JMS speaks out on Iraq

Touchy subject. There's no topic to cover this, so perhaps without discussing it at all, no one is really interested in having one. Yet, it's on everyone's mind, and one could say that the activity here on the board has diminished a bit as our thoughts are elsewhere. So, you can read and comment (or not) about it or JMS's stand on it.

Pro or against, keep good thoughts for those over there fighting under orders. And if you get a chance, send baby-wipes. The fine dust of the desert gets everywhere

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ April 02, 2003 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Wizz ]</font>

<font face="georgia">In all the tossing around of facts concerning the Iraq war, there are some that keep being forgotten. Yes, Saddam is a thug, and his country would likely (though not provably) be improved by his removal. That's not contested. But there are any other number of countries about which the same thing could be said. Now having pointed out that...

1) There has never been one shred of evidence connecting Saddam to 9/11. Not one. The CIA made a point of saying this, even Bush has never said anything to the contrary. There are far more threads connecting Saudia Arabia to 9/11 than Iraq, but we are not going after them.

2) The use of gas against his own people, a hideous act by anyone's measure (and similar acts have been done by other leaders in other countries against their own people), but after it happened 13 years ago, Rumsfeld, under Bush Senior, went to Iraq with $1.2 billion additional aid to support the regime. If it was okay then for our administration, under one Bush, to have it suddenly being the reason for this action under the second Bush seems to be rather arbitrary.

3) The CIA's assessment of Iraq's capabilities, in published reports, has indicated very clearly that Iraq (which has never directly threatened the US, unlike North Korea) would almost certainly NOT attack the US unless it were backed into a corner by invasion.

4) Those who compare Iraq with WW2 Germany ignore the basic historical facts at stake: Europe sat back and did little during the time when Germany was building the mightiest war machine in human history, tens of thousands of tanks, planes, cannons, on and on. But Iraq has only a quarter or so of what was once its military, and as we see now nightly on the news, their soldiers are poorly equipped and barely fed. Not one single Iraqi plane has been launched in response to the invasion. We basically pulverize their cities with absolute impunity. We'll spend $400 billion this year on the military, Iraq generally spends about $1.4 billion. So the situations between Germany and Iraq are simply not comparable at any two contiguous points.

5) If there were WMD present in Iraq, they're certainly taking their time using them in defense against a force set out to level their cities and depose their rulers. Which only serves to reinforce the prospect that such weapons are not there in any useable fashion.

It seems to me that we're attacking Iraq because we know they *don't* have the weapons to oppose us, and *not* attacking North Korea because we know they *do* have the weapons that could stop us.

Bush Sr., when asked why he stopped Gulf War I prior to taking down Saddam and going into Baghdad, said "It would turn the entire Arab world against us." If that were true then, why is it not true now?

The policy of containment and isolation has worked for these many years, there was no apparent need for invasion except for the purposes the Adminisration seems to have in its back pocket, a desire to control a massive oil reserve and re-draw the map of the middle east in ways that will serve better American interests.

Bottom line...was it worth all this to achieve the goal? Seventy-four billion dollars, hundreds of lives, the wrath of the huge sections of the Arab world who now believe we are what people have -- wrongly, until now -- said we were, a force for colonization and invasion, in this case into a country that we will have to occupy and run for years (according to the latest estimates from the administration), causing destabalization across the whole region?

Was this one man worth all this, when there was so little imminent or plausible threat?

I think history will say the answer to that question is no.

jms
<hr>
Something which may shed some light on this discussion...direct from the Senate floor, a while back....

jms</font>

----------------------

<font face="verdana">Senate Remarks by Robert C. Byrd


March 19, 2003


"The Arrogance of Power"


I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength.

But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.

Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.

We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split. After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe.

The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.

There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.

The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses.

But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.

The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange alert." There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home? A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.

What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?

Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?

War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail. I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland. May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us.

<hr></font><font face="georgia">
1) There has never been one shred of evidence connecting Saddam to 9/11.

<font color="blue">Granted. The connections made seem to all be on the side of what *could* happen.</font>

But don't you understand how blatantly this flies in the face of everything this coiuntry has stood for, for over two hundred years? We're striking first, to take out a sovereign nation because it MIGHT be a threat in the future. Hell, there are DOZENS of countries out there that *might* be a threat, that have *also* violated or ignored UN resolutions, do we go around bombing and invading *all* of them?

This is the first time we have pre-emptively invaded a nation like this. And what kind of precedent are we setting? What's to stop China now from saying "We think Taiwan is a potential threat to our interests, so we're going in after them"? Iran's firing up its nuclear program in violation of prior agreements, so are they next in line?

For as many ups and downs as we've had as a nation, what always distinguished us in the past was that we tried to take the high ground, to speak with something at least approximating the voice of moral authority, leading by example. We have utterly shrugged that aside with this action.

<font color="blue">As far as Saudi Arabia, I think it's a determined goal of this administration to very politely and indirectly obviate them. A non-OPEC Iraq with a represenative elected government would be something to see. And who can say that they're not "next?"</font>

Okay, so Saudia Arabia is next, then Iran, Syria, North Korea...by you this is okay?

<font color="blue">There are a few points of continuity in the comparison worth pointing out: Saddam and Hitler both ran thier countries and oppressed their minorities with frightening brutality. They both started dubious wars for reasons of empire building. They were both well organized and systematic about their programs of oppression.</font>

We can both name a dozen countries about which the same can be said.

<font color="blue">They both organized networks of informers and institutions to balance possible threats against each other rather than against the leader. </font>

Taken a look at what Ashcroft's been up to lately? Project TIPS, investigations into libraries to see who's been reading what (the National Library Association reported that nearly 20% of their librarians had been asked to provide this information to the government, and had complied.)

<font color="blue">Matter of fact one of the arguments I've heard about preempting Iraq the way we're doing it is so that it would never get to be like the situation from North Korea</font>

Again, a pre-emptive war is against every democratic principle this country has fought and bled for, for centuries.

<font color="blue">which in spite of its desperate need for butter, keeps making guns and letting the people starve.</font>

And here in the US, $400 billion is being spent on the military just this year, while social programs that feed and clothe the homeless, that help malnourished children, are being cut back to make room for the war machine.

<font color="blue">It is true now. The difference is today the U.S. doesn't really care what kind of hate Islamicists (not Muslims, Islamicists) can drum up, now that we've decided to come for them all.</font>

And if that isn't the most chilling thing I've read online in quite a while, I don't know what is.

No, wait, here it is...

...there was no apparent need for invasion except for the purposes the Adminisration seems to have in its back pocket, a desire to control a massive oil reserve and re-draw the map of the middle east in ways that will serve better American interests.

<font color="blue">Why this is a bad thing is a bit confusing to me. </font>

'Nuff said.

jms
<hr>
This is the first time we have pre-emptively invaded a nation like this. And what kind of precedent are we setting? What's to stop China now from saying "We think Taiwan is a potential threat to our interests, so we're going in after them"? Iran's firing up its nuclear program in violation of prior agreements, so are they next in line?

[/i]
<font color="blue">Preemptive military action has a number of historical precedents -- including American ones.</font>

Note that you've just changed the subejct. I was speaking to invading a nation. Not to generic "military action." Further to the point, none of your examples, offered below, address this question, none of them constitute invasions of a sovereign nation.

<font color="blue">In 1962 we instituted a naval blockade of Cuba to prevent Soviet weapons technology from reaching the island.</font>

1) Not an invasion. 2) This represented a direct threat against the US. But despite point 2, it still doesn't address the issue I raised concerning invading another nation.

<font color="blue">In 1967, Israel struck first at the Arab armies converging on their border. </font>

1) I wasn't talking about Israel. I was specifically referring to the first time in US history that we had pre-emptively invaded somebody. Stay with the subject, don't pettifog.
2) This was also not an invasion, so it's further irrelevant to the discussion.

<font color="blue">And in 1981 Israel destroyed Iraq's French-built nuclear reactor at Osirak, </font>

See 1 and 2 above.

My point remains. Your comments only help to reinforce it.

jms
<hr>
<font color="blue">...you were far, far more concilatory toward the previous administration:</font>

I go back and forth on this whole thing. On the one hand, I think the atrocities against the Albanian population *have* to be answered, and they *have* to be stopped, and the only voice the Serbian leaders seem to listen to is the voice of force. (Though so far that doesn't seem to have happened.)

<font color="blue">Where was the United Nations permission for that pre-emptive 79-day bombing campaign?</font>

1) Again, we're talking apples and cumquats, similar but not the same. First, a bombing is not an outright invasion. Second, there were people on the ground on both sides pleading for US intervention and assistance, even in the face of intimidation. But again, and primarily, it was NOT an invasion of a separate nation for the purposes of toppling a regime and installing one of our choosing. Saying it's the same doesn't make it so.

And here in the US, $400 billion is being spent on the military just this year, while social programs that feed and clothe the homeless, that help malnourished children, are being cut back to make room for the war machine.

<font color="blue">Hm.... Could you name one (1) such program on which fewer dollars are being spent this year than were spent previously? Slightly decreasing the exponential on the rate of increase doesn't count.</font>

Where have you *been* lately? There has been pretty widespread coverage of cuts in Medicaid and Project Head Start, just for starters. A memo from the Bush administration's health officials to hospitals about a month ago severly limiting the sorts of patients who should be treated under medicaid, and another memo from the Veteran's Administration to providors of VA health services stipulated that doctors should *not* make patients aware of services not currently being used by them in order to help reduce costs while the war is on.

The National Governor's Association met recently and said, quite loudly and clearly, both republicans and democrats alike, that the monies drained from their books by the needs of this administration and Homeland Security have resulted in severe cutbacks across the board in social services, with some even having to cut back on regular police force allocations. In Illinois, according to a variety of reports, the entire $2.5 million State of Illinois budget for AIDS minority outreach was wiped out in cuts directly related to the Homeland Security/war effort.

Bush economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey has been quite starightforward in talking about the need to cut back (or as he puts it, "streamline") social programs, education, health care, social security and housing. That great bastion of liberalism, the Wall Street Journal, has published any number of articles about how the administration is cutting social programs to pay for the war, most recently citing $574 million eliminated from the program to refurbish lower-income housing.

I could go on but it just gets freaking depressing after a while.

jms
<hr>
<font color="blue">There was a better way... see all Saddam had to do was comply with the United Nations resolutions, but he didn't...

This war is on Saddams shoulders... he had so many chances to prevent it, but chose not to.</font>

The problem, of course, is that Iraq would have to prove a negative, which is not possible. You cannot *prove* someone does not have WMD. If they looked in 95% of every spot in the country, they could aways say it was in the remaining 5%. Even Rumsfeld said "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."


jms
<hr>
Not at all. The US has virtually no allies in this invasion.

<font color="blue">Also not true, though by the "old" way of doing things our allies in this sort of look like we've restarted the Warsaw Pact with us in Russia's place. </font>

The humorous thing is that the actual numbers present quite another picture to this so-called "coalition." One recent published report, which had access to the final figures, noted that only 0.00842% of the troops are from countries other than US and Britain.

Here's the breakdown other than US and Britain:
Albania, is sending a contingency of 70 troops.
Poland, 200 troops
and Romania is sending 278.
Australia promises 2000 troops.
And that's the whole contingent of "coalition of the willing" troops.

So what about these other countries who keep being cited? How many troops are they contributing? According to the History News Network, the figures are:
Spain, 0 troops; Turkey, 0; Italy, 0; Denmark, 0; and Bulgaria, 0.

Puts the matter in kind of a different light, doesn't it?

jms
<hr>
BTW...there's a very intereasting article that shows just how much the current administration may have ignored warnings about the situation over in Iraq at:

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/5510092.htm

jms
<hr>
<font color="blue">*Really*? So you are about to get that knock on your door for speaking out?</font>

On the other hand, we are hearing about more and more cases of people being arrested for expressing an anti-war sentiment.

Most recent case in point, a father and son who were accosted by security at a shopping mall in Albany, NY, for wearing t-shirts that said GIVE PEACE A CHANCE, shirts that, btw, they had *bought* at that same mall the day before.

When the father refused to remove the t-shirt, he was arrested. There have been other cases of such arrests.

jms
<hr>

<font color="blue">As if the Senate is the fount of wisdom and philosophy on this stuff.</font>

Well, they are our elected reps, and they do form the basis for our government, so I think they have a say in this, don't you? Or do you think the president should run the whole show and everybody else should just shut up?

<font color="blue">Joe, you picked the one senator most easily bought by special interests.</font>

Checked the White House lately?

<font color="blue">I stopped listening to Byrd years ago.</font>

Too bad, because he's the one constitutional scholar that even the most conservative Republicans respect.

He was one of the first to speak out about the Lewinsky situation, however...and in not flattering terms to Clinton.

Have you ever considered knowing a bit more about your subject area?


jms
<HR>
<font color="blue">With that done, we could have adverted war. the actions of Blix, France, Germany, Russia and hollywood are the reason we are at war.</font>

That has got to be the biggest load of horseshit I have ever read on this group.

Do you *honestly* think, for even a second, that Bush would ever have walked away from this calmly? The administration did everything it could to hobble the inspectors and interfere with the process, which all of the inspectors noted repeatedly. They were given bad information by the CIA and other US intelligence organizations.

But the main thing is..it didn't matter what they were or weren't gonna find in Iraq. They were going in after Saddam regardless. They kept shifting reasons as times changed...first it was about terrorism, then it was about WMD, then it was about regime change, now it's about Iraqi Freedom, only to find that the Iraqis don't want the US there.

Rumsfeld, hours after 9/11, was asking his aides if there was any way to pin this on Saddam.

Bush wantedt his war, and he was determined to have it at any cost, for any reason. That was in the cards months ago. Anybody who thinks he was gonna just walk away quietly is living in a dream world.

jms
<hr>
<font color="blue">But...are you saying that every country who supports action in Iraq has to provide troops...that they are either for us (and submitting troops) or they are against us (and not submitting troops)? Ironic.</font>

It's been my experience that when someone says "are you saying that...?" it's actually the other person taking what you did say, rephrasing it into something you *didn't* say, for the purposes of refuting, diminishing or ridiculing it. Oldest debating trick in the world.

So: no, that's not what I'm saying. Someone asked if anybody had a count of who was contributing what. I provided said information. End of story.

The only irony present is the frequent use of "coalition forces" in pressreleases without much discussion about what that coalition actually comprises. Kinda makes it sound bigger and that more nations are actively involved than there really are. Sort of political resume padding....

jms

IMHO, JMS has long been so enamoured of his own legend that he believes his viewpoint to be the only valid one. I've noticed that for years -- any argument, even an intelligent one, is addressed as being stupid, arrogant, or ridiculous, and then he goes on to pontificate at length. He's been Hollywood-ized. It's too bad, but there you go. He's allowed to express himself, but just because he's famous doesn't make him smarter than anyone else, and he doesn't know nearly as much about the situation as he likes to think he does.

There are lots of bad people in the world, we can't go after all of them. There has to be a prioritization of threat made, then action taken. We elected our government officials to do that. They have better intel than we do.

Maybe we attacked Iraq because it's easier than attacking North Korea. I don't know. That North Korea is capable of inflicting much more devastation on their region than Iraq is, or was, is a truism. Maybe the president felt he needed, politically, to prosecute the war he had a snowball's chance in Hell of winning. However, speculation is pointless. We're there, the war is proceeding. Young people are dying. Innocents are dying. It's messy and terrible, and IMHO, necessary.

The comment about the guy and his son being arrested at a mall for wearing "Give Peace a Chance" T-shirts and presenting it as an attack on Freedom of Speech is specious. The mall security people overreacted, the mall management admitted to that. However, the mall is a private concern, not a government facility. They are not required to give anybody freedom of speech. They can arrest anyone they feel is being disruptive. It has nothing to do with the Constitution. An error in judgement, sure, but not a threat to anybody's constitutional rights.

JMS has a right to his opinion, he has a right to express it. But my opinion is, in matters of national security, past, present or future, he doesn't know what the frell he's talking about.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

<font face="georgia"><font color="blue">The oil fields are for the people of Iraq. I do and will continue to believe this until I am offered proof that this war is because of oil, and not because a madman has consistently flouted the will of the international community, and President Bush and others were unwilling to continue to wait for the UN to stop sitting on its collective thumb and do something. Oil companies in the US are already lining up to get their share of those resources, according to any number of articles on this. Also, the "for the people of Iraq" also includes paying for reconstruction. Who is going to be doing most of that reconstruction? American companies. </font>

Also, do bear in mind that the UN resolutions do *not* have the power of law. Any number of countries have routinely failed to obey UN resolutions, including allies.

<font color="blue">As for not hiring a shooter, they don't do it because of an executive order made by President Gerald Ford, which, IIRC, states that the USA will not sponsor the assassination of a foreign leader, regardless of whether or not we like him or her.</font>

Actually, I seem to recall reading that Bush rescinded this rule very early on.

jms

<hr>
Most recent case in point, a father and son who were accosted by security at a shopping mall in Albany, NY, for wearing t-shirts that said GIVE PEACE A CHANCE, shirts that, btw, they had *bought* at that same mall the day before.

<font color="blue">I said arrest, you say accost. In *Indiana*, the local climate is such that people don't make such protests on an individual basis - they are very much in the minority. If they have the right to speak their mind, so does everyone else, *right*?</font>

When the father refused to remove the t-shirt, he was arrested. There have been other cases of such arrests.

<font color="blue">What was the charge? I'm guessing, since I know a bit of the law, that they were asked to leave by Security, refused, and then arrested. You see, it *is* private property and many malls do not want customers starting fights over politics. The Mall owners, through their officers and security people, can expel anyone from the mall they wish. When people are told they must leave, I often see them arguing with security. Stupid move - the police will listen to the security guys first.

So I have to question the judgement of the idiot that got arrested.

This particualr arguement is weak, Joe. I can come up with a number of examples where other issues would force much the same thing. it's an example of somebody holding their right to speak above the property rights of others. That is not guaranteed. You have the right to free speech, but not in the mall if the mall's owner disagrees with you.</font>

No, that's not what happened. They were told that they could stay IF they removed the t-shirts. They were only told to leave after they refused to take off the shirts.

And again, I point out that the shirts they were wearing had been purchased AT THE SAME MALL the day before.

The police arrived, said you can't wear that shirt in here. The father -- who is not "an idiot" as you claim but a respected attorney in the area -- said no, that he was NOT engaged in a demonstration or a protest, only wearing a shirt and using his freedom of expression. They then arrested him.

jms
<hr>
<font color="blue">...the people getting arrested at protests/rallies are the ones who are disturbing the peace...ironically enough...while many others are free to protest as long as they like. </font>

The hypocrisy includes "penning" people with anti-Bush signs, while allowing pro-Bush crowds to throng wherever they like. People with protest signs are herded into areas where they can't be seen by cameras or by Bush supporters, in flagrant violation of their rights, while others -- often far more noisy and intrusive -- are allowed to assemble wherever they want. This is the first time this kind of constant penning of dissenting opinions has been done this flagrantly.

And for those who always say "cite your source" on these things, you can find one at:

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/13/Co...ms_unabl.shtml

jms
<hr>
<font color="blue">I refer you to the site "Free Mike Hawash" at http://www.freemikehawash.org/. This man is being held without charge in federal prison as a "material witness." A "material witness" for what, no one outside of the Justice Department knows...</font>

This is one of the more troubling trends of late. Anybody can, for any reason, be declared a "material witness" or a person of interest, and held without access to attorneys, judges, family members or anyone else, for an indeterminate period of time. This includes US citizens. We have no idea how many people are being held, or why, or for how long.

The only hints we *do* get are when people are finally released for lack of any kind of evidence, which a few were last month, but this only after being held in captivity for *months*.


jms
([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)

<font face="georgia"><font color="blue">I do have a question though, is there any development that would cause you to change your mind and support the war in Iraq?</font>

If there were clear, compelling evidence that there was an attack in the works, or if an attack had been launched against us. So far neither has been the case.

And here's another thing...we're now in the last phases of the battle. The military has now searched many of the places where chemical or other WMD were supposed to be kept, finding nothing.

Those weapons were, at one time, the whole reason for the attack (before it became more about regime change in the constantly changing story from the Bush administration).

Neither have these alleged weapons been used.

So we have here a very odd situation.

If those weapons are there, then we have a scenario in which the Iraqi government, even knowing their days are numbered, have deliberately chosen not to use those weapons...which puts the allegation of their intended use into grave doubt.

Or those weapons are not there...which puts the whole justification of the war in grave doubt.

So which is it?

Look at the war...we were told that Iraq represents a great threat, comparisons to the great German war machine pre-WW2 were made...but in fact we have rolled in with pretty fair impunity. We demolish the opposition, we receive reports of "small arms fire" being used to protect the palaces, the worst fighting being in Basra, but as one General said the other day, "We can go and come pretty much however and whenever we want."

Is this the bogey-man of which we were warned so many times? Poorly armed and supplied troops using pick-up trucks against tanks? That's it? That's what we were supposed to be afraid of?

No...back in March 2002, Bush was very clear that we were going in to take out Saddam, period, as noted at:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030331/wroad.html


Iraq has so far not used chemical weapons against us, though we were told that once we entered Baghdad that would happen... but now we are ourselves preparing to use banned weapons --

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...931960,00.html

-- it just seems very troubling to me. The motives behind this have shifted constantly from the beginning.

(And what to make of this article --

http://the-news.net/cgi-bin/story.pl...on&edition=697

-- I don't quite know, I leave this one to others to figure out. I honestly don't know where this fits in.)

The thing about the truth is that it tends to be fairly straightforward. We blockaded Cuba because we didn't want Russia to send in nuclear missiles. Clear and straightforward. We didn't say we were blockading to keep Cuba from exporting terrorism, or to help the people of Cuba. We said the facts, provided the photos, end of discussion.

First we were going after Iraq for vague and unproven connections to Bin Laden...then it became about exporting terrorism (even though more is exported from places like Iran and Syria)...then it became about WMD (even though they have still not surfaced)...now it's about Iraqi freedom and regime change.

Our soldiers are fighting well and bravely in the execution of their orders.

It's the thinking and, perhaps, the morality of those giving the orders at the top that I have reservations about.

jms

([email protected])
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)