's oil industry."

I just don't understand. How are they not complying? Yes, the reports were probably inaccurate, and they did find a few empty chemical warhead shells (although they're practically older than Saddam). But still, inspectors haven't really found a thing.

What do you mean "just about oil"?

In reply to:

---

I just don't understand. How are they not complying?

---

Possibly by firing upon U.S. planes patrolling the 'No Fly' zone? Pissing on the Safwan Treaty for 11 years? Not allowing Iraqi scientists to be interview without Iraqi intelligence being present? Iraqi military posing as scientists to answer U.N. investigator's questions in a 'politcally correct' fashion? Not reporting dozens of fully-functional chemical warheads?

Just a guess, but sooner or later, the U.S. is going to decide that they have put up with enough.

You would not believe the list of things that haven't been accounted for yet. Here's a quick sample:

Approximately four tons of VX nerve gas.
Growth media for over 20,000 liters of biological agents.

And the list goes on and on. The estimation is that with the unaccounted materials, Iraq can get a sizeable stockpile of biological weapons within weeks. It would only take them months to get the chemical weapons ready (hint: think nerve agents like tabun, VX and sarin), that is if they need more than the 360 tons that are still unaccounted for as of 10 Jan 2003.

If you have seen some of these lists and the numbers involved, it because very scary, very quickly. Add to that the fact that they have already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons, and it becomes even more scary.

Edit: Fixed the date (from last week, to 10 Jan), and changed because to becomes.

That makes sense... I wasn't aware of the VX gas or anything like that. Maybe if Bush made more of the public aware of these facts people would support him a bit more..

By the way Tim, where did you grab that info? I'd like to take a look...

I'm not sure how much of that info is out there floating around in the public. The numbers I grabbed were from a briefing that was put together by the British military/intelligence in preparations for an invasion, should it occur.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/

I have read the briefing that is outlined on the right side of that page (A Decade of Defiance and Lies), which is where those numbers were lifted from.

Here is a paper on it, presented 12 Sep 2002. If the briefing I saw was written from this paper, then the date above may be incorrect. I can't find the briefing online, but I'm still looking.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/iraqdecade.pdf

I have read the briefing that is outlined on the right side of that page (A Decade of Defiance and Lies), which is where those numbers were lifted from

I remember reading a poster in a barracks in Germany in 1973. It read something like: "Your enemy! The Russian soldier! He is highly motivated, has steel teeth and can bench-press 600 pounds! His T-72 was built with technology provided by aliens! He can drive here from East Germany in 14 minutes, slip into your room undetected, and cut out your liver before you are even awake!"

Well, it went something like that... but the point is that subsequent revelations showed "My Enemy" to be chronically depressed, not overly well fed, and often soused on vodka.

When I look at today's potential big Wag the Dog, I can't help but think of the major deceits by U.S. administrations (both Republican and Democrat) in wars big (Vietnam) and small (Grenada). The ever-tightening grip of the military on press coverage of conflicts doesn't give me any confidence that we will find it easy to evaluate what is going on if and when war breaks out. I mean, lots of folks still think that Patriot missiles are accurate!! Amazing how fabrications take on a life of their own.

A major irony (to me) is the amazing amount of bombast and indignation heaped upon poor old Saddam now that he is no longer our murderous poison-gas-wielding dictator.

Fundamentally, I feel like Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, et al are in pursuit of a war because they are feeling their oats. They are in the drivers seat, and they *can*. Short of Saddam fleeing, I'm not sure what could have happened in the way of UN inspectors' discoveries that would have derailed the administration's fixed interest in exercising their newfound, jolly power. I mean, they are redefining the word "unilateral". Invading Iraq fits in nicely, thank you.

Hmmmm, I guess I would be less suspicious of this adventure if *everyone* got to play --- if we reinstituted the draft as proposed recently (Rangel/Hollings) and with *no* exemptions -- and no sneaking your son into the Texas Air National Guard. Maybe then Iraq war flag wavers would think a little harder about the possible extended consequences of this imminent war, which I think will be prolonged but hard to predict. Oh, I suppose we can just load up the transports once we've burned down Baghdad, pull everybody back to Fort Hood and just leave the remaining Iraquis to murder each other.

Interesting to me was a recent interview that included a former US Ambassador to Iraq (Peck). His "long and short" on the looming war: "So we gain nothing and lose potentially a lot." I agree. I mean, even on a plain-and-simple, US-centric, self-interest basis, I don't think that the broader outcome of this will be good for the old U.S. of A. I don't get the sense that the administration is thinking that through. They just want to do it. Make more enemies? Bomb 'em.

It may be material for a different kind of thread, but I think much of my lack of support for this mortal adventure comes down to gut level feelings. Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, and friends? Well, they're dicks! Why on earth would I feel inclined to support the drum beating of that morally righteous, super-uptight, incurious bunch of jerks?

I know that is not much of an intellectual, factual argument, but it is real to me. Sort of "if yer agin my friends then your agin me" only in a different way. I get the same feeling if ever I hear the local talk radio outlet with Rush and all of the lesser Rushs. Essentially, I think all of those folks are dicks. I think if it was they who proposed something like clean drinking water, I would have to view the proposal with suspicion. I probably don't have to worry about that, though!

Something topical just arrived in my inbox...enjoy

*Sung to the tune of: "If You're Happy And You Know It Clap Your Hands"
[Try it in your mind - it really works]

If we cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets hurt your Mama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are Saudi And the bank takes back your Audi
And the TV shows are bawdy, Bomb Iraq!

If the corporate scandals growin', bomb Iraq.
And your ties to them are showin', bomb Iraq.
If the smoking gun ain't smokin'
We don't care, and we're not jokin'
That Saddam will soon be croakin', Bomb Iraq!

Even if we have no allies, bomb Iraq.
From the sand dunes to the valleys, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections Let's look tough for the elections
Close your mind and take directions, Bomb Iraq!

While the globe is slowly warming, bomb Iraq.
Yay! the clouds of war are storming, bomb Iraq.
If the ozone hole is growing
Some things we prefer not knowing
(Though our ignorance is showing), Bomb Iraq!

So here's one for dear old daddy, bomb Iraq,
From his favorite little laddy, bomb Iraq.
Saying no would look like treason
It's the Hussein hunting season
Even if we have no reason, Bomb Iraq!

I agree. Let's blast the fucker.

Is it not the case, according to a young American lady on BBC Radio 5 up all night, that this has nothing to do with oil, but Bush's membership of the Skull and Bones order at Yale, which fosters a warmongering approach and allegedly had connections with German ideals associated with Nazism.

Is it not, furthermore, the case that Bush failed to meet the requisite grades out of 800 for acceptance at Yale, but was admitted on the strength of his father's influence and the fact that more than half the selection board were Skull and Bones members.

I only quote, these do not necessarily reflect my views as, allegedly, I may find the finance for my Boxer breeding and better central heating programmes curtailed.

I don't know if any of these facts are true, but I do know that "secret societies" (of which Skull and Bones is the most well-known) do have a strong grip on university politics in America. I would imagine this hold is even greater on the Ivy League institutions like Yale. I went to a state school (albeit a very large and prominent one) and there were three secret societies that basically controlled EVERY significant office at the student government level. They also existed at the university administration level, though only at the lower levels. I can totally believe that at a more traditional school like Yale, members of these societies would have found their way into more prominent university positions.

Having said that, the idea of Bush being able to persuade his entire cabinet to go to war with Iraq just because he was in a secret society with alleged ties to Nazism seems far-fetched. Makes for good radio, though.

Incidentally I read somewhere that they're going to declassify a bunch of evidence which will supposedly prove that Iraq is hiding something. I can't imagine they'll have enough to convince me that war is necessary right now, but at least it'll be something.

My problem with this forthcoming evidence is that there was no reason to hide it before. It's not as if we're trying to keep our forthcoming attacks secret, so why would we need to hide the evidence that supports it? The only reason I can come up with is that it took this long to fabricate it.

the idea of Bush being able to persuade his entire cabinet to go to war with Iraq just because he was in a secret society with alleged ties to Nazism seems far-fetched

Ah, but what if a significant proportion of his cabinet belonged to the same society?

Be clear, I'm not, paranoid, nor suggesting that these are my views, but it's fun being agent provacteur

Maybe the reason they wanted to keep the evidence hidden was to protect their sources (probably Iraqi citizens) inside Iraq from being linked to the released evidence and then killed (as in tortured to death) by Sadaam Hussein. Being tortured to death is generally considered to be not a good thing.

Well... Classified documents tend to remain classified. The concern is that releasing any documents or evidence which result from covert operations gives the outside world some idea of the mechanisms we're using to uncover that evidence. I'm guessing that what they have was obtained via channels that the government would rather not bring to light. I honestly doubt there's any fabricating of evidence here. I am sure Iraq is doing enough bad things under the covers that we don't ened to go around fabricating evidence... But I still don't think military options are, at this point, the answer.

My problem with this forthcoming evidence is that there was no reason to hide it before. It's not as if we're trying to keep our forthcoming attacks secret, so why would we need to hide the evidence that supports it?

Basically, any information we release gives insight into our methods of data collection. Remember a few years ago with the "Oh yeah, Osama, we've been listening to your satellite telephone conversations." That worked out real well when we told him we were listening in. By revealing this information, we are revealing a lot of how Echelon works and could possibly even compromise human sources in Iraq or other countries.

The only reason I can come up with is that it took this long to fabricate it.

There have been instances in the past where the U.S. government has lied to its people (think John Poindexter), but most of us hope that is behind us. Anyway, I don't think they could get away with lying about this if they wanted to. Other countries have their own intelligence and sophisticated tools to check the data. If it is invalid, somebody will pitch a fit to everybody and the U.S. government would lose all credibility here and abroad.

It is pretty obvious to anybody who has looked at international politics that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction. Everybody knows this, even the governments of France, Germany, China, etc. This was apparent even before the weapons inspections and Hans Blix's reports. Still, this may not change your mind, since there are compelling reasons not to go to war. For instance, the first time we will be able to prove Saddam has Nuclear, Chemical, or Biological weapons is when he uses them. There will be civilian casualties, especially since Hussein is mounting SAM sites on top of appartment buildings. We may also anger other Arab countries even more than they already hate us. Finally, we will further lose international support for ourselves and for the U.N. as the U.S. is increasingly seen as a meddling belligerent. If you subscribe to these views, then I don't think merely proving that Iraq is lying is going to be enough for you.

There are also compelling reasons to go to war. After all, Iraq is a rogue government with dangerous weapons, intent on acquiring more. They have at least two conflicts that they used chemical weapons in the past. Last time we fought them, after an unprovoked invasion of Kuwait, they bombed Israel, a noncombatant. They have ruthlessly oppressed many in their own country, including the Kurds in the north and the Shia (?) Muslims in the south. Saddam has let his own people starve while building himself ever grander palaces and letting his son kidnap, rape, torture, and then murder any women he fancied. If we let Iraq get away with this, we undermine all the non-proliferation agreements and accords and open the door for every two bit despot out there to get his own super-powerful weapons.

With this kind of conflict, we have a 95% chance of complete and immediate total victory. 19 times in a row, we can go to war with Iraq or similar and just destroy their armed forces. It is that 20th time that we need to worry about. The ancient Spartans knew this. As the Greek military Superpower, they tended to avoid using their military since there was always that slight chance of losing. If they ever lost, all the rest of the Greeks would have smelled blood, and they would have found themselves in a very uncomfortable position.

I'll support the war, so long as the government proves to me that it is worth that risk. I'm surprised Bush really hasn't made their case yet, instead letting others, both in the States and elsewhere, argue both sides for them. Maybe he will rectify that starting tonight. As far as Iraq possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction, anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves and shouldn't be surprised if it is proven. As far as whether we should go to war, that could be argued either way.

-Biscuits

Being tortured to death is generally considered to be not a good thing.

Watch it, there, buddy, we don't like controversy around here.

My problem with this forthcoming evidence is that there was no reason to hide it before. It's not as if we're trying to keep our forthcoming attacks secret, so why would we need to hide the evidence that supports it?

The United States knows that Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons because they kept the till receipts when they sold them to him in the first place. That's why they know, and why they don't want people to know why they know.

Peter

I know we sold them a lot of their conventional weapons. We also improved their training techniques and military tactics. A lot of the stuff they used to fight us in the last Gulf War, and then again in this war, will be our own equipment.

However, I hope you were joking about giving them chemical and biological weapons. That would violate so many treaties and agreements that it isn't even funny. No country is allowed to have most of these weapons (except for testing for defences), let alone distribute them, even to their allies. I don't think we would give chemical warheads to Britain, much less Iraq.

-Biscuits

However, I hope you were joking about giving them chemical and biological weapons.


Well, the UK has to share some blame too - in the mid '80s Iraqi scientists were regular visitors to Porton Down.

However, I hope you were joking about giving them chemical and biological weapons.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that the US gave them to Iraq. I'm sure they obtained full market price.

Washington Post: "The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."

Glasgow's Sunday Herald: "Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene."

Peter

Iraq: We don't have no steenkin' chemical warheads.
Blix: So, you told us in 1992 that you had 80 thousand chemical warheads loaded with Sarin gas.
Iraq: Oh... those.... We, errrr, used them for fertilizer....
Blix: Do you have any records of that? If you tell us where you used them, we can take soil samples.
Iraq: Ummmm, the problem is.... the dog ate them. You can search these 10,000 square miles of desert though. If you don't find them, we don't have them, right?
France: SEE! They don't have any weapons of mass destruction! I don't see what the big deal is. Just like in World War II, when we KNEW that the Germans wouldn't invade through the Ardennes, like they did in.... nevermind.... Think of the children?

-Biscuits

My problem with that sort of argument (the ``they've got WMDs, so we've got to nip it in the bud'' argument) is that the US (amongst many other countries, I'm sure) have the same things!

And before you go saying that they're likely to attack us, I'd urge you to look at who's getting ready to attack whom right now. It seems that the US is more likely to be an agressor than any other country in the world right now. And to worsen the point even more, GWB has implied that he's willing to use nuclear weapons against Iraq, or maybe North Korea. (Or his childhood bully; who knows?). Now who's using WMDs?

Now who's using WMDs?

But we use them responsibly...

There are a few countries that have weapons of mass destruction. Over the years, though, it has been decided that not every country should have them. Do we want to let Iraq have their nuclear stockpile? Syria? Iran? I'm sure Milosevich would have enjoyed his. Pol Pot would have put his to good use, so would a lot of those African dictators.

The problem is, Iraq has these things, in breach of UN resolutions. They are obvious about it and unrepetant. Everybody knows they have them, so if the world just backs down and leaves them alone, that just shows the rest of the world that we never were serious about enforcing our prohibitions. I don't want to go to war with Iraq, but with the current situation (largely manufactured by Bush), we almost have to. Failure to convince Iraq to disarm peaceable, if possible, or forcibly, if necessary, could be devastating to World Peace, opening the doors for genocide and mayhem everywhere. Any dictator could just say he was going to rain down a "sea of fire" on any country that wanted to stop him.

