Discussion:
[Goanet]A Must Read before you Vote
Chris Vaz
2004-10-27 03:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Where Bush Got His Marching Orders to attack Iraq

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

["Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom
Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has
made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

["Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
December 5, 2001

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of
the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means
of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2000

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2000

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build
up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports
indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2000

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I
believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a
real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons
within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
destruction.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2000

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy
his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to
increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep
trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2000

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity
for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons
of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !

TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR
rbarreto
2004-10-27 10:28:05 UTC
Permalink
In short ,


Sen. John F. Kerry to win.


rene


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Vaz" <chrisvaz at verizon.net>
Marlon Menezes
2004-10-27 18:31:14 UTC
Permalink
The issue is not necessarily the war itself, but
rather the shabby way it has been conducted by this
administration. The incompetance is stunning and US
tax payers like me are now paying for this stupidity.

Unlike his father, Bush rushed into this war with no
allies worth mentioning (except for the UK). In the
first war, the coalition provided over 200,000 troops
and around 70% of the funding for the war (roughly 20
times more what it got this time around). The war is
currently costing the US tax payers around $100
billion per year and if the present administration
remains in power, it is unlikely to get any
significant help from any of the nations that can
really help. Stated in other words, if Bush wins, the
US tax payer and the US armed forces will have to
continue to sustain the Iraq burden for several more
years to come.

This incompetance is linked to the fact that this
administration is governed by its christian right wing
ideology, rather than factual/knowledge based decision
making. The anti-science stance of this adminstration
is well established.

Besides the above, the other big negative with regards
to Bush is the lack of financial accountability of his
administration. Despite having his party in control of
both houses as well as the white house, federal
government spending has grown at the fastest rate for
almost half a century. In this age of large deficits,
last thing we need is a money grabbing larger
government.

The only positive with Bush from an Indian perspective
is that he has not spoken against outsourcing. While
this is painful for american workers, it is great for
India. It is not a surprise therefore that most of
India's establishement supports Bush's relection. Bush
has used these "improvements" in America's relations
with India as an example of his foreign policy
successes. The reality is that anti-americanism is
very high in India (as it is in much of the world) and
that Indians are only playing ball because they love
American money more than they hate this American
adminstration.

Marlon
Post by Chris Vaz
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam
Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ...
He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to
miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating
America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for
weapons
of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam
Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH
LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE
TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !
TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US
TO WAR
Frederick Noronha(FN)
2004-10-27 19:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Hi Marlon: Are you suggesting that if Bush had handled the war/invasion of
Iraq (pick your term) in an "un-shabby" or more "competent" manner, then
you would have not have had a problem with his Presidency and his
politics?

Half-seriously, it's perhaps time for the rest of the globe to have a say
in the US elections, since the result has such far-reaching consequences
for all of us. Are you only looking at the impact on the US tax-payer?

You seem to suggest you would have been happier had the "allies" paid a
larger chunk of the war bill. But is this really the issue? Even if seen
only from a US perspective?

Do you see Republicanism as something different from Democrat politics, or
are these just two sides of the same coin? Would one necessarily have
different consequences for the planet?

In your concluding para (part of the text deleted for brevity), you seem
to suggest that India is a monolith, and that everyone views the US rather
uniformly from here. That this is untrue is clear from the fact that the
BJP was a pretty good ally of Bush, and vice versa. They seemed to
understand each other's conservatism. Since May 13, 2004, the equation has
changed, in part because people and parties like Bush and the BJP tend to
create a broad-based coalition of interests against what *they* stand
for. And I'm not talking about the politics of religion here. Had it not
been for the BJP in India, it would have been unthinkable of the Congress
and the Communists in the same boat, a situation the polarisation now has
resulted in.

"Anti-Americanism" is a catchword that is insufficient to explain things.
I guess anyone sitting in the US, and getting the local media's view of
the world, would not appreciate the many issued involved. One doesn't need
to read Asterix comics to realise that the Romans weren't quite popular
in their days of Empire ;-) FN
Post by Marlon Menezes
The issue is not necessarily the war itself, but
rather the shabby way it has been conducted by this
administration. The incompetance is stunning and US
tax payers like me are now paying for this stupidity.
Unlike his father, Bush rushed into this war with no
allies worth mentioning (except for the UK). In the
first war, the coalition provided over 200,000 troops
and around 70% of the funding for the war (roughly 20
times more what it got this time around). The war is
currently costing the US tax payers around $100
billion per year and if the present administration
remains in power, it is unlikely to get any
significant help from any of the nations that can
really help. Stated in other words, if Bush wins, the
US tax payer and the US armed forces will have to
continue to sustain the Iraq burden for several more
years to come....
The only positive with Bush from an Indian perspective
is that he has not spoken against outsourcing. While
this is painful for american workers, it is great for
India. It is not a surprise therefore that most of
India's establishement supports Bush's relection. Bush
has used these "improvements" in America's relations
with India as an example of his foreign policy
successes. The reality is that anti-americanism is
very high in India (as it is in much of the world) and
that Indians are only playing ball because they love
American money more than they hate this American
adminstration.
Marlon
Chris Vaz
2004-10-27 21:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Marlon--

Your response is too simplistic. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback,
but after 9/11 we had no option but preempt any future possibility of attack
on us. It is insulting to say we had only the UK in our coalition and snub
New Europe who have lost personnel, and older countries like Italy, Spain
(didn't have the endurance unfortunately), Australians, et al. GWB did all
he could to persuade, short of going down on his knees, the French, Germans
and the Russians but they adamantly refused to join. As recently as a few
days ago, both France and Germany have reiterated that they would not join
us in Iraq even if a new Kerry administration comes in. The reason, now
being revealed, is that these countries profited considerably under the Oil
for Food program and didn't want to let go of the gravy train!

Yes, wars are never cheap, and the cost to preserve freedom can be high. We
should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after the
technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade with
the pin pulled out.. In the long run it is far cheaper to fight the war on
terrorist terrain than fight it on our soil just as the consequences of 9/11
proved. Unfortunately, it does take a degree of spending to bring a country
out of recession and recent economic indicators suggest that the country is
on the right track. We must persevere if we are to win...



----- Original Message -----
From: "Marlon Menezes" <marlon at goacom.com>
To: <goanet at goanet.org>; <chrisvaz at verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet]A Must Read before you Vote
##########################################################################
# If Goanet stops reaching you, contact goanet-admin at goanet.org #
# Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ #
# Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others #
##########################################################################
The issue is not necessarily the war itself, but
rather the shabby way it has been conducted by this
administration. The incompetance is stunning and US
tax payers like me are now paying for this stupidity.
Unlike his father, Bush rushed into this war with no
allies worth mentioning (except for the UK). In the
first war, the coalition provided over 200,000 troops
and around 70% of the funding for the war (roughly 20
times more what it got this time around). The war is
currently costing the US tax payers around $100
billion per year and if the present administration
remains in power, it is unlikely to get any
significant help from any of the nations that can
really help. Stated in other words, if Bush wins, the
US tax payer and the US armed forces will have to
continue to sustain the Iraq burden for several more
years to come.
This incompetance is linked to the fact that this
administration is governed by its christian right wing
ideology, rather than factual/knowledge based decision
making. The anti-science stance of this adminstration
is well established.
Besides the above, the other big negative with regards
to Bush is the lack of financial accountability of his
administration. Despite having his party in control of
both houses as well as the white house, federal
government spending has grown at the fastest rate for
almost half a century. In this age of large deficits,
last thing we need is a money grabbing larger
government.
The only positive with Bush from an Indian perspective
is that he has not spoken against outsourcing. While
this is painful for american workers, it is great for
India. It is not a surprise therefore that most of
India's establishement supports Bush's relection. Bush
has used these "improvements" in America's relations
with India as an example of his foreign policy
successes. The reality is that anti-americanism is
very high in India (as it is in much of the world) and
that Indians are only playing ball because they love
American money more than they hate this American
adminstration.
Marlon
Post by Chris Vaz
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam
Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ...
He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to
miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating
America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for
weapons
of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam
Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH
LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE
TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !
TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US
TO WAR
Frederick Noronha(FN)
2004-10-27 19:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Hi Marlon: Are you suggesting that if Bush had handled the war/invasion of
Iraq (pick your term) in an "un-shabby" or more "competent" manner, then
you would have not have had a problem with his Presidency and his
politics?

Half-seriously, it's perhaps time for the rest of the globe to have a say
in the US elections, since the result has such far-reaching consequences
for all of us. Are you only looking at the impact on the US tax-payer?

You seem to suggest you would have been happier had the "allies" paid a
larger chunk of the war bill. But is this really the issue? Even if seen
only from a US perspective?

Do you see Republicanism as something different from Democrat politics, or
are these just two sides of the same coin? Would one necessarily have
different consequences for the planet?

In your concluding para (part of the text deleted for brevity), you seem
to suggest that India is a monolith, and that everyone views the US rather
uniformly from here. That this is untrue is clear from the fact that the
BJP was a pretty good ally of Bush, and vice versa. They seemed to
understand each other's conservatism. Since May 13, 2004, the equation has
changed, in part because people and parties like Bush and the BJP tend to
create a broad-based coalition of interests against what *they* stand
for. And I'm not talking about the politics of religion here. Had it not
been for the BJP in India, it would have been unthinkable of the Congress
and the Communists in the same boat, a situation the polarisation now has
resulted in.

"Anti-Americanism" is a catchword that is insufficient to explain things.
I guess anyone sitting in the US, and getting the local media's view of
the world, would not appreciate the many issued involved. One doesn't need
to read Asterix comics to realise that the Romans weren't quite popular
in their days of Empire ;-) FN
Post by Marlon Menezes
The issue is not necessarily the war itself, but
rather the shabby way it has been conducted by this
administration. The incompetance is stunning and US
tax payers like me are now paying for this stupidity.
Unlike his father, Bush rushed into this war with no
allies worth mentioning (except for the UK). In the
first war, the coalition provided over 200,000 troops
and around 70% of the funding for the war (roughly 20
times more what it got this time around). The war is
currently costing the US tax payers around $100
billion per year and if the present administration
remains in power, it is unlikely to get any
significant help from any of the nations that can
really help. Stated in other words, if Bush wins, the
US tax payer and the US armed forces will have to
continue to sustain the Iraq burden for several more
years to come....
The only positive with Bush from an Indian perspective
is that he has not spoken against outsourcing. While
this is painful for american workers, it is great for
India. It is not a surprise therefore that most of
India's establishement supports Bush's relection. Bush
has used these "improvements" in America's relations
with India as an example of his foreign policy
successes. The reality is that anti-americanism is
very high in India (as it is in much of the world) and
that Indians are only playing ball because they love
American money more than they hate this American
adminstration.
Marlon
Chris Vaz
2004-10-27 21:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Marlon--

Your response is too simplistic. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback,
but after 9/11 we had no option but preempt any future possibility of attack
on us. It is insulting to say we had only the UK in our coalition and snub
New Europe who have lost personnel, and older countries like Italy, Spain
(didn't have the endurance unfortunately), Australians, et al. GWB did all
he could to persuade, short of going down on his knees, the French, Germans
and the Russians but they adamantly refused to join. As recently as a few
days ago, both France and Germany have reiterated that they would not join
us in Iraq even if a new Kerry administration comes in. The reason, now
being revealed, is that these countries profited considerably under the Oil
for Food program and didn't want to let go of the gravy train!

Yes, wars are never cheap, and the cost to preserve freedom can be high. We
should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after the
technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade with
the pin pulled out.. In the long run it is far cheaper to fight the war on
terrorist terrain than fight it on our soil just as the consequences of 9/11
proved. Unfortunately, it does take a degree of spending to bring a country
out of recession and recent economic indicators suggest that the country is
on the right track. We must persevere if we are to win...



----- Original Message -----
From: "Marlon Menezes" <marlon at goacom.com>
To: <goanet at goanet.org>; <chrisvaz at verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet]A Must Read before you Vote
##########################################################################
# If Goanet stops reaching you, contact goanet-admin at goanet.org #
# Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ #
# Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others #
##########################################################################
The issue is not necessarily the war itself, but
rather the shabby way it has been conducted by this
administration. The incompetance is stunning and US
tax payers like me are now paying for this stupidity.
Unlike his father, Bush rushed into this war with no
allies worth mentioning (except for the UK). In the
first war, the coalition provided over 200,000 troops
and around 70% of the funding for the war (roughly 20
times more what it got this time around). The war is
currently costing the US tax payers around $100
billion per year and if the present administration
remains in power, it is unlikely to get any
significant help from any of the nations that can
really help. Stated in other words, if Bush wins, the
US tax payer and the US armed forces will have to
continue to sustain the Iraq burden for several more
years to come.
This incompetance is linked to the fact that this
administration is governed by its christian right wing
ideology, rather than factual/knowledge based decision
making. The anti-science stance of this adminstration
is well established.
Besides the above, the other big negative with regards
to Bush is the lack of financial accountability of his
administration. Despite ha