Re: Off topic: Iraq War commentary

[Guest guest]

Thanks for that !

Vern Saboe

Off topic: Iraq War commentary

> This is one of the better commentaries I have seen on the war. It seems to

> put to rest some of the spin which is irritating many of us.

>

> E. Abrahamson, D.C.

> Chiropractic physician

> Lake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic

> 601 First Street

> Lake Oswego, OR 97034

> 503-635-6246

>

> drscott@...

> or

> info@...

>

>

> This is probably copywritten from the New York Times.

> Please refer to them if you forward this.

> Their website is:

>

> http://www.nytimes.com/

>

> New York Times

> L. Friedman, Op-Ed Columnist

> ³Because We Could²

> Iraq: United States Armament and Defense

>

> The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction

> (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story

we

> should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and

> it's the wrong issue now.

>

> Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real

reason,

> the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.

>

> The " real reason " for this war, which was never stated, was that after

9/11

> America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't

> enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there < a bubble that

> posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be

> punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the

World

> Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K.,

> having state-run newspapers call people who did such things " martyrs " was

> O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such " martyrs " was

> O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical

> Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the

> Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were

> ready to die.

>

> The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and

> women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and

> make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open

> society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi

> Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple

> reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was

> right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this

> had no effect. Every neighboring government < and 98 percent of terrorism

is

> about what governments let happen < got the message. If you talk to U.S.

> soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.

>

> The " right reason " for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis,

> post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real weapons

of

> mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's missiles. The real

> weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliated young

> Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states <

young

> people who hate America more than they love life. Helping to build a

decent

> Iraq as a model for others < and solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

<

> are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction, which

> are what really threaten us.

>

> The " moral reason " for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine of

> mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own people,

> and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.

>

> But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for the

> war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support

for

> the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the stated reason:

the

> notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate

> threat to America. I argued before the war that Saddam posed no such

threat

> to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't take the

> nation to war " on the wings of a lie. " I argued that Mr. Bush should fight

> this war for the right reasons and the moral reasons. But he stuck with

this

> W.M.D. argument for P.R. reasons.

>

> Once the war was over and I saw the mass graves and the true extent of

> Saddam's genocidal evil, my view was that Mr. Bush did not need to find

any

> W.M.D.'s to justify the war for me. I still feel that way. But I have to

> admit that I've always been fighting my own war in Iraq. Mr. Bush took the

> country into his war. And if it turns out that he fabricated the evidence

> for his war (which I wouldn't conclude yet), that would badly damage

America

> and be a very serious matter.

>

> But my ultimate point is this: Finding Iraq's W.M.D.'s is necessary to

> preserve the credibility of the Bush team, the neocons, Tony Blair and the

> C.I.A. But rebuilding Iraq is necessary to win the war. I won't feel one

> whit more secure if we find Saddam's W.M.D.'s, because I never felt he

would

> use them on us. But I will feel terribly insecure if we fail to put Iraq

> onto a progressive path. Because if that doesn't happen, the terrorism

> bubble will reinflate and bad things will follow. Mr. Bush's credibility

> rides on finding W.M.D.'s, but America's future, and the future of the

> Mideast, rides on our building a different Iraq. We must not forget that.

>

>

>

> OregonDCs rules:

> 1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose of the listserve is to

foster communication and collegiality. No personal attacks on listserve memb

ers will be tolerated.

> 2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name.

> 3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere.

However, it is against the rules of the listserve to copy, print, forward,

or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another member without his

or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been removed.

>

>

[Guest guest]

What Did They Know and When Did They Know It?

Investigate Bush Administration

on Weapons of Mass

Destruction in Iraq

Evidence is mounting that

the Bush Administration manipulated

evidence that Iraq had weapons

of mass destruction in the

months leading up to the

preemptive attack. According to the

Washington Post, Congressional

Republicans have already

spurned demands for a serious

probe, referring the matter to

closed door hearings of

the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The Bush Administration repeatedly

asserted that it knew with

certainty that Iraq had

such weapons. This argument was the

only argument that resonated

with the public, and was

essential in paving the

way for putting our soldiers and many

civilians at risk.

The failure by U.S. or British

troops thus far to find any

weapons of mass destruction,

following the earlier failure by

U.N. inspection teams, calls

into question the Bush

Administration’s honesty.

Some are arguing that the unfolding

story of mass killings and

torture by Iraqi forces are

justification enough for

the war. While we disagree with that

point, it is utterly irrelevant

to the importance of discovering

whether the Bush Administration

knowingly lied.

If it did, countless

lives and hundreds of billions of dollars were put at risk under explicitly

false

pretences. If this Administration

can successfully use the big lie to launch a war, then it and future

Administrations can use

the big lie for other purposes as well.

ly, we hope the Administration

did not lie on this point. But if it did, the truth must come out. In the

absence of an independent

prosecutor, the Senate (and an aggressive and independent press) is our

best

avenue to the truth.

Bruce Chaser

"Dr. " wrote:

This is one of the better commentaries I have seen

on the war. It seems to

put to rest some of the spin which is irritating many of us.

E. Abrahamson, D.C.

Chiropractic physician

Lake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic

601 First Street

Lake Oswego, OR 97034

503-635-6246

drscott@...

or

info@...

This is probably copywritten from the New York Times.

Please refer to them if you forward this.

Their website is:

http://www.nytimes.com/

New York Times

L. Friedman, Op-Ed Columnist

3Because We Could2

Iraq: United States Armament and Defense

The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction

(W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real

story we

should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war,

and

it's the wrong issue now.

Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real

reason,

the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.

The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after

9/11

America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan

wasn't

enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there Ð a bubble

that

posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to

be

punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the

World

Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was

O.K.,

having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs"

was

O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs"

was

O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among

radical

Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between

the

Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists

were

ready to die.

The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men

and

women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house,

and

make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open

society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi

Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple

reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he

was

right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that

this

had no effect. Every neighboring government Ð and 98 percent of

terrorism is

about what governments let happen Ð got the message. If you talk

to U.S.

soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.

The "right reason" for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis,

post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real weapons

of

mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's missiles. The

real

weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliated

young

Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states

Ð young

people who hate America more than they love life. Helping to build

a decent

Iraq as a model for others Ð and solving the Israeli-Palestinian

conflict Ð

are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction,

which

are what really threaten us.

The "moral reason" for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine

of

mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own

people,

and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.

But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for

the

war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support

for

the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the stated reason:

the

notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate

threat to America. I argued before the war that Saddam posed no such

threat

to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't take

the

nation to war "on the wings of a lie." I argued that Mr. Bush should

fight

this war for the right reasons and the moral reasons. But he stuck

with this

W.M.D. argument for P.R. reasons.

Once the war was over and I saw the mass graves and the true extent

of

Saddam's genocidal evil, my view was that Mr. Bush did not need to

find any

W.M.D.'s to justify the war for me. I still feel that way. But I have

to

admit that I've always been fighting my own war in Iraq. Mr. Bush took

the

country into his war. And if it turns out that he fabricated the evidence

for his war (which I wouldn't conclude yet), that would badly damage

America

and be a very serious matter.

But my ultimate point is this: Finding Iraq's W.M.D.'s is necessary

to

preserve the credibility of the Bush team, the neocons, Tony Blair

and the

C.I.A. But rebuilding Iraq is necessary to win the war. I won't feel

one

whit more secure if we find Saddam's W.M.D.'s, because I never felt

he would

use them on us. But I will feel terribly insecure if we fail to put

Iraq

onto a progressive path. Because if that doesn't happen, the terrorism

bubble will reinflate and bad things will follow. Mr. Bush's credibility

rides on finding W.M.D.'s, but America's future, and the future of

the

Mideast, rides on our building a different Iraq. We must not forget

that.

[Guest guest]

The article does nothing to put to rest any of my feelings of being ripped off by this war. There is more anti-American sentiment world wide as a result of the war, and Al-Qaeda is still around and killing innocent people. As far as I can tell the biggest beneficiary of the war is Dick Cheney's former company Halliburton, which did not even have to bid to get the $8 billion contract for Iraqi rebuilding. If course they immediately started stealing from the American people with inflated prices for their services, and now they are pushing through Congress a bill to reduce payments to former employees that they have injured with asbestos exposure at their many companies.

D Freeman Mailing address: 1165 Union Street NE, Suite 300Salem, Oregon 97301ph 503 586-0127 fax 503 763-3581cell 503 871-0715 drmfreeman@...

-----Original Message-----From: Vern Saboe DC [mailto:vas@...]Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 9:11 PMOregondcs Subject: Fw: Off topic: Iraq War commentaryThis is an earlier post I found of interest and am resending it.Vern Saboe Off topic: Iraq War commentary>>> > This is one of the better commentaries I have seen on the war. It seemsto> > put to rest some of the spin which is irritating many of us.> >> > E. Abrahamson, D.C.> > Chiropractic physician> > Lake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic> > 601 First Street> > Lake Oswego, OR 97034> > 503-635-6246> >> > drscott@...> > or> > info@...> >> >> > This is probably copywritten from the New York Times.> > Please refer to them if you forward this.> > Their website is:> >> > http://www.nytimes.com/> >> > New York Times> > L. Friedman, Op-Ed Columnist> > ³Because We Could²> > Iraq: United States Armament and Defense> >> > The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction> > (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the realstory> we> > should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and> > it's the wrong issue now.> >> > Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real> reason,> > the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.> >> > The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after> 9/11> > America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistanwasn't> > enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there < a bubblethat> > posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be> > punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the> World> > Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K.,> > having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs"was> > O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was> > O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling amongradical> > Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power betweenthe> > Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activistswere> > ready to die.> >> > The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and> > women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house,and> > make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open> > society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi> > Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple> > reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was> > right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense thatthis> > had no effect. Every neighboring government < and 98 percent ofterrorism> is> > about what governments let happen < got the message. If you talk to U.S.> > soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.> >> > The "right reason" for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis,> > post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the realweapons> of> > mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's missiles. The real> > weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliatedyoung> > Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states <> young> > people who hate America more than they love life. Helping to build a> decent> > Iraq as a model for others < and solving the Israeli-Palestinianconflict> <> > are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction,which> > are what really threaten us.> >> > The "moral reason" for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine of> > mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his ownpeople,> > and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.> >> > But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason forthe> > war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support> for> > the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the stated reason:> the> > notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed animmediate> > threat to America. I argued before the war that Saddam posed no such> threat> > to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't takethe> > nation to war "on the wings of a lie." I argued that Mr. Bush shouldfight> > this war for the right reasons and the moral reasons. But he stuck with> this> > W.M.D. argument for P.R. reasons.> >> > Once the war was over and I saw the mass graves and the true extent of> > Saddam's genocidal evil, my view was that Mr. Bush did not need to find> any> > W.M.D.'s to justify the war for me. I still feel that way. But I have to> > admit that I've always been fighting my own war in Iraq. Mr. Bush tookthe> > country into his war. And if it turns out that he fabricated theevidence> > for his war (which I wouldn't conclude yet), that would badly damage> America> > and be a very serious matter.> >> > But my ultimate point is this: Finding Iraq's W.M.D.'s is necessary to> > preserve the credibility of the Bush team, the neocons, Tony Blair andthe> > C.I.A. But rebuilding Iraq is necessary to win the war. I won't feel one> > whit more secure if we find Saddam's W.M.D.'s, because I never felt he> would> > use them on us. But I will feel terribly insecure if we fail to put Iraq> > onto a progressive path. Because if that doesn't happen, the terrorism> > bubble will reinflate and bad things will follow. Mr. Bush's credibility> > rides on finding W.M.D.'s, but America's future, and the future of the> > Mideast, rides on our building a different Iraq. We must not forgetthat.> >> >> >> > OregonDCs rules:> > 1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose of the listserve is to> foster communication and collegiality. No personal attacks on listservememb> ers will be tolerated.> > 2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name.> > 3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere.> However, it is against the rules of the listserve to copy, print, forward,> or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another member withouthis> or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been removed.> >> >