I know the U.S. has the same weapons. I know our government has not always been responsible. We have not, however, used Nuclear Weapons since 1945. Nor have we been using chemical or biological weapons. The Iraqis cannot make that claim. I'm pretty sure that GWB was only implying the use of nukes to deter the Iraqis from using theirs first. There was some discussion at one time of using small nuclear warheads as bunker busters, but I think that idea was scrapped.

Stopping nuclear, chemical, and biological proliferation is, in my view, a fairly powerful argument. Iraq and GWB have created a situation where we cannot just ignore it and pretend like we did not know. The world needs to take a stand now or just accept proliferation as inevitable.

-Biscuits

I'm sure they obtained full market price.

It looks like it might have been a mistake to sell them to Iraq (if it happened). It appears President Bush is going rectify that mistake.

Yeah, but who decided that other countries shouldn't have them? While I understand the idea that the popular image of Saddam Hussein shouldn't have them, as he's likely to use them, I'm not so sure that the popular image is correct. It's been stated that he has them to deter other countries from attacking him, and, while that might seem paranoid, guess what? Other countries are getting ready to attack him.

I just don't know that it's ethical or moral for the US to say that other countries can't have them when it does. And while Iraq certainly has been a bully over the years, so has the US.

While your statement that we haven't used nuclear weapons in 58 years seems nice, don't forget that the US is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in combat. And I'd like to believe that we don't use chemical weapons, but I'm not sure that's the case. I'd be inclined to say, however, that we actually haven't used biological weapons, but we sure do keep a lot of them around.

We have 3 major threats to the weapons control regime: countries that illegally obtained nuclear weapons (Pakistan, India, North Korea), countries that are on the verge of obtaining nuclear warheads (Iraq), and countries that are seeking to acquire nuclear weapons (Iran, Syria, Libya).

India and Pakistan left the door open for everybody else. When the world did not take action, instead deciding theirs was a singular incident (and balanced), it undermined every nonproliferation agreement ever signed. Now that North Korea has gone nuclear (sort of), there really isn't much we can do to stop them, except appeasement, which does not work. Iraq is at the last stage before obtaining a full-fledged arsenal. The other countries can still be dealt with under the table, since there is no immediate hurry, assuming we keep the accords intact. However, if we don't stop Iraq and North Korea, expect half a dozen other countries to follow their example in the next few years, and the rest of the world shortly thereafter.

Letting Iraq be will dismantle these agreements. There will still be a deterant, but not enough to stop the Taliban or Iranians. If we stop Iraq (peaceably or forcibly) but leave North Korea with their weapons, then that just shows the world that they will be fine if they just don't get caught until they already have their weapons. If we stop both of them, we leave everything intact until the next crisis in a few years.

Part of this crisis was manufactured by Iraq by failing to comply with UN resolutions. However, they had been slowed down to a crawl by embargoes. Without GWB making a big deal out of it, Iraq would not have been a problem for another decade under sanctions, or 5 years or so without. The other part was created by North Korea as a way to get concessions and money from the rest of the world. If we pay them enough, they'll leave us alone for another year or so, until they ask for another handout, and so on, indefinately.

I'm angry at GWB, angry because he took a situation that did not need a war, and has done his damnedist into creating one where war is the only solution.

I don't think we would give chemical warheads to Britain

No thanks, we've got plenty of our own.

Yeah, but who decided that other countries shouldn't have them?

Well, the world decided in 1968 that countries that did not already have nuclear weapons by that arbitrary date would be denied them in the Nonproliferation Treaty (which went into effect in 1970). India, who was about a year away from going nuclear, was left out of the nuclear powers. They willingly decided not to go nuclear and furthermore decided that they would not sign unless everybody gave up nuclear weapons. Almost every other country in the world signed the agreement, including Iraq. Iraq also signed the Biological Weapons Convention, agreeing not to develop biological weapons. Almost every country in the world signed the Chemical Weapons Convention except for 5 countries in the Middle East, one of which was Iraq.

So, in a way, the world, including Iraq themselves, decided that Iraq shouldn't have nuclear or biological weapons. Trafficking of chemical and biological weapons was limited and their development similarly limited. The world took on the responsibility of policing these agreements and enforcing them on every country.

I just don't know that it's ethical or moral for the US to say that other countries can't have them when it does.

And I really don't understand why the U.S. can have nuclear weapons when they won't let Timothy McVeigh have his? Why is it moral for us to have them and not Mullah Omar?

Well, somebody has to have the weapons to serve as a deterrent. All of the allies of the United States are protected under our nuclear umbrella. A handful of our allies, including the British, also have their own weapons (although some, like Italy, would have prevented any U.S. warheads being fired from their country). This has largely helped to dissuade war. Who would have thought after WWII that every country in Europe could essentially disarm and be free from conflict for the first time in their history? Likewise, how likely do you think it would have been for the entire world, including the diametrically opposed NATO and Warsaw Pacts, have been to stay disarmed? I think it is remarkable that nuclear armament has stayed as low as it has.

-Biscuits

Ah, but of course you have plenty of chemical weapons. We just let you make them yourselves.

France: [snip] Just like in World War II, when we KNEW that the Germans wouldn't invade through the Ardennes [snip]

Then again...we Americans were stupid enough to KNOW that Hitler wouldn't invade AGAIN through the Ardennes in '44. Our intelligence got caught with their thumbs up their bums. Luckily, thanks to pockets of fierce resistence and a very quick response by Ike, we ended up working it to our advantage that time...

