The world according to Bush [Wanker Alert]

The Boston Globe ^ | 4-19-03 | By William P. Pfaff

[Oldeconomybuyer]

PARIS - THE WAR NOW is past tense, the dead gone, the wounded paying the price for all the cheers and relief.

The controversy resumes in the present and future tenses, over Washington's planned (or, as it seems, largely unplanned) pacification and reconstruction of Iraq as an economic and political society and over what may follow in the eastern Mediterranean.

[Miss Marple]

The Oil Ministry was secured early in the battle of Baghdad, even if the hospitals and museums were not; that told us about one Bush administration priority.

Nice to have confirmation that you and William Pfaff were faxed the same talking points.

[MEG33]

Piffle.

[Diogenesis]

BOSTON GLOBE PFABRICATES and DISTORTS as it ATTACKS AMERICA and OUR ALLIES

BOSTON GLOBE MINIMIZES SADDAM'S PRISONS [4/16/03]

BOSTON GLOBE FABRICATES FRONT-PAGE POLL [4/9/03]

BOSTON GLOBE FABRICATES FRONT-PAGE SLUR AGAINST US MILITARY [4/8/03]

[Russ]

"the World According to Bush"

I like it and I don't and I'm not even a neo-con!

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

The Oil Ministry was secured early in the battle of Baghdad, even if the hospitals and museums were not; that told us about one Bush administration priority.

Nice to have confirmation that you and William Pfaff were faxed the same talking points.

Humor aside, is it true? Or, in Clinton's best tradition, it does not matter whether it is true or not.

Let's state this again:

- the U.S. military protected the Oil Ministry building.

- the U.S. military did not protect the Iraqi museums.

Unless you have any evidence that the above 2 statements are false, then your remarks above may be funny (that's debatable too) but they are also irrelevant.

By the way, another exercise in logic:

Premise 1 - W said that he was justified to invade Iraq because it had WMD's.

Premise 2 - Iraq has no WMD's.

Conclusion - W was not justified to invade Iraq.

Unless 'Premise 2' turns out to be invalid, then W is guilty of naked aggression and is fully responsible for the death of 100+ American soldiers. Among other things.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

It's funny that you assume that people's statements are made by them because they've been told by 'someone else' to make them. That MAY very well be your case and possibly that of many of your friends but, just because you and some of the people you know operate that way does not mean that everyone does.

[dead]

Washington says that victory in Iraq was the first step in making a new Middle East and a new world order. There probably will be more resistance to both ambitions than it currently expects.

"Washington" has been right an order of magnitude more often than William Pfaff.

Don't quit your day job, Kreskin.

[Timmy]

The minimum goal is an end to lodging and support for anti-Israeli militias, notably Hezbollah in Lebanