On 23 Feb 2023 19:47:00 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:

>>> Hussein set out to convince the world he had WMDs, and he succeeded.
>>
>> Why is everything you just said untrue? I know you've
>> done that, but I don't know why.
>
>That's a very strong statement you just made, please give your evidence!
>That the liberal conspiracy theory that Bush lied is incorrect seems pretty
>straightforward.

The essential problem in 2003 is that the United States defined
"weapons of mass destruction" as nukes, poison gas and biological
weapons while the rest of the world omitted poison gas.

If you accept the US definition then there's no question Hussein used
poison gas both against the Kurds and the Iranians.

If you don't then you wonder why the US thought war with Iraq a good
thing.

Bush 41 wrote a published article on why he did not go to Baghdad in
1991. While it's NOT reasonable to expect any successive president to
have read every article published by a former president it's a bit
less reasonable when the article is authored by one's own father!

https://archive.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/169-history/36409.html

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 04:45:34 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <5e6feffc-f92c-4230-b1a4-8212005a3c02n@googlegroups.com>,
>Johnny1A <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> wrote:
>>America should not want Ukraine to joint NATO, either, though _saying_
>>that officially might be impolitic. Committing to unlimited defense of
>>a state right next door to a hostile nuclear power would create a flash
>>point for potential catastrophe.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey. Soon to add Finland
>and Sweden. What's one more?

While I agree with what you're saying Sweden doesn't border Russia.
Poland doesn't either unless you include Kaliningrad. Lithuania
doesn't either though they border Belarus and we all know who invaded
Ukraine partially through Belarus.

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 10:22:57 AM UTC+11, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 03:21:53 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
> <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>
> >>Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine now, he wants _all_ of Ukraine down the road, for a
> >>variety of emotional and pragmatic reasons.
> My personal view of Putin is that the only thing unclear on his
> intentions is whether he wants a new Soviet Union made up of 12
> republics or 15 (e.g. whether he wants the Baltic states).
>
> And that that will remain his goal as long as he has breath or is
> otherwise removed from office.
>
> >Misquoting Mel Brooks:
> >
> >"A little piece of Ukraine
> >A little piece of Estonia
> >A little piece of Kazakhstan..."
> >
> >(Dang, can't make that scan with names of countries liberated
> >from the Evil Empire(TM) three decades ago.)
>
> Good try with the rhyme. If you can't get it to work try the old
> Gilbert + Sullivan tune "I am the very model of a modern major
> general" - it seems to be more frequently parodied!
>
> (I'm assuming you were trying to parody "A little bit of Monica" which
> I never EVER sang at home since that was my late wife's name and would
> certainly make me a battered husband)

No, he's parodying this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64DCO2sI7fI

From the Mel Brooks movie "To Be Or Not To Be". You're thinking of Lou Bega's one hit wonder "Mambo No. 5".

-Moriarty

In article <g5fqvhhmt289pgtnpp5bbq4oki2ita69b6@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 04:45:34 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>In article <5e6feffc-f92c-4230-b1a4-8212005a3c02n@googlegroups.com>,
>>Johnny1A <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>America should not want Ukraine to joint NATO, either, though _saying_
>>>that officially might be impolitic. Committing to unlimited defense of
>>>a state right next door to a hostile nuclear power would create a flash
>>>point for potential catastrophe.
>>
>>(Hal Heydt)
>>Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey. Soon to add Finland
>>and Sweden. What's one more?
>
>While I agree with what you're saying Sweden doesn't border Russia.
>Poland doesn't either unless you include Kaliningrad. Lithuania
>doesn't either though they border Belarus and we all know who invaded
>Ukraine partially through Belarus.

(Hal Heydt)
Russia includes Kaliningrad, and Lithuania borders it, as well as
Belarus, which is likely to be "part" of Russia in the not too
distant future unless one or both of Putin and Lukashenko depart
the scene.

On 2/27/2023 3:22 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 03:21:53 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
> <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>
>>> Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine now, he wants _all_ of Ukraine down the road, for a
>>> variety of emotional and pragmatic reasons.
>
> My personal view of Putin is that the only thing unclear on his
> intentions is whether he wants a new Soviet Union made up of 12
> republics or 15 (e.g. whether he wants the Baltic states).
>
He wants the Baltic states. He wants _anywhere_ that at any point in
Russian history was part of or controlled by Russia to be part of Russia
again.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 12:12:06 PM UTC-7, Johnny1A wrote:

> America should not want Ukraine to joint NATO, either, though _saying_ that
> officially might be impolitic. Committing to unlimited defense of a state right
> next door to a hostile nuclear power would create a flash point for potential
> catastrophe.

1) Estonia. Latvia. Lithuania. The horse has already sailed through that
barn door.

2) Had Ukraine been in NATO in 2014, in my opinion exactly nothing would
have happened. No invasions, no World War III. It's the current situation, where
Ukraine was _not_ in NATO that led Putin to think, mistakenly, that he could get
away with the invasion and conquest of Ukraine, thus bringing the world close
to war.

John Savard

On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 12:35:10 AM UTC-7, Johnny1A wrote:

> But after 1989, a good case can be made that NATO should
> have refrained from much of its eastward expansion, precisely
> because the RF is not the USSR and the member-states are not
> going to behave as if it was.

Between 1989 and 2008, NATO could have had other jobs in
connection with world peace - particularly after September 11, 2001.

But by 2008, it was clear that the Russian Federation was a non-democratic
nation willing to commit aggression against its neighbors. Hence, it *is*
the same as the USSR in every way that counts.

Oh, there is _one_ important difference. It doesn't preach world revolution
to overthrow captialism. So Big Business doesn't view Putin as an
existential threat - just like they didn't think that Hitler and Mussolini were
really worth worrying about. Right up until Pearl Harbor.

Neither Henry Ford nor Charles Lindbergh ever faced consequences - *unlike*
the many victims of McCarthyism.

This is also the reason the United States was sluggish in recognizing the
threat Vladimir Putin posed. After the dust settled in Crimea, the rest of
Ukraine should have been in a bilateral defense relationship with the U.S.
equivalent to NATO membership as swiftly as possible to prevent any
future trouble in the region.

If it is crystal clear, so that even Putin can understand it, that the only
thing he will gain from invading Ukraine is World War III, he wouldn't
invade Ukraine.

John Savard

On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 12:18:10 AM UTC-7, Johnny1A wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 11:43:40 PM UTC-6, Hamish Laws wrote:

> > You might want to refresh your neuron about who lied about Iraq...
>
> It wasn't Bush.
>
> Hussein set out to convince the world he had WMDs, and he succeeded.

I basically agree with you on this one.

John Savard

On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 6:18:52 AM UTC-7, Hamish Laws wrote:

> Utter bullshit, the Bush administration wanted a pretext
> to invade so they pushed flimsy, ancient and completely
> discredited evidence as reliable.

Just before the invasion of Iraq, I remember seeing on
CNN how when UN weapons inspectors were going somewhere,
Iraqis raced ahead to warn them.

Therefore, Iraq hindered and obstructed the work of UN
weapons inspectors, instead of 100% cooperation with them,
as was required by the peace settlement after the invasion of
Kuwait.

While the CIA had advised Bush that it was unlikely that
Iraq actually had WMDs, it was unable to assure him that
it was 100% impossible for them to have WMDs.

So the invasion of Iraq was legitimate, as it violated the terms
of the continued existence of its regime, and it was, in my
opinion, a reasonable exercise of the discretion vested in the
President of the United States, on the principle that _any_
possibility of Iraq having WMDs that could reach Israel was
completely intolerable.

Thus, I don't agree with the "Bush lied" camp.

Of course, my approach to foreign policy is: Israelis are
people, Ukranians are people, and so you should behave
as though any attack on either is an attack on New Jersey.
Which makes me an incredible hawk.

John Savard

In article <ttjh0t$3crgk$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 2/27/2023 3:22 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 03:21:53 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
>> <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine now, he
>wants _all_ of Ukraine down the road, for a
>>>> variety of emotional and pragmatic reasons.
>>
>> My personal view of Putin is that the only thing unclear on his
>> intentions is whether he wants a new Soviet Union made up of 12
>> republics or 15 (e.g. whether he wants the Baltic states).
>>
>He wants the Baltic states. He wants _anywhere_ that at any point in
>Russian history was part of or controlled by Russia to be part of Russia
>again.