Ah, but of course you have plenty of chemical weapons. We just let you make them yourselves.

See? This is the attitude that bothers me. ``We ... let you'', as if it the the US's decision as to whether or not other countries are acceptable.

And, as to your other point about the rest of the world, the Iraq that exists today certainly didn't sign that treaty. In addition, ``the world'' as a whole is best defined as the UN, which is,as yet, undecided on any action, and GWB has stated flat out that he has no interest in what the UN decides.

In regards to my statement, WE (the states) do not give YOU (Britain) chemical weapons, to my knowledge, but neither do WE prevent YOU from making your own. If it makes you feel better, France lets Britain make chemical weapons, Germany lets Britain make chemical weapons, and China lets Britain make chemical weapons. We are, however, not discussing the actions of France, Germany, and China, but rather the United States.

It is true that the UN is not yet decided on any action. However, it is clear that Iraq is in violation of UN resolutions and world treaties. The world can choose to let those violations pass, knowing it will result in the dismantling of the Nonproliferation Treaty, CWC, BWC, et all. It can also take action through threatening a stick if it doesn't shape up or a carrot if it does. Maybe it is wiser to just let things pass, maybe not. Also, while I agree that the UN has generally been a positive force and doing so would seriously weaken it, individual countries can take action.

Even countries that have not signed these conventions are still influenced by international law. Violating maritime law, for example, has always been grounds for action, whether harsh words, embargoes, or war. Such action could not be considered "unprovoked," but it is up to the countries involved to decided whether it is "justified"

-Biscuits

I understand the prevailing attitude is that the U.S. shouldn't police the world, but honestly I trust our government far more than Iraq's. I suppose that's almost a laughable thing to say these days, but whatever you think of the Bush administration, its actions are a far cry from the crimes Saddam has committed.

It may not sound fair that we should have weapons and Iraq shouldn't, and really it isn't. But the world isn't fair, and if it were, someone would come along and make it unfair again. What I hope and pray is that the people whom benefit from this unfair state of things don’t abuse their power. Admittedly the U.S. has the unfair advantage in world power at the moment, and we use that power to look out for our self-interests, sometimes in very wrong ways. Just because we have failed sometimes, however, doesn’t mean that we are incapable of doing good with it. To not use it at all because it’s “unfair” is not being responsible.

I suppose most here believe that Bush hasn't given this situation much though and is using it as a personal vendetta. I don't believe that, I believe he is doing what he thinks is morally right. I don't believe this is a conquest of war to gain ground or even resources (read: oil); I think it's about trying to stop an evil man from doing more evil. Yes, many will say this isn't our responsibility, but whose is it? If we don't stop Saddam when we have the power to, aren't we at least partly responsible when he does violence to someone?

To be clear, I'm a native US citizen and I've never lived outside the US. (Edit: I say this because you referred to me as ``YOU'', referring to Britain, which is not the case. I don't know that's what you intended, but I just want to be clear.)

My problem with individual countries taking action is still the bully problem. What if it was discovered that the US made biological weapons? And then Iran decided to attack? What would you say about it then? What would the UN say about it? (Nothing, since the US gets to veto anything it wants.)

I'm also a native U.S. citizen. I lived for 3 months in Paris and 2 years in Belgium and have been to a lot of countries, if that is relevant.

I think our administration is making a lot of mistakes. I would have to agree in part with the Europeans, Bush IS a cowboy. I think it is fairly obvious that he didn't know much of anything about foreign politics when he took office. He has had to rely upon his advisors and he has either had bad advice or made poor decisions based upon their information. Bush has created a situation where we are going to have to go to war or face some serious consequences. I think that is a severe mistake and he has already significantly harmed our foreign interests with his warmongering. However, in the current situation, I think it is too late to pull back: we HAVE to go to war, even if Bush were to suddenly change his mind. It is idle fancy to consider what we should have done a year ago, since it is too late to change those mistakes.

-Biscuits

I'm sure we'd be after North Korea as well... but unlike Iraq, North Korea has one of the largest standing armies in the world. That's no fun! (sarcasm intended).

We can also bribe North Korea to stop developing their weapons; it'll only last a year, but its something. And, of course, if we attack, they'll unleash a "sea of fire" on the South Koreans.

-Biscuits

*Sung to the tune of: "If You're Happy And You Know It Clap Your Hands"

Thanks for posting that! I hadn't seen it. Too right! ...and not hard to sing!

Well, I took a pass on the State of the Union Tuesday and we went to see Steve Earle instead. His voice was pretty trashed, and he ended early, but he never once said "NUKE-U-LAR". Plus, we got to play a little hoop in the summer beer garden of a punk bar after the show, so it was what I'd call a well-rounded evening.

I did feel obliged to read the text of Tuesday's SotU address. A fair amount of it was hooey, but there were a few interesting bits in there ($15 billion for AIDS, emphasis on treatement...)

I read bits like " The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity. " and I think that you could probably hear bits like that pouring out of the mouth of Jed Barlett -- Aaron Sorkin does try to give his fictional president a veneer of Christian religious piety.

A few days before the SotU address I was listening to about 10 minutes of a speech about politics and Bush (by Molly Ivins, I think) and she said that regardless of whether Bush is the brightest bulb in the box, he is sincere and *does* believe in what he is doing in terms of religion and destiny. Hmmm, should I be reassured by that or scared? I think "B".

I'm pretty hard on Shrub, but i don't find much to dissuade me. I was reading a review of a new book by David Frum, who was a speechwriter for Bush in 2000-2001. The most interesting bit was about Bush's long-time advisor, Karen Hughes:

"Hughes rarely read books and distrusted people who did -- anything she did not already know she saw no point in knowing"

and on Bush's faults: "often incurious and as a result ill-informed"

Granted it's the opinion of one guy and he has to say *something* saucy to sell books and make a million, but I gather he *is* a credentialed Republican, and I suspect that when Frances Fitgerald writes the Shrub version of "Way Out There in the Blue" in 10-15 years, things will be shown to be just this bad or worse.

Is it too much to want a president who is smart and is curious about the world beyond our borders?

If a president is too smart, people are intimidated and distrustful. They want to feel as if the president is an average Joe, and not somebody better than themselves. Thus, people are able to forgive W for being ignorant about world politics. I think they might have a harder time if he quoted the great classics every time he gave a speach.

Personally, I would go for smart, but didn't the popular kids always get more votes in grade school? I went to seven different schools and only saw an overlap between the two groups about 1/4 of the time, although the smart popular kids usually purposely acted dumb. Coincidence?

-Biscuits

Thus, people are able to forgive W for being ignorant about world politics.

I find that statement to be exremely disheartening.

You're gonna have to forgive me, but I need to try something:

[rant]

If a <game show host> is too smart, people are intimidated and distrustful. They want to feel as if Pat Sajak is an average Joe, and not somebody better than themselves. Thus, people are able to forgive Pat for being ignorant about world politics. I think they might have a harder time if he quoted the great classics every time he had Vanna turn a letter.

Damn, I'm not trying to mock, but I, too, find the notion awfully disheartening and I could not help but recast it. This kind of "ordinary Joe" outlook is fine for game show hosts, but it'd be nice to think that folks would expect more in the role of the Presidency (oops, I forgot Reagan...). Is this what we are reduced to?

When I was in grammar school, JFK was newly elected and was a huge (as yet untarnished) hero. Eighty percent of the boys in my classes in 1961-62 had probably read _Profiles in Courage_ and had solid plans to become President one day. Well, guess what? None of us did. If someday somebody actually gets elected who is principalled, witty and (shock!) *SMART*, how should I and my old school chums respond? Are we going to get pissed off because they are better than us??? Oh, damn, probably, if this has all become a game show. When are going to get comfortable with the fact that there's *always* somebody who is bigger/faster/stronger/smarter?

In general, the President is *supposed* to be smarter than us.

[/rant]

Damn, I'm not trying to mock, but I, too, find the notion awfully disheartening and I could not help but recast it.

Yeah. I want to clarify, though, why I found it so disheartening. Not because he said it, but because deep down, I know the statement is true of the American people in general.

Maybe presidential elections should be decided 10% by a presidential aptitude test. That'd be interesting. They'd have to find a way to make it objective though, and that's pretty much impossible.

EDIT: Or just make taking the test required to run for office, and then post the scores all over the media and let them color the public's choices.

Not because he said it, but because deep down, I know the statement is true of the American people in general.

Agreed. If it weren't (mostly) the case, then it wouldn't be so disheartening. Sigh.

During Bush's election campaign I remember somebody (The New Yorker?) dredged up his old college grades.
If I remember correctly I think he was a C student with not stellar SAT scores (not that SAT scores are all that great to go by).
Hell, I did better than that in college, and I still cant remember whole semesters.


Z~

It was The New Yorker.

"He was a C student at Phillips Andover. He got a not-so-stellar 1206 on his SATs - 566 verbal, 640 math. That was a full 180 points below the median score for the Yale University class of '68."

"...And in the years that followed, young W never pulled his average above a C. His college transcript, in an eye-popping leak to The New Yorker magazine, showed a 73 in Introduction to the American Political System and a 71 in Introduction to International Relations, to cite two examples that could mean something in hindsight."

Heres the source article that these quotes came from.
I make no claims about this source.

Z~

They'd have to find a way to make it objective though, and that's pretty much impossible.

And not like smarts are everything. We've had smart, bad, nay psychopathic presidents (Nixon....or perhaps smart isn't the right term. Cunning?) 10 percent works for me.

Their warts notwithstanding, I just wonder where the John Adams, Abe Lincolns, Teddy Roosevelts, and FDRs went... Hell, give me an Ike!

not that SAT scores are all that great to go by

Certainly not if your Daddy is GHW Bush!

Certainly not if your Daddy is GHW Bush!

Well, especially then!

I’ll admit that intelligence isn’t the primary factor for me: values are. I’d rather have a less intelligent (not that I’ll agree that Bush is stupid) president than one whose values I don’t agree with. And since candidates are generally diametrically opposed on values, I think a lot of times that ends up being the deciding factor. Thankfully, the president doesn’t have to rely on his own intelligence to get the job done.

