© COPYRIGHT: Michael L. S. -- 2004, 2005, 2006
NO content of these pages may be used without my prior consent.
RECENT POSTS:
- Arafat Feuds With UN
- Disturbing Incident in France
- Tel Aviv Bombing
- Whose War Is It Anyway!?
- ICJ Security Barrier Judgment
- Asylum Horror Story
- NEVER AGAIN!!!
- PA Denies Voting Rights to Refugees
- European anti-Semitism, Euro 2004
- OUTRAGEOUS: Ignorance quote from Bush confidant
BLAIR LIED -- THOUSANDS DIED
Posted on: Friday, July 16, 2004
The above just about sums it up. The Butler enquiry reported the day before yesterday. (The Butler enquiry was set up in the wake of the invasion of Iraq when it turned out that the reasons proffered to justify that invasion had been fabricated. It had taken a lot of pressure before the British government gave in and gave the go-ahead to "lord" Butler to proceed.) As expected the report was a pathetic whitewash. Essentially, yes, "intelligence" was flawed, mistakes were made but no-one is guilty. Blair stays in his post, every other cabinet and government member does, too, as do the various establishment and "intelligence" cogs, from lowly apparatchiks up to the MI6 chief. And that is that.
!!!
HELLO!!!
This kind of bullshit would've been unacceptable if it pertained to a botched plumbing job. But this was a war! A war in which thousands upon thousands of people died, mostly thru no mistake of their own, and a war which was initiated on the basis of pure and unalloyed LIES. What the hell happened to accountability and honor?! And what makes all of this a million-fold worse is Mr. Blair imponderable arrogance and self-righteousness. Why can he not be man enough and even JUST ADMIT he was wrong to have done it? He doesn't even have to resign! Just say he was wrong to have gone head-long into a lethal war on a false pretext. What kind of putz are you, Mr. Blair, that even that is too taxing for you. Instead he keeps digging his already mighty deep hole. I'm sure you've noticed his semantic acrobatics:
1- "we are CERTAIN about the EXISTENCE of weapons of mass destruction",
2- "there is EVIDENCE of weapons of mass destruction",
3- "we are CERTAIN of the existence of weapons of mass destruction PROGRAMS",
4- "we have EVIDENCE of weapons of mass destruction programs",
5- "Saddam was PREPARING to BUILD weapons of mass destruction",
6- "Saddam was preparing to build weapons of mass destruction PROGRAMS",
7- "we MAY never find weapons of mass destruction but Saddam was a bad leader",
8- "there are NO weapons of mass destruction but we got rid of Saddam",
9- "we got rid of Saddam".
Son of a bush... - or should that be, Bush. In 1997 most of us thought things had gotten better after eighteen years of Tories who wouldn't know integrity if it came up to them and gave them a handjob. So there were NO weapons of mass destruction. Not Britain, not the US, not even Eretz Yisrael were under any threat from Saddam. There goes the first reason for starting the war. There were no links between Saddam and al-Qu'ida (and you'd have to be a massive dumbass not to have seen that ab initio). The second reason bites the dust. Yes, a terrible tyrant has been deposed but does that justify this war. Not unless the transient coalition goes after EVERY terrible tyrant there is on the planet. Iran, anyone? It conveniently placed between Iraq and Afghanistan so no costly and pesky troop transports to think of. Only problem is Iran wouldn't go down nearly as easily as Iraq, never mind the Taliban. Plus Iran has no oil, all oil and gas pipelines that could be built have been built elsewhere, and Bush's daddy doesn't have scores to settle with Khamenei or Khatami. How about Uzbekistan? Islam Karimov's regime has been responsible for gross abuses of human rights, torture, censorship, mass "disappearances"; he makes the Shah look like an amateur. Ah but he granted the US use of his territory during the war in Afghanistan. And there's a spanking new pipeline snaking thru Uzbekistan. So he's actually "with us": a wholesome, good guy. That's why the Brit ambassador to Uzbekistan nearly had his ass thrown in jail when he tried to raise awareness of Mr. Karimov's misdeeds. A jail in BRITAIN, that is! Saudi Arabia? Two words: "Fahrenheit 9/11". And what of the countless morons in Africa who conduct endless wars over hectares of useless land while their people drop dead like flies of starvation or AIDS? Well, they're just Africans; they and slaughter go hand-in-hand. And besides: SADDAM WAS BAD; WE GOT RID OF SADDAM!
That's all OK then.
I also heard Mr. Bush at one of his rallies the other day prattling about how America was more secure because Saddam and the Taliban were gone. And you could see the sheep around him beaming like cretins with approbation and adulation as though the Mashiach Himself had arrived. Worse: half of Americans believe him, too. And IS America more secure? Of course it isn't. Since Iraq never posed a threat to it, invading and destabilizing it has by no means helped. If anything, they obviated the one obstacle to Osama bin Laden's total dominance of the extremist Muslim element by removing Saddam and they made Iraq a very fertile ground for recruiting more of bin Laden's jihadis. And seeing how tumultuous and fractious Iraq is now, one wouldn't be surprised if al-Qu'ida got a foothold in it NOW, thus picking up where it left off with the fall of the Taliban.
But it might not have to: the Taliban are still very much alive and kicking; kicking the whole of southern Afghanistan, that is. They are still in control of about twenty per-cent. of the country. Alas, the avaricious and barbaric warlords who are in control of most of the remaining land are not much better, and once the coalition troops get out of Kabul and Mazar-i-Sharif which they still deign to administer, there's nothing to guarantee that al-Qu'ida won't form a pact with them, too.
Notice how often I mention al-Qu'ida? That's because the terrorist organization behind 9/11 is still very much in existence and its strength undiminished. In other words, the one genuine and commendable goal behind the specious "war on terror" has not been fulfilled. And for some strange reason the Bush administration does not appear to be too eager to pursue that goal either. It's as if they're desirous of pursuing the "war on terror" for as long as they can. Why would THAT be? Anyone?
Shabat shalom.
Posted on: Friday, July 16, 2004
ב''ה
The above just about sums it up. The Butler enquiry reported the day before yesterday. (The Butler enquiry was set up in the wake of the invasion of Iraq when it turned out that the reasons proffered to justify that invasion had been fabricated. It had taken a lot of pressure before the British government gave in and gave the go-ahead to "lord" Butler to proceed.) As expected the report was a pathetic whitewash. Essentially, yes, "intelligence" was flawed, mistakes were made but no-one is guilty. Blair stays in his post, every other cabinet and government member does, too, as do the various establishment and "intelligence" cogs, from lowly apparatchiks up to the MI6 chief. And that is that.
!!!
HELLO!!!
This kind of bullshit would've been unacceptable if it pertained to a botched plumbing job. But this was a war! A war in which thousands upon thousands of people died, mostly thru no mistake of their own, and a war which was initiated on the basis of pure and unalloyed LIES. What the hell happened to accountability and honor?! And what makes all of this a million-fold worse is Mr. Blair imponderable arrogance and self-righteousness. Why can he not be man enough and even JUST ADMIT he was wrong to have done it? He doesn't even have to resign! Just say he was wrong to have gone head-long into a lethal war on a false pretext. What kind of putz are you, Mr. Blair, that even that is too taxing for you. Instead he keeps digging his already mighty deep hole. I'm sure you've noticed his semantic acrobatics:
1- "we are CERTAIN about the EXISTENCE of weapons of mass destruction",
2- "there is EVIDENCE of weapons of mass destruction",
3- "we are CERTAIN of the existence of weapons of mass destruction PROGRAMS",
4- "we have EVIDENCE of weapons of mass destruction programs",
5- "Saddam was PREPARING to BUILD weapons of mass destruction",
6- "Saddam was preparing to build weapons of mass destruction PROGRAMS",
7- "we MAY never find weapons of mass destruction but Saddam was a bad leader",
8- "there are NO weapons of mass destruction but we got rid of Saddam",
9- "we got rid of Saddam".
Son of a bush... - or should that be, Bush. In 1997 most of us thought things had gotten better after eighteen years of Tories who wouldn't know integrity if it came up to them and gave them a handjob. So there were NO weapons of mass destruction. Not Britain, not the US, not even Eretz Yisrael were under any threat from Saddam. There goes the first reason for starting the war. There were no links between Saddam and al-Qu'ida (and you'd have to be a massive dumbass not to have seen that ab initio). The second reason bites the dust. Yes, a terrible tyrant has been deposed but does that justify this war. Not unless the transient coalition goes after EVERY terrible tyrant there is on the planet. Iran, anyone? It conveniently placed between Iraq and Afghanistan so no costly and pesky troop transports to think of. Only problem is Iran wouldn't go down nearly as easily as Iraq, never mind the Taliban. Plus Iran has no oil, all oil and gas pipelines that could be built have been built elsewhere, and Bush's daddy doesn't have scores to settle with Khamenei or Khatami. How about Uzbekistan? Islam Karimov's regime has been responsible for gross abuses of human rights, torture, censorship, mass "disappearances"; he makes the Shah look like an amateur. Ah but he granted the US use of his territory during the war in Afghanistan. And there's a spanking new pipeline snaking thru Uzbekistan. So he's actually "with us": a wholesome, good guy. That's why the Brit ambassador to Uzbekistan nearly had his ass thrown in jail when he tried to raise awareness of Mr. Karimov's misdeeds. A jail in BRITAIN, that is! Saudi Arabia? Two words: "Fahrenheit 9/11". And what of the countless morons in Africa who conduct endless wars over hectares of useless land while their people drop dead like flies of starvation or AIDS? Well, they're just Africans; they and slaughter go hand-in-hand. And besides: SADDAM WAS BAD; WE GOT RID OF SADDAM!
That's all OK then.
I also heard Mr. Bush at one of his rallies the other day prattling about how America was more secure because Saddam and the Taliban were gone. And you could see the sheep around him beaming like cretins with approbation and adulation as though the Mashiach Himself had arrived. Worse: half of Americans believe him, too. And IS America more secure? Of course it isn't. Since Iraq never posed a threat to it, invading and destabilizing it has by no means helped. If anything, they obviated the one obstacle to Osama bin Laden's total dominance of the extremist Muslim element by removing Saddam and they made Iraq a very fertile ground for recruiting more of bin Laden's jihadis. And seeing how tumultuous and fractious Iraq is now, one wouldn't be surprised if al-Qu'ida got a foothold in it NOW, thus picking up where it left off with the fall of the Taliban.
But it might not have to: the Taliban are still very much alive and kicking; kicking the whole of southern Afghanistan, that is. They are still in control of about twenty per-cent. of the country. Alas, the avaricious and barbaric warlords who are in control of most of the remaining land are not much better, and once the coalition troops get out of Kabul and Mazar-i-Sharif which they still deign to administer, there's nothing to guarantee that al-Qu'ida won't form a pact with them, too.
Notice how often I mention al-Qu'ida? That's because the terrorist organization behind 9/11 is still very much in existence and its strength undiminished. In other words, the one genuine and commendable goal behind the specious "war on terror" has not been fulfilled. And for some strange reason the Bush administration does not appear to be too eager to pursue that goal either. It's as if they're desirous of pursuing the "war on terror" for as long as they can. Why would THAT be? Anyone?
Shabat shalom.
ARCHIVED ENTRIES:
LINKS: