Re: OT: why USA is a regime

From: JF Mezei (jfmezei.spamnot_at_teksavvy.com)
Date: 10/22/04 

Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:02:15 -0400

Bill Todd wrote:
> That may have been the official line BushCo. was stringing out, but Kerry
> was well aware at the time of the lie it was, yet found it convenient to
> play along regardless of the consequences for the country.

This applies to all democrats except howard dean (who was in the sidelines at
that time). They were affraid of being labeled unpatriotic and went by what
the slanted polls said instead of what the reality was. It was a big failing
of US democracy that there was no political opposition to this war.

Consider what was available to regular civilians outside the USA: in mid
january, french foreign monister had a meeting with the white house. He
revealed through an interview wuith french media that night that he was told
by the bush administration in no uncertain terms that there would be war and
that he should join the USA or receive lost of politcial insults from the USA
and jeoperdize relations between the two countries.

The very same day, minutes after that meeting Bush spoke oublicly and repeated
that the troups were there only to put pressure and that Hussein still had a
chance for peaceful resolution and that it was his choice.

The french media, of course, had a field day with the opposing speeches
(telling the french the US had no intentions of letting diplomacy work and war
was inevitable, while telling american public that diplomacy still had a
chance to work.

The white also also contacted Mr Blix and told him that if his teams didn't
quickly find any WMDs, the White House would begin a smear campaign to reduce
his crediility. Fortunatly, people outside the USA got to see his interview on
the BBC and realised what was going on. (but the USA media prefered to keep
acting as white house meghaphones and they too every opportunity to label Blix
as incomopetant since he couldn't find any WMDs when the USA had given him
plenty of hard evidence.

In February, Blix revealed at the UN, that *NONE* of the evidence provided by
the USA had yielded any traces of WMD activity. El Baradei revealed that the
so called evidence about nuclear purchased had been FABRICATED.

But the white house smears against the UN worked and the media just pointed to
the inefficacy of the UN, instead of questioning the evidence that the USA
claims to have but which didn't pan out at all.

Sorry, but FALSIFIED evidence should have been a trigger for immediate senate
investigation on the so called evidence the bush regime was using to justify
this invasion, especially since it got to a point where the threath became so
imminent that Bush couldn't wait anylonger and launched the invasion in march.

The democrast were asleep at the switch, the american public brainwashed by
the white shouse through media outlets had had become total zombies.

The democrats and the USA media are just as reponsible for the unnecessary
deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and the systematic destruction
of a country. (If the goal was to liberate Iraq, why did they have to destroy
all government buildings execept oil ministry ? Why did they have to destroy
telephone exchanges ? Why did they havd to rip apart a perfectly working Iraqi
constitution that had all the necessary workings for elections (which had been
held 1 year before) ?

> The assertion that Kerry voted merely to give Bush a bigger stick to use to
> threaten Saddam with might have at least a bit of credibilty (even though it
> would still have been a monumentally stupid move on his part)

Fast forward to the democratic leadership race when howard dean was the only
one morally capable of denouncing the war and was gaining momentum. At that
time, Kerry could have chosen the above "escape clause" to explain why he had
voted for the deployment of troups with the understaning that they would only
to put pressure on Saddam. He could have then stuck with this one line until
this november, and Bush couldn't have attacked him for it since attacking this
would be tantamount to Bush admitting he had lied about his true intendtions
when he asked for those powers.

The democratic party was plain stupid.

> actual vote came up, for someone like Kerry this was a no-brainer: he
> dropped his support for Biden-Lugar like the hot political potato that he
> felt it was and voted for the unamended IWR, but made a stirring Senate
> floor speech about how he would be "the first to speak out" if Bush failed
> to abide by the understanding that an invasion would take place only if an
> effective inspection regime could not be reinstated and there was an actual
> threat to us:

And one has to wonder why he didn't stand up back in january when it became
apperant the Bush regime had no intentions of letting the UN process work and
that they had planned to go to war all along.

> 2) Iraq did not appear to be connected with our 'war on terror',

My aunt from california was convinced at that time that 9-11 was caused by
Iraqis who had entered the USA through Canada. That is how good the Bush
propaganda machine was.