The problem, though, and what has really disappointed me is how political politics are. At one point (before the election) W came to “give his testimony” at the church I was attending. I was excited to hear about a person’s faith who (at that point) could be our next president, and this was certainly an appropriate forum for it. Instead of the testimony we were promised, however, what I got was a typed speech that was so political it didn’t say much beyond that he planned on following his “faith” (which he never expounded upon) in office.

Though this didn’t cause me to dislike Bush nor believe that he’s not a man of faith, the experience showed me that a politician is first and foremost just that. Yes he does share many of my values, but he is so busy being a politician it’s difficult for the “real” man to come out. Everything is about his public life and policy.

I don’t believe this is a problem with Bush alone, but politics in general. I’d guess that I would have felt the same way if I’d been a Gore supporter and heard him speak in a similar setting. In the end, I guess that I was naïve to think running the country could ever be about the people electing a person who best embodies their ideals. Instead we hire professionals who know how to play the game. Maybe that shouldn’t bother me, but it does.

I've always thought "career politician" should be an oxymoron. Listening to someone oh like Jesse Ventura speak, its obvious he is not a political poitician. he speaks his mind, when and where he wants, not someones typed version of what is politically correct.
If only we could break the career politician cycle, get some normal human beings in those temporary jobs, you could almost call this democracy.

I highly doubt that out of 300 million americans GW was the best man for the job.

I don't like having to choose between the lesser of 2 evils. If there was a "non of the above" box on the ballot, i bet the percent of people actually voting would skyrocket.
Anyone remember that SNL skit where GW and Dole were at a debate, but they just agreed with eachother? Then to propogate this 2 party nonsense the 2 major party's have the ability to stop 3rd parties from even being presented to the us population on tv.

I got a question....
How scalable is our(us) system of govt? it already seems bloated and painfully in slow in accomplishing even basic tasks. How well will it work when theres a billion of us.

.... I’d rather have a less intelligent (...) president than one whose values I don’t agree with.

I think I would have to agree with this if that's what it came down to, but I don't like the thought of this trade-off.

I think that there's a bias here, too, that I'm betting I suffer from along with everybody else: If we agree with someone's "values", we think they are smarter!

And since candidates are generally diametrically opposed on values, I think a lot of times that ends up being the deciding factor.

Not sure about diametrically opposed (probably doesn't appear that way from far right or left) but agree on deciding factor.

Thankfully, the president doesn’t have to rely on his own intelligence to get the job done.

Witness Ronald Reagan....this presupposed some latitude, though, on what "the job" is. (Hmmmm, maybe if Reagan had had Jed Bartlett's script writer, I would have been completely happy and none the wiser!)

The problem, though, and what has really disappointed me is how political politics are.

You win the irony award! It is so funny to read that statement, but I think I know what you mean.

At one point (before the election) W came to “give his testimony” at the church I was attending. [....] Instead of the testimony we were promised, however, what I got was a typed speech that was so political it didn’t say much beyond that he planned on following his “faith” (which he never expounded upon) in office.

Reporters are everywhere, as are speechwriters trying to outwit the reporters. Especially if your guy isn't the nimblest thinker/speaker, then careful scripting is important. Don't say anything too heartfelt or committed (on a subject like religion) lest it appear in the Washington Post and provide fodder for critics (like me!). Speak always in generalities that listeners can adapt to their own values systems ("Hmmm. Not sure, but I think the candidate just strongly agreed with me!!")

Though this didn’t cause me to dislike Bush nor believe that he’s not a man of faith, the experience showed me that a politician is first and foremost just that. Yes he does share many of my values, but he is so busy being a politician it’s difficult for the “real” man to come out. Everything is about his public life and policy.

I guess I'm not as inclined to adjust to this. To me, what somebody does, how they behave, what they are busy with, *is* the real man/person.

I don’t believe this is a problem with Bush alone, but politics in general. I’d guess that I would have felt the same way if I’d been a Gore supporter and heard him speak in a similar setting.

As someone who was inclined to support Gore, I would agree. At some point principles and goals seemed to vanish. The word that came to mind for both campaigns, but Gore's even moreso: "grasping".

In the end, I guess that I was naïve to think running the country could ever be about the people electing a person who best embodies their ideals. Instead we hire professionals who know how to play the game. Maybe that shouldn’t bother me, but it does.

Why shouldn't it bother you?

I *try* not to idealize. We have occasionally had inept presidents for a long time. Even presidents who inspire a degree of reverence today (I think of Lincoln, TR and FDR) were reviled by different groups in their time and were targets of assassins. The polarization over FDR, someone I idealize/adore, always amazes me. I have to remember, though, that all those folks were consumate politicians. I wonder how TR would behave in the Age of TV?

I've always thought "career politician" should be an oxymoron. Listening to someone oh like Jesse Ventura speak, its obvious he is not a political poitician. he speaks his mind, when and where he wants, not someones typed version of what is politically correct.

Well, I do appreciate that part of him. Too bad he's not sufficiently popular in Minnesota.

If only we could break the career politician cycle, get some normal human beings in those temporary jobs, you could almost call this democracy.

Yes, although I have always been suspicious of term-limits initiatives. I don't know why, but they always felt like a band-aid, not a fundamental solution. If someobody's doing a good job, I *want* them to stay on. Hmmm. Maybe if we had uniform, somewhat liberal term limits -- like 12 -16 years for Senate/Congress.

I highly doubt that out of 300 million americans GW was the best man for the job.

No argument there. Even adjusting for political philosophy, it would be nice to even come within spitting distance.

[....]
I got a question....
How scalable is our(us) system of govt? it already seems bloated and painfully in slow in accomplishing even basic tasks. How well will it work when theres a billion of us.

Huh. That's a question I don't think I've ever seen anybody ask: "How does this work when we are a billion?" Must it get worse? Dunno.

I get depressed that the American Revolution resides only in history books. Questions like yours don't get worked on. FWIW, my disagreement with conservatism and affinity for liberalism is that the latter (in theory!!) is more willing to pick up your question and work the problem. Ummmm, that is if they are not too busy mincing their words and trying to get elected.

Since this thread has evolved into sheer politics, what do people feel about the idea of Jerry Springer running for the Senate?

...and they reported that he was born and spent the first 5 years of his life in London. Does anyone know whether he is a Brit (or presumably dual-nationality if he is to run), or whether he is a true Yank, eligible ro possibly run for President one day.

Jerry! Jerry!

Since this thread has evolved into sheer politics, what do people feel about the idea of Jerry Springer running for the Senate?

Well, if ever this atheist was going to slap the (isn't it biblical?) label of "Whores of Babylon" on a group of people, it would be Springer and his sensational talk-show peers.

Does that help?

“Don't say anything too heartfelt or committed (on a subject like religion) lest it appear in the Washington Post and provide fodder for critics (like me!).”

Yes, and this is what I find upsetting. You and I can disagree bitterly about things like religion and still have constructive conversation. The only time I think we’ve been in much agreement on this bbs is when you helped me with my resume (which I am still grateful for, by the way). And yet even though we disagree we still can make intelligent conversation (or at least I enjoy reading what you have to say). Why do politicians have to be so careful and not take any real sides? My policy is to always be honest about who I am, and I enjoy talking to others who are honest about who they are. I call this “integrity.”


“To me, what somebody does, how they behave, what they are busy with, *is* the real man/person.”

Yes, this was my point and why I put “real” in quotes. Bush is the politician, just like all the others. That’s what disappoints me, because the people I respect for their honesty could never get elected.

We are able to have intelligent debates, despite different opinions, because we are honest. There are a lot of people out there who will do anything to get their agenda across, sell more newspapers, or whatever. Just watch the headlines in the paper or listen to the pundits on television. Sometime this is deliberate, sometimes it is due to incompetence: I once read an article in the USA Today that claimed that small cars are unsafe. The theory sounds likely and the writer used several dozen statistics. Unfortunately, he did not use a single one of those statistics correctly; every single one was misrepresented or vague. The problem is, the general public does not have the inclination to spend the vast amounts of time necessary to really understand the candidates or the issues.

Instead, we hear that "Al Gore claims he invented the internet." What he said was that he sponsored legislation that helped create the internet explosion in '96. Do the zealots care? The newspapermen? The Bush supporter making fun of Gore?

-Biscuits

...what do people feel about the idea of Jerry Springer running for the Senate?

I have no problem with that.

Surely you don't believe that the persona that Springer displays in his ridiculous TV show is his real personality? The man is an actor. That's his job.

Just because Ronald Reagan was in the movie "Santa Fe Trail" didn't make him a cowboy when he was president. (Well... if you count Grenada, maybe this wasn't such a good example. ) I don't think Jesse Ventura body-slammed anybody in the Minnesota governor's office...

Springer is bright, articulate, and obviously driven to succeed. These are not bad qualities in a politician. Frankly, I would vote for just about anybody who could demonstrate that his every action was not dictated solely by his perception of that action's effect on his being re-elected.

tanstaafl.

Surely you don't believe that the persona that Springer displays in his ridiculous TV show is his real personality? The man is an actor. That's his job.

[.....] I don't think Jesse Ventura body-slammed anybody in the Minnesota governor's office...

This is a good counter-argument to my instinctive, horrified reaction. OTOH, right or wrong, I really feel ill when I see all of the "My daughter seduced my husband's grandfather!!" Ricki/Sally/Jerry TV. Maybe I should lighten up --people are gonna watch they are gonna watch -- but I don't get the same nauseous feeling when i channel surf across WWF (um I guess it's WW-something now) as I do when I surf across the jerrys of the world.

Springer is bright, articulate, and obviously driven to succeed. These are not bad qualities in a politician.

Jerry was mayor of Cleveland, was he not? And I have seen him mount a pretty good defense of his recent talk-show self. I'd say it is pretty much impossible to be a successful politician without a pretty huge self-promotion instinct....

Frankly, I would vote for just about anybody who could demonstrate that his every action was not dictated solely by his perception of that action's effect on his being re-elected.

Agreed. I do wonder about Jerry in this respect, but I'll try to keep the Jesse Ventura analogy in mind, chill out, and watch what goes down. It's not like he'll be running anywhere where my vote can doom his campaign!

Oh, Jim, you jaded, cynical bastard. What were you thinking?