Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering  
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1636 times:

Below is an interesting 'analysis' by Editor Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive of Bush's speech of March 6th.

"Bush's Press Conference, More Fearmongering and Warmongering

"When the leaders speak of peace
The common folk know
That war is coming.
When the leaders curse war
The mobilization order is already written out."
--Bertolt Brecht

In his March 6 press conference, President Bush made no new arguments for war against Iraq.

He presented no evidence that Iraq is a "gathering threat."

He provided no new evidence attempting to link Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden.

Instead, he simply used a drumbeat to scare the American people.

At least 16 times, he referred to Iraq as a "threat."

And at least nine times he mentioned September 11 or the loss of 3,000 Americans on that date, even though there is no credible evidence that Iraq had anything to do with those attacks.

Bush said flat out that "Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied."

But Hans Blix himself denies it. The leading U.N. weapons inspector, a mere 13 hours after Bush spoke, said Saddam's destruction of 34 Al Samoud 2 missiles constitutes "a substantial measure of disarmament. . . . We're not watching the breaking of toothpicks here."

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Commission, added that the inspections have "made important progress" and that there is "no evidence of the revival of a nuclear weapons program."

Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein is a "gathering threat" is increasingly implausible, given this testimony, and given the access the inspectors have, and given the spy plane surveillance that Iraq is now subject to.

Still, Bush insisted it was such a threat, and he dressed up his warmongering in constitutional garb. "I swore to protect and defend the Constitution; that's what I swore to do. I put my hand on the Bible and took that oath, and that's exactly what I am going to do," he said.

But he is not upholding that oath.

He has usurped Congress's sole power to declare war, and he is not seeing that "the laws are faithfully executed." The United States signed the U.N. Charter and the U.S. Senate approved it back in 1945. That treaty has the force of law, and Bush is blatantly violating it. Article 2 of the charter says, "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means." And it also says, "All Members shall refrain in the international relations from the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

Bush today, by threatening force with 250,000 troops, is clearly violating the charter.

But that doesn't appear to be troubling him.

"When it comes to our security, if we need to act, we will act, and we really don't need United Nations approval to do so," he said. "We really don't need anybody's permission."

But that answer is as false as it is cocksure. The U.N. Charter says the only time a country can act alone is "if an armed attack occurs against" it.

Bush can't come out and say he favors war. That would be impolitic. So he claims he is for peace, but his language is extremely Orwellian.

"I don't like war," he said. But we will go to war, he said, "for the sake of peace" or "in the name of peace."

Bush said, "We care about the suffering of the Iraqi people," but that assertion is difficult to square with the Pentagon's "shock and awe" strategy of hitting Baghdad--a city of five million people--with 3,000 missiles in the first forty-eight hours of war. Baghdad, one military strategist has said, will look a lot like Hiroshima.

Bush told reporters that he takes comfort in his religious faith, and he announced that he has found a new reason to praise America. "One thing that's really great about our country is there are thousands of people who pray for me that I'll never see and be able to thank," he said.

That's not a democratic virtue. That's a subject's homage.

W.H. Auden wrote: "When he laughed, respectable senators burst with laughter. And when he cried the little children died in the street."

-- Matthew Rothschild"
(Source: http://www.progressive.org/)

Any comments?


Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
52 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStrickerje From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 723 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1593 times:

Although I at first favored the war, I'm beginning to seriously wonder what Bush's motive is here. It's becoming more and more clear to me that, although I don't trust Saddam Hussein, he's at least making a "show" of complying with the U.N. weapons inspectors. If Bush wants peace as much as he says, then why doesn't he wait to see what Iraq does first?

Another thing that bothers me is him referring to September 11 in all these speeches when there's no proof that the Iraqi government had anything to do with those attacks, and also him using his religion to gather support. This war's not about religion; it's *supposedly* about elimination of a threat...

While I may be convinced to go to war with Iraq if Saddam makes the wrong moves or tries to deceive us, I would only support war because I feel that it is necessary to eliminate a threat, NOT because I am in favor of Bush. Right now, I'd say I have a higher opinion of Saddam Hussein than G.W. Bush.