> I was deeply disappointed that the Bush Administration made the
> decision to abandon diplomatic efforts rather than giving diplomacy
> the time and commitment necessary for a real chance of success.

Have you ever been to the www.newamericancentury.org web site ? The documents,
if still there, show that back in 1998, Rumsfeld,Cheney,Wolfowitz had already
spelled out their plans of action when they would rise to power in 2000:
        -Break off the deal Clinton had just signed with N Korea.
        -Invade Iraq to show the USA's muscle and resolve to fix problems in middle
east and scare
         other middle easter nations into submission.
        -Don't let winps at the UN dictate US foreign policy.

This was back in 1998,. And and they used the "axis of evil" back then, naming
Iraq, Iran and North Korea. So, after 9-11, Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz took
charge of the white house and implemented their plan. They told the south
korean ambassador to tell the north korean that the oil supplies would stop.
North Korea replied with a very public "we are throwing away UN inspectors and
restarting our nuclear programme" and you know the rest.

And of course, as soon as the USA said that because north korea was a nuclear
power, they would think twice about a kmilitary invasion. What message did
that send to Iran ? Build a nuke ASAP.

The Bush regime provoked North Korea and Iran and brough things back 10 years
in order to be able to use the speeches thay had prepared years ago about this
axis of evil thing.

> As the fighting continues, my thoughts and prayers are with the brave
> and capable men and women of our armed forces and those of our allies.

Yes, and that was another problem. With both Britain and the USA, the second
troups were told to enter Iraq, it became morally impossible to criticise the
war and everyone just had to blindly support the troups.

And the USA military had a brilliant idea to do this "embedding" business. By
embedding all their reporters, they were effectively making all US media
outlets zombies and unable to report on what was really going on.

And while US reporters kept spouting the US verbs that Hussein didn't allow
reporters to freely roam the streets of Bagdhad, French reporters were out on
the streets of bagdhad, in mosques etc interviewing people and showing the
destruction caused by US missiles.

You have to give it to Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz. They had an incredible
success at brainwashing americans and controlling the agenda and removing the
credibility of anyone who could become a threath shoudl he speak out. Heck,
even the whiskey Girls were labeled unpatriotic.

> Once one is prepared to ask, "*Would* Kerry be better than Bush?", one is at
> least on the path toward a rational decision.

At this point, it doesn't really matter. Bush is a war criminal. He must not
be allowed to stay in office, and americans must send a clear message to the
rest of the world that they do not tolerate people like Bush who have lied to
the american public on such important matters.

Kerry does not have an agenda. His policies just try to match what he thinks
the american public will buy so he can get elected. He wans to be as "grey" as
possible as to not offend anyone and attract as many moderate republicans as possible.

Also, consider that the democratic party made a conscious decision not to
oppose the war back in 2003. Democrats, except for Dean, have to live with
that decision.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My presidential pick for 2008
    ... Bush stole both elections and acocrding ... Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President ... of war and gotten away with it. ... The democrats do this stuff way more than republicans. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • OT - Cracker Satan Demonizes Demos
    ... Bush vilifies Democrats, vows veto of Iraq war funding bill ... Insisting that the war in Iraq is being fought to prevent new ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: Keeping our eyes on the ball
    ... the administration is continuing to tighten ... >> are ecstatic that a majority of the country now sees the war ... >> Bush were all on the run and had fled the country. ... while some Democrats are ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: OT: Gore Hits the Waves with a Massive New Houseboat
    ... Because a Democrat has done something wrong doesn't give a free pass to Republicans. ... Before, Democrats said that blacks needed to be regulated, and thus ... think happened in The Civil War, World War I and World War II? ... I was referring to George Bush. ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • Re: OT: why USA is a regime
    ... > This applies to all democrats except howard dean (who was in the sidelines ... prospect of the war in early 2002, ... that the U.S. media were actively complicit in selling Bush's propaganda to ... > investigation on the so called evidence the bush regime was using to ...
    (comp.os.vms)