(Hal Heydt)
Which would mean that he also wants (the rest) of (the Grand
Duchy of) Finland.

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 8:25:28 PM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <ttjh0t$3crgk$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >On 2/27/2023 3:22 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> >> On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 03:21:53 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
> >> <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine now, he
> >wants _all_ of Ukraine down the road, for a
> >>>> variety of emotional and pragmatic reasons.
> >>
> >> My personal view of Putin is that the only thing unclear on his
> >> intentions is whether he wants a new Soviet Union made up of 12
> >> republics or 15 (e.g. whether he wants the Baltic states).
> >>
> >He wants the Baltic states. He wants _anywhere_ that at any point in
> >Russian history was part of or controlled by Russia to be part of Russia
> >again.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> Which would mean that he also wants (the rest) of (the Grand
> Duchy of) Finland.

And most certainly NOT the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. Even Putin
knows not to mess with them.
- Tony

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 21:51:23 -0800, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

>In article <rqInvy.Eut@kithrup.com>,
> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>> In article <5e6feffc-f92c-4230-b1a4-8212005a3c02n@googlegroups.com>,
>> Johnny1A <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >America should not want Ukraine to joint NATO, either, though _saying_
>> >that officially might be impolitic. Committing to unlimited defense of
>> >a state right next door to a hostile nuclear power would create a flash
>> >point for potential catastrophe.
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey. Soon to add Finland
>> and Sweden. What's one more?
>
>You skipped Norway (BTW, Sweden doesn't border Russia).

Presumably because he was talking about newer members of NATO and
Norway was a charter member back in the stone ages when Stalin still
ruled the Soviet Union.

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 10:13:18 -0800, BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> wrote:

>On 2/22/23 21:51, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> In article <rqInvy.Eut@kithrup.com>,
>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>
>It is a very small border, but it is there. When landing at Vardo, you
>used to have to fly over the USSR to make the turn to line up with the
>runway.

Which the Soviets probably charged a bundle for.

Cathay Pacific NYC -> Hong Kong (via Vancouver which I flew 20 or more
times) flew offshore down the east coast of Russia and China and on
one of my flights they flew overland as they announced there was a
typhoon just offshore along our usual route.

It was a bit unnerving since a look at the map on the seat ahead of us
showed that we were flying more or less over the direct route of
Korean Air flight 007 and we all knew what happened to THEM.

(The flight steward told us what Cathay Pacific had had to pay both
Russia and China for the privilege and it was obvious they couldn't
afford to pay THAT very often as they would either fly below their
cost or would soon be raising prices)

On 2023-02-27, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> The essential problem in 2003 is that the United States defined
> "weapons of mass destruction" as nukes, poison gas and biological
> weapons while the rest of the world omitted poison gas.
>
> If you accept the US definition then there's no question Hussein used
> poison gas both against the Kurds and the Iranians.

The last time you claimed this, I gave you contrary cites. I repeat,
do you have evidence to back this up?

At that time I had seen lots of British and a couple of Italian press
stories which disagreed with you, as well as the UN. (Tough to find
other foreign press stories in English.) Any report of the British
opinion of WMDS should give you cites. Eg
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/spy-agencies-flawed-information-saddam-wmds-iraq-chilcot

I append your earlier article, which my response directly refuted (I thought):

Chris

On 2022-05-21, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On 19 May 2022 03:21:30 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>
>>You do realize that Bill Clinton supported the war declaration and has
>>stated that Bush went to war out of a genuine belief that large quantities
>>of weapons of mass destruction remain unaccounted for.
>
> The catch is that the United States has always used a different
> definition of "weapons of mass destruction" than the rest of the
> world.
>
> Most of the world defines WMD's as "nukes + biological warfare"
> whereas the United States defines WMD's as "nukes + biological warfare
> + poison gas" and specifically with respect to Iraq under Saddam
> Hussein Iraq HAD used poison gas against both the Kurds and Iranians.
>
> (Hell, Saddam used gas against the Iranians almost all of the 1980-88
> period)
>
> Thus in 2003 there was absolutely no question that Iraq met the US
> definition of "users of WMDs" but not the definition used by anybody
> else since the evidence that Iraq had made significant steps towards
> nukes just wasn't there.
>
> Which is basically the argument made by Rep. Edward Kennedy Jr. (e.g.
> JFK's nephew not his brother) in 2003.
>
> The difference in definitions made a huge difference in the
> contraversy over going to war.

I don't see anything to support your definitions and claims. It is
certainly not what I remember from the era. Lots of European
(British, Italian) uses of chemical weapons as WMD. Do you have
cites?

eg UN
https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/
UNODA provides substantive support in the area of the disarmament of
weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical and biological weapons).

eg Kennedy
https://www.emkinstitute.org/resources/speech-against-invasion-iraq
And the Administration has offered no persuasive evidence that Saddam
would transfer chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction to
Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization.
He seems to be calling them WMD here.

Chris

In article <9t9rvhp9p7lop698s79rlofpkeogv5nngc@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 21:51:23 -0800, Robert Woodward
> <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <rqInvy.Eut@kithrup.com>,
> > djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <5e6feffc-f92c-4230-b1a4-8212005a3c02n@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Johnny1A <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >America should not want Ukraine to joint NATO, either, though _saying_
> >> >that officially might be impolitic. Committing to unlimited defense of
> >> >a state right next door to a hostile nuclear power would create a flash
> >> >point for potential catastrophe.
> >>
> >> (Hal Heydt)
> >> Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey. Soon to add Finland
> >> and Sweden. What's one more?
> >
> >You skipped Norway (BTW, Sweden doesn't border Russia).
>
> Presumably because he was talking about newer members of NATO and
> Norway was a charter member back in the stone ages when Stalin still
> ruled the Soviet Union.

While Turkey wasn't a charter member, it joined in 1952 while Stalin was
still alive.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 00:44:34 UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 6:18:52 AM UTC-7, Hamish Laws wrote:
>
> > Utter bullshit, the Bush administration wanted a pretext
> > to invade so they pushed flimsy, ancient and completely
> > discredited evidence as reliable.
> Just before the invasion of Iraq, I remember seeing on
> CNN how when UN weapons inspectors were going somewhere,
> Iraqis raced ahead to warn them.
>
> Therefore, Iraq hindered and obstructed the work of UN
> weapons inspectors, instead of 100% cooperation with them,
> as was required by the peace settlement after the invasion of
> Kuwait.
>
> While the CIA had advised Bush that it was unlikely that
> Iraq actually had WMDs, it was unable to assure him that
> it was 100% impossible for them to have WMDs.
>
> So the invasion of Iraq was legitimate, as it violated the terms
> of the continued existence of its regime, and it was, in my
> opinion, a reasonable exercise of the discretion vested in the
> President of the United States, on the principle that _any_
> possibility of Iraq having WMDs that could reach Israel was
> completely intolerable.
>
> Thus, I don't agree with the "Bush lied" camp.

Bush lied. And murdered. And I don't think you are
in possession of objective reporting on Iraq from the CIA.

On 2023-02-28, Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 00:44:34 UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 6:18:52 AM UTC-7, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>
>> > Utter bullshit, the Bush administration wanted a pretext
>> > to invade so they pushed flimsy, ancient and completely
>> > discredited evidence as reliable.
>> Just before the invasion of Iraq, I remember seeing on
>> CNN how when UN weapons inspectors were going somewhere,
>> Iraqis raced ahead to warn them.
>>
>> Therefore, Iraq hindered and obstructed the work of UN
>> weapons inspectors, instead of 100% cooperation with them,
>> as was required by the peace settlement after the invasion of
>> Kuwait.
>>
>> While the CIA had advised Bush that it was unlikely that
>> Iraq actually had WMDs, it was unable to assure him that
>> it was 100% impossible for them to have WMDs.
>>
>> So the invasion of Iraq was legitimate, as it violated the terms
>> of the continued existence of its regime, and it was, in my
>> opinion, a reasonable exercise of the discretion vested in the
>> President of the United States, on the principle that _any_
>> possibility of Iraq having WMDs that could reach Israel was
>> completely intolerable.
>>
>> Thus, I don't agree with the "Bush lied" camp.
>
> Bush lied. And murdered. And I don't think you are
> in possession of objective reporting on Iraq from the CIA.

How did Bush lie? Give your evidence, without referring to all the
liberal conspiracy theories which you seem to believe.

The CIA NEVER advised Bush that "it was unlikely that Iraq actually
had WMDs". They were certain Iraq did.

They were certain (along with all the Western intelligence agencies)
that Iraq had chemical WMDS.

At the time of the war debate (fall 2002) they were certain that
Iraq was pursuing biological WMDs. They only had one source themselves,
but had independent confirmation from the Italian and German agencies.
By 2003 however, they discovered that the Italian and German evidence
all came from the sole same source that the CIA had, so they withdrew
their certainty claim.

At the time of the war debate, the CIA was indeed uncertain that Iraq
was pursuing nuclear WMDs (but couldn't rule it out.) That fact was
known to Bush and to all the top Democrats. Bush did not push nuclear
WMDs as a reason for war. Others did, both Republican and Democrat
(Dem. John Kerry was vocally pushing for invasion on those grounds and
had read the report which included the CIA opinion.)

Read the Robb-Silberman Commission (US investigation). It's 100 pages of
what was known when.
https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/wmd/report/report.html#overview

Chris

Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>On 2023-02-28, Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 00:44:34 UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 6:18:52 AM UTC-7, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>>
>>> > Utter bullshit, the Bush administration wanted a pretext
>>> > to invade so they pushed flimsy, ancient and completely
>>> > discredited evidence as reliable.
>>> Just before the invasion of Iraq, I remember seeing on
>>> CNN how when UN weapons inspectors were going somewhere,
>>> Iraqis raced ahead to warn them.
>>>
>>> Therefore, Iraq hindered and obstructed the work of UN
>>> weapons inspectors, instead of 100% cooperation with them,
>>> as was required by the peace settlement after the invasion of
>>> Kuwait.
>>>
>>> While the CIA had advised Bush that it was unlikely that
>>> Iraq actually had WMDs, it was unable to assure him that
>>> it was 100% impossible for them to have WMDs.
>>>
>>> So the invasion of Iraq was legitimate, as it violated the terms
>>> of the continued existence of its regime, and it was, in my
>>> opinion, a reasonable exercise of the discretion vested in the
>>> President of the United States, on the principle that _any_
>>> possibility of Iraq having WMDs that could reach Israel was
>>> completely intolerable.
>>>
>>> Thus, I don't agree with the "Bush lied" camp.
>>
>> Bush lied. And murdered. And I don't think you are
>> in possession of objective reporting on Iraq from the CIA.
>
>How did Bush lie?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/ari-fleischer-iraq-lies-george-w-bush-wmds

In article <99c8940a-f1d2-4082-bdf3-52ff02e0c3e4n@googlegroups.com>,
Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> wrote:
>> (I'm assuming you were trying to parody "A little bit of Monica" which
>> I never EVER sang at home since that was my late wife's name and would
>> certainly make me a battered husband)
>
>No, he's parodying this:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64DCO2sI7fI
>
>From the Mel Brooks movie "To Be Or Not To Be". You're thinking of Lou Bega's one hit wonder "Mambo No. 5".

Yep, that's the one. Youtube says the video at that link is no longer
available. This one is at the moment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64DCO2sI7fI

--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

In article <k67c7bF550U1@mid.individual.net>,
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>The CIA NEVER advised Bush that "it was unlikely that Iraq actually
>had WMDs". They were certain Iraq did.
>
>They were certain (along with all the Western intelligence agencies)
>that Iraq had chemical WMDS.

Not only that, many Iraqi soldiers were certain Iraq had them.
They were equipped with CW suits, and when captured, said "We
don't have the poison gas, but that next division over does."

--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

On 2023-02-28, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>On 2023-02-28, Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 00:44:34 UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 6:18:52 AM UTC-7, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Utter bullshit, the Bush administration wanted a pretext
>>>> > to invade so they pushed flimsy, ancient and completely
>>>> > discredited evidence as reliable.
>>>> Just before the invasion of Iraq, I remember seeing on
>>>> CNN how when UN weapons inspectors were going somewhere,
>>>> Iraqis raced ahead to warn them.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, Iraq hindered and obstructed the work of UN
>>>> weapons inspectors, instead of 100% cooperation with them,
>>>> as was required by the peace settlement after the invasion of
>>>> Kuwait.
>>>>
>>>> While the CIA had advised Bush that it was unlikely that
>>>> Iraq actually had WMDs, it was unable to assure him that
>>>> it was 100% impossible for them to have WMDs.
>>>>
>>>> So the invasion of Iraq was legitimate, as it violated the terms
>>>> of the continued existence of its regime, and it was, in my
>>>> opinion, a reasonable exercise of the discretion vested in the
>>>> President of the United States, on the principle that _any_
>>>> possibility of Iraq having WMDs that could reach Israel was
>>>> completely intolerable.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, I don't agree with the "Bush lied" camp.
>>>
>>> Bush lied. And murdered. And I don't think you are
>>> in possession of objective reporting on Iraq from the CIA.
>>
>>How did Bush lie?
>
> https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/ari-fleischer-iraq-lies-george-w-bush-wmds

Vox is one of the more biased news sources out there. The majority of
this story is pure nonsense.

Please tell me why *you* believe Bush lied and give the evidence for it.
You can certainly start with the incidents in the Vox story, but give
the primary evidence that shows Bush lied.

Chris

On 28 Feb 2023 22:06:35 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:

>On 2023-02-28, Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 00:44:34 UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 6:18:52?AM UTC-7, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>>
>>> > Utter bullshit, the Bush administration wanted a pretext
>>> > to invade so they pushed flimsy, ancient and completely
>>> > discredited evidence as reliable.
>>> Just before the invasion of Iraq, I remember seeing on
>>> CNN how when UN weapons inspectors were going somewhere,
>>> Iraqis raced ahead to warn them.
>>>
>>> Therefore, Iraq hindered and obstructed the work of UN
>>> weapons inspectors, instead of 100% cooperation with them,
>>> as was required by the peace settlement after the invasion of
>>> Kuwait.
>>>
>>> While the CIA had advised Bush that it was unlikely that
>>> Iraq actually had WMDs, it was unable to assure him that
>>> it was 100% impossible for them to have WMDs.
>>>
>>> So the invasion of Iraq was legitimate, as it violated the terms
>>> of the continued existence of its regime, and it was, in my
>>> opinion, a reasonable exercise of the discretion vested in the
>>> President of the United States, on the principle that _any_
>>> possibility of Iraq having WMDs that could reach Israel was
>>> completely intolerable.
>>>
>>> Thus, I don't agree with the "Bush lied" camp.
>>
>> Bush lied. And murdered. And I don't think you are
>> in possession of objective reporting on Iraq from the CIA.
>
>How did Bush lie? Give your evidence, without referring to all the
>liberal conspiracy theories which you seem to believe.
>
>The CIA NEVER advised Bush that "it was unlikely that Iraq actually
>had WMDs". They were certain Iraq did.
>
>They were certain (along with all the Western intelligence agencies)
>that Iraq had chemical WMDS.
>
>At the time of the war debate (fall 2002) they were certain that
>Iraq was pursuing biological WMDs. They only had one source themselves,
>but had independent confirmation from the Italian and German agencies.
>By 2003 however, they discovered that the Italian and German evidence
>all came from the sole same source that the CIA had, so they withdrew
>their certainty claim.
>
>At the time of the war debate, the CIA was indeed uncertain that Iraq
>was pursuing nuclear WMDs (but couldn't rule it out.) That fact was
>known to Bush and to all the top Democrats. Bush did not push nuclear
>WMDs as a reason for war. Others did, both Republican and Democrat
>(Dem. John Kerry was vocally pushing for invasion on those grounds and
>had read the report which included the CIA opinion.)
>
>Read the Robb-Silberman Commission (US investigation). It's 100 pages of
>what was known when.
>https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/wmd/report/report.html#overview

Considering Cheney's cherry-picking intel that fit the narrative, that
is hardly surprising.

There are lots of ways to lie -- and controlling the source of
information is one of them.

And delegating the dirty work to Cheney does /not/ exclude Bush. As
the Chief Executive he, like any commander, is responsible for any
misbehavior done by his subordinates.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 10:02:13 -0800, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

>In article <9t9rvhp9p7lop698s79rlofpkeogv5nngc@4ax.com>,
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 21:51:23 -0800, Robert Woodward
>> <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <rqInvy.Eut@kithrup.com>,
>> > djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <5e6feffc-f92c-4230-b1a4-8212005a3c02n@googlegroups.com>,
>> >> Johnny1A <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >America should not want Ukraine to joint NATO, either, though _saying_
>> >> >that officially might be impolitic. Committing to unlimited defense of
>> >> >a state right next door to a hostile nuclear power would create a flash
>> >> >point for potential catastrophe.
>> >>
>> >> (Hal Heydt)
>> >> Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey. Soon to add Finland
>> >> and Sweden. What's one more?
>> >
>> >You skipped Norway (BTW, Sweden doesn't border Russia).
>>
>> Presumably because he was talking about newer members of NATO and
>> Norway was a charter member back in the stone ages when Stalin still
>> ruled the Soviet Union.
>
>While Turkey wasn't a charter member, it joined in 1952 while Stalin was
>still alive.

Good catch.

But the original claim (that Ukraine joining NATO would somehow ignite
Global Thermonuclear War because it would put NATO right next to
Russia) is clearly wrong. NATO has been next to Russia a long time
now.

Tsar Vladimir IV (I think there were three prior Russian rulers of
that name, although I must say that
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_monarchs] is not very
user-friendly), aka Putin, has followed Tsar Peter the Great into
madness.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 1:19:08 PM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 00:44:34 UTC, Quadibloc wrote:

> > While the CIA had advised Bush that it was unlikely that
> > Iraq actually had WMDs, it was unable to assure him that
> > it was 100% impossible for them to have WMDs.

> Bush lied. And murdered. And I don't think you are
> in possession of objective reporting on Iraq from the CIA.

I'm basing my statement about what the CIA told Bush
on what was claimed by the individual whose leak from
the CIA first started people claiming that Bush lied.

Based directly on what Valerie Plame said, which led people to that
conclusion, it is clear that Bush indeed could make a case for
what he did, even despite what she revealed.

John Savard

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 11:06:00 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 10:02:13 -0800, Robert Woodward
> <robe...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <9t9rvhp9p7lop698s...@4ax.com>,
> > The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 21:51:23 -0800, Robert Woodward
> >> <robe...@drizzle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <rqInv...@kithrup.com>,
> >> > djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <5e6feffc-f92c-4230...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> Johnny1A <johnny1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >America should not want Ukraine to joint NATO, either, though _saying_
> >> >> >that officially might be impolitic. Committing to unlimited defense of
> >> >> >a state right next door to a hostile nuclear power would create a flash
> >> >> >point for potential catastrophe.
> >> >>
> >> >> (Hal Heydt)
> >> >> Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey. Soon to add Finland
> >> >> and Sweden. What's one more?
> >> >
> >> >You skipped Norway (BTW, Sweden doesn't border Russia).
> >>
> >> Presumably because he was talking about newer members of NATO and
> >> Norway was a charter member back in the stone ages when Stalin still
> >> ruled the Soviet Union.
> >
> >While Turkey wasn't a charter member, it joined in 1952 while Stalin was
> >still alive.
> Good catch.
>
> But the original claim (that Ukraine joining NATO would somehow ignite
> Global Thermonuclear War because it would put NATO right next to
> Russia) is clearly wrong. NATO has been next to Russia a long time
> now.

Yes, but adding _more_ places where the two sides abut directly is still a bad idea. Especially when Ukraine is more likely than most to find themselves embroiled in war with Russia.