-Jeffrey S.
(A white Mississippian who's NOT a Republican)


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1580 times:

"I'd say I have a higher opinion of Saddam Hussein than G.W. Bush."

This is an insane statment no matter how you cut it. Insane no matter what state you are from, no matter what color you are, and no matter who you vote for.

There is no imminent threat from Saddam. He is not going build an ICBM, load VX, and launch it at us. That does not mean there is no threat. On September 10, 2001, four Boeing aircraft overnighted on the east coast were not considered an imminent threat to this country. Nor were 19 Arab men were booked on flights to the west coast. We know how this turned out.

VX, botulinum, and other weapons have only a single purpose: mass death. Iraq's stockpile poses a threat because they could be used to attack a neigbor and start a war that we would be dragged into. Iraq could give a tiny portion of the stockpile to a terrorist group that plans to attack the US. It would only take a tiny amount to wreak havoc. Remember, that Saddam had enough botulinum in 1999 to kill every person on earth three times according to the UN. 15 billion people. Saddam has starved and impoverished his country in order to keep these weapons. Why?

The real issue is whether it is worth the incipient risk associated with opening the era of preemptive war. In my opinion, Iraq must be disarmed pursuant to any of the 16 UN resolutions that require him to do so and the job must be done jointly. The US and UK should not have to do the job alone. France's intransigence is unacceptable. There showboating will bring about the demise of the UN in the long run by undermining the legitimacy of UN resolutions.


User currently offlineBoeing757/767 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2282 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1567 times:

This article sums up why I'm against the war and why Bush is flat wrong. (See my previous thread about him being, um, a moron).

Anyway, to me it comes down to this:

-- Has Iraq attacked us? No.
-- Is Iraq threatening to attack us? No
-- Was Iraq involved in 9/11? No evidence of that.

So why does Bush want to attack. He is a dangerous, dangerous man.



Free-thinking, left-leaning secularist
User currently offlineDavid b. From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3148 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1564 times:

remember, saddam tried to kill his daddy..........  Pissed  Pissed


Teenage-know-it-alls should be shot on sight
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8760 posts, RR: 42
Reply 5, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1559 times:

Boeing757/767,

with that statement, you're lightening up the - umm - night, since it's pretty dark here on the eastern side of the pond. It's very relieving to see that you, like many other Americans, supposedly, have not been brainwashed by the warmongering. Thank you!

David b., I guess you agree with: "Well, his daddy tried to kill Saddam beforehand!"

[Edited 2003-03-10 22:19:09]


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineDavid b. From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3148 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1552 times:

A vast majority of Americans are against this war and diapprove of president crackhead. A small minority are warmongers who will never fight if they are drafted. After all, its not their lives at stake(It should be).


Teenage-know-it-alls should be shot on sight
User currently offlineQatarAirways From Qatar, joined Sep 2008, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1533 times:

I am arguing not for or against the war but I think that if Bush just gives Iraq a little more time maybe even a few weeks and waits to see what they inspectors say it would be better for him. Then he could say to the world, look since the disarmament started Iraq has only shown token signs of disarmament and goes ahead with the war or says Iraq is showing that it is serious with disarmament and then he can take all the credit. Remember that it was him who put all the pressure on Saddam to get the inspectors in Iraq in the first place. At the same time you could look at this from a different angle, if Bush shows signs that he is weakening his stance Iraq might reverse the disarmament process. Iraq is a type of country which only cooperates if under pressure.

Another thing is the issue of regime change. It can also be looked at from both angles. One is that Saddam migh feel threatened and comply or the other is that he might feel that if they want regime change then it is a no win situation and so there is no point in complying to UN Resolutions. This is why I think North Korea is starting to escalate tensions and show off their nuclear prowes to protect the regime.

see: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/11/1047144941073.html

N79969,

"VX, botulinum, and other weapons have only a single purpose: mass death"

Maybe there is strong demand for botox treatments in Iraq?


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1527 times:

I am arguing not for or against the war but I think that if Bush just gives Iraq a little more time maybe even a few weeks and waits to see what they inspectors say it would be better for him.

I'm sure he would if he could, but the fact is that the attack (if any, cannot take place after March, as it becomes too hot to operate effectively after mid-april. Saddam (and the French) know this - hence the delaying tactics.

Charles


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1520 times:

QatarAirways,

"Maybe there is strong demand for botox treatments in Iraq?"

LOL. Excellent point. Saddam was looking a bit wrinkled during his interview with Dan Rather. Perhaps him and Manuel Noriega are planning a big botox party.

With respect to your other points, I agree with you with the caveat that a firm deadline must be set and enforced by those who currently are opposing the US. (e.g. France, Russia, etc) Otherwise, more time is another word for inaction. This has been tried once with the passage of 1441 and it failed.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1508 times:

Touching on what Charles mentioned, the French absolutely disgust me. They have deluded themselves into thinking that they are the force for peace. I use the term 'force' very loosely. By steadfastly opposing the only attempts on the planet seeking to enforce the 16 UN resolutions requiring Iraq to disarm, it will severely weaken the UN in the long run. They need to stop pretending that inspections work and propose a real alternative here and now.

User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8760 posts, RR: 42
Reply 11, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1508 times:

Botulinum Toxin is a poison. It does kill. It is also used as a medicine, but this doesn't mean it's harmless:
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/095_bot.html



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1504 times:

"Botulinum Toxin is a poison. It does kill. It is also used as a medicine, but this doesn't mean it's harmless"

It is one of the deadliest substances known actually.


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1494 times:

To N79969:

"Touching on what Charles mentioned, the French absolutely disgust me. They have deluded themselves into thinking that they are the force for peace. I use the term 'force' very loosely. "

Actually, N79969, it is not only the French. Also Germany and Russia have said it would not back a 2nd resolution and the Chinese are going in the same direction.

"By steadfastly opposing the only attempts on the planet seeking to enforce the 16 UN resolutions requiring Iraq to disarm, it will severely weaken the UN in the long run. They need to stop pretending that inspections work and propose a real alternative here and now. "

The weakening of the UN started to moment Bush said he would attack, either with or without UN approval. Also, France isn't the only country 'pretending' that the inspections work. As a matter of fact, the Head of the Inspections Team, Mr Blix, also thinks so. Look what Mr el Baradei said, about the supposed attempt of Iraq to buy nuclear material. He said that the documents regarding this and provided by foreign inteligence agencies were fake! That means that there are countries that are so 'eager' to start this war that they instruct their so-called inteligence agencies to provide false documents!

The question is: are you willing to start a major war, with terrible consequences on a short and long term, based on fake documents, assumptions Iraq still has weapons, assumptions Iraq still is trying to make weapons, assumptions Iraq is linked with al-Qaida and assumptions Iraq is a threat to America and the rest of the World?



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1466 times:

"Actually, N79969, it is not only the French. Also Germany and Russia have said it would not back a 2nd resolution and the Chinese are going in the same direction. "

Right, all countries that have something to loose in their dealings with Iraq.



User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1461 times:

To 747-451:

And the US doesn't?

Read http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html. Note that it was written 1998.



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1459 times:

Not as much as the Europeans and all the oil that oil they ddepend on.

User currently offlineNormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1460 times:

To all of you who like to throw around the term "war-monger." You don't have any idea of what it means.

'Speed


User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1455 times:

Enlighten us, Professor Speed.


Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineMarcus From Mexico, joined Apr 2001, 1808 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1453 times:

Right, all countries that have something to loose in their dealings with Iraq.
*****************************

While the US is already looking in to business deals in Iraq after the war...........

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030310/ts_nm/iraq_construction_dc_8



Kids!....we are going to the happiest place on earth...TIJUANA! signed: Krusty the Clown
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1447 times:

Halliburton Co. what a supprise!




Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineKRIC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 280 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1437 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm inclined to agree with QA that perhaps a little more time could be helpful, but as N79969 pointed out, any deadline is pointless unless Saddam knows that it WILL be enforced...which France, Russia, and China seemed unwilling to support. Hence their arguments in favor of "continued" (read: indefinite) inspections are absurd.

Whether one is in favor of war or opposes it, no intelligent person can possibly believe that Saddam would be offering one damn bit of cooperation to the UN if there weren't thousands of troops and tanks massed on his border. If that threat were not immediate, the current round of inspections would not even being taking place, never mind uncovering anything.





User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21520 posts, RR: 53
Reply 22, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1428 times:

The problem was never about whether or not a deadline would make sense (even Hans Blix has basically proposed a schedule that would more or less amount to one).

The problem was that Bush and Blair were hell-bent on extracting the power of decision about a military attack from the Security Council and assuming this power themselves - which would be a violation of the UN charta.

As beaten back as they both are at this point, I expect that a compromise might be worked out on the basis of a proposal made by the "formerly undecided six" in the SC: As the inspectors have proposed, work out a schedule with clear benchmarks Iraq has to adhere to with a "check date". On this check date (if Iraq should have complied until then), the SC will convene and review the state of disarmament. If necessary, the SC will decide whether or not military means will be applied.

It´s actually pretty much what Germany, France and Russia had been proposing all along; But Bush might be able to sell it as a compromise.

The one thing that has created this entire mess was the attempt to have the Security Council abdicate its exclusive power to decide about a war to the USA and Britain. This is what isn´t acceptable to the world, and this is what has to stop. If Bush concedes that the SC is the only institution that can allow a war (which is what the UN charta says, after all), everybody will be open to work out a compromise. (Strictly defensive wars as a direct response to an attack on one´s territory are the only wars which do not require a SC decision first.)

[Edited 2003-03-11 01:28:28]

User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1408 times:

Schoenorama,

France's position is beyond disingenous. Germany has completely ruled out force but France has not in word but has in deed. In doing so, France is taking the position that it will determine when the right time force should be used even though they have anted up. They are leading the opposition to the US without proposing an alternative and Russia is following because of its own monetary interests. Germany simply wants no part of the war. While I strongly disagree with Germany, I respect their position. And I respect Turkey's decision as it was thoroughly debated and not made to simply frustrate the U.S.

Klaus,

Bush and Blair would not have taken those positions if the UN had bothered to enforce any one of the 16 or so resolutions in 12 years. There would be no need for them to act if the UN did its job. UN inaction has allowed Saddam to not only keep his weapons but probably has allowed him to expand in the time between 1998 and 2002.


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1395 times:

Warmongering, God what a stupid term. To some people who oppose the war, this is all they can see in what Bush is doing, its "warmongering".

If you're gonna oppose the war, at least have a decent, thought out opinion instead of.

1. Its warmongering.
2. He tried to kill his daddy.
3. Its for oil.
4. America's just evil, duh.

Gimme a break.



NO URLS in signature
25 Post contains links Schoenorama : N79969 "They are leading the opposition to the US without proposing an alternative.." That is not correct. In fact, during the last UNSC meeting (las
26 Alpha 1 : A vast majority of Americans are against this war and diapprove of president crackhead. Actually, David b, a vast majority are for the war: some are f
27 Dc10guy : Alpha 1, May I ask what you've been smoking ??? Even if the US makes quick work out of Iraq, Do you really think we would be welcomed as liberators ??
28 David B. : Alpha, you do not speak for the majority of the people.[Edited 2003-03-11 04:09:56]
29 B747forlife : David b. - The vast majority of Americans are against this war and diapprove of president crackhead. How wrong you are. A poll I saw just last week pr
30 David B. : Really? Im sure they would support action if there was a UN resolution which there is not.Why would I need to research opinions Nick? Opinions are jus
31 N79969 : For the record, I am for the US going into the West Bank and bulldozing illegal Israeli settlements. However, the difference between Israel and Iraq i
32 N79969 : "Alpha, you do not speak for the majority of the people." He speaks for far more people than you do David b. I can promise you that. I don't agree wit
33 Thumper : What is wrong with you people? You call the U.S.a warmonger when the only thing keeping Iraq in check is American military power.If the U.S. pulls ou
34 NormalSpeed : "Alpha, you do not speak for the majority of the people." Actually, you'd be surprised how similar Alpha's and my political philosophies really are. W
35 Strickerje : "I'd say I have a higher opinion of Saddam Hussein than G.W. Bush." This is an insane statment no matter how you cut it. Insane no matter what state y
36 David B. : Its true Jeff "gets one to know one" as they say.
37 NormalSpeed : "However, what's worse - taking lives or ruining lives? What Bush has done is equally despicable,He's basically exploited the September 11 attacks and
38 N79969 : "Why? Because I'm an American? Because it's "unpatriotic"? " No, because the statement itself does not make moral or rational sense. More simply becau
39 HUS9746 : I believe that Bush is corrupt to teeth and so is his administration, there just going to start a war that will : 1. kill many innocent people 2. Plac
40 Post contains links Schoenorama : To Alpha1: "The pressure applied to Iraq-and the UN-by the Bush Administration just laid bare in the light the weakness and ineffectiveness of the Uni
41 Indianguy : The Bush regime has to address a constituency afr mor important(from his point of view) than the american people, and that is the gang of big business
42 Alpha 1 : So, regardless of what Hussein did, comply or not, the sanctions would stay in place. The fact that he has NEVER FULLY COMPLIED, makes that a moot poi
43 Schoenorama : To Alpha1: "The fact that he has NEVER FULLY COMPLIED, makes that a moot point, now doesn't it?" Alpha1, let me give you an example that describes th
44 We're Nuts : Don't dumb-down the issue like that. International politics cannot be made simpler to understand without butchering the original idea.
45 Cfalk : Schoenorama, I don't get your point. He still hasn't lived up to the original demand of having to get rid of his WMDs. Charles
46 Schoenorama : "I don't get your point. He still hasn't lived up to the original demand of having to get rid of his WMDs" How do you know? Has Blix found any? Isn't
47 Cfalk : How do you know? Has Blix found any? Isn't that what these inspections are all about? As we keep telling you ad nauseum, it is up to Iraq to prove tha
48 Post contains images Marcus : Iraq DOES have weapons of mass destruction!.........period! How do we know?.......................easy! The US kept the sales receipts!
49 Schoenorama : CFalk: "The sanctions would have been lifted as soon as he proves the weapons have been destroyed. That was always the deal." It appears that Mr Bush
50 Strickerje : Contrary to your assertion, President Bush is ruining his political career by pushing so hard to fight Iraq. His approval ratings are sinking and his
51 N79969 : "How do you know? Has Blix found any? Isn't that what these inspections are all about?" This argument does not make sense. Implicit in it is that Sadd
52 Indianguy : The US kept the sales receipts! LOL! That was funneee! -Roy
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Bush Press Conference Today..Still No Mention Of.. posted Wed Oct 5 2005 00:11:56 by 102IAHexpress
Mourinho Outburst During Press Conference. posted Mon Feb 28 2005 12:36:42 by Thom@s
Bush Says No More Legacys....I Think! posted Mon Aug 9 2004 18:56:22 by Rsmith6621a
Prez Bushes Press Conference posted Wed Apr 14 2004 06:00:09 by Rsmith6621a
Stoops Press Conference Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha posted Sun Dec 7 2003 06:03:36 by Maiznblu_757
Bush Agrees To More Inspectors posted Sat Mar 15 2003 16:37:25 by Illini_152
Bush Thinks Afghans More Important Than Americans! posted Sun Sep 16 2001 03:52:28 by DeltaOwnsAll
More Troops For Iraq? Bush Ignores. posted Fri Sep 29 2006 22:00:38 by ArtieFufkin
Poll: More Americans Blame Bush For 9-11 posted Tue Sep 12 2006 20:57:24 by Rammstein
Latest News Conference By President Bush posted Tue Mar 21 2006 17:02:53 by Luv2fly