From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: NYTimes.com Article: THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN: War of Ideas, Part 2
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:09:59 +0000


Frank wrote:

>Anthony Crifaci wrote:
>
> >When you rip out the context, you're right - the US looks quite guilty.
>
>How am i "RIPPING" it out of context when  --- for months --- Blix and UN 
>inspectors were trying to do their jobs and reporting that they weren't 
>finding anything?????

You mean like this report from Blix to the UN on January 27, 2003:

"Resolution 687 (1991), like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, 
required cooperation by Iraq but such was often withheld or given 
grudgingly. Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its 
nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in 
its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance “ NOT 
EVEN TODAY “ of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs 
to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

>How dare you -- I repeat -- how dare you blame this on the Clinton 
>administration! I have my own problems with the Clinton years -- I even 
>agree
>with you that he was a duplicitous (sp) schmuck in terms of foreign policy 
>-- but how dare you say that Bush is justified in his decision to go to war 
>because Clinton THOUGHT that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction!!!

You are again missing the point. If you are going to propose (as did Chomsky 
in the article you cited) that this whole weapons accusation was 
specifically invented by Bush in order to secure oil, then you've got to 
explain why the immediately preceding administration came to exactly the 
same conclusion even though it did NOT try to secure Mideast oil by war. 
That's not a mere, "Because Clinton thought so." It's an inconsistency in 
your explanation of the MOTIVES behind the weapons accusation, because I 
assume you would agree that Clinton did not have the motive of securing oil, 
but yet made exactly the same accusation.


>Do you remember the map the CIA gave out to the public??? The map -- the 
>one that came out in October of 2002 -- the one was dotted with bases that 
>had weapons of mass destruction labeled on them???? Where the hell are they 
>NOW???

This is the CIA report you are referring to:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

Now, exactly which map are you referring to? All of the maps in that report 
are maps of sites that Iraq had already DECLARED. So they were not CIA 
inventions. The CIA was speculating about whether those sites were being 
rebuilt, not whether they existed in the first place.

>Yes, I DO WONDER why SUSPICIONS  -- oh, what a delicious word suspicions is 
>-- overflowed. Clinton-- no doubt -- made them overflow! It was all their 
>fault -- Clinton and those nasty (and nasty they are) Al Quida!! Add Sept. 
>11?????????
>Sept. 11 already happened WELL BEFORE the invasion of Iraq!  A year and a 
>half BEFORE the invasion of Iraq!! Do you want to say that Sept.11 
>justifies ANYTHING after Sept.11???

Do you remember what took up the bulk of that year and a half between Sept. 
11 and the invasion of Iraq? UN talks, followed by the drafting of a new UN 
resolution, followed by Iraqi declarations and UN inspections. And STILL 
after all that, Blix reported that "Iraq appears not to have come to a 
genuine acceptance “ not even today “ of the disarmament, which was demanded 
of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and 
to live in peace."

>That's the point. WHY didn't we  invade North Korea at that time. Why? 
>Weren't they much more of a threat to the US then any spit missle the 
>Iraqis could throw at us at the distance of 200 miles???

Wolfowitz explained why in one of the quotes that Rene bungled up last 
summer. Iraq had collateral (oil), unlike North Korea, so the latter was 
much more vulnerable to non-military (i.e., economic) leverage than Iraq.

> >And what exactly is the "ideology" shared by Bush and Clinton?
>
>Thank you, Anthony! The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Bush 
>feels that his ideology needs no justification. He just assets it. The 
>media covers his assertion as a -- get this -- defense!! Can you believe 
>it??

Bush had no reasons? You might want to read the CIA report cited above (as 
well as the entire text of Blix's speech) before *asserting* that.

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine -AT- MSN. 
http://wine.msn.com/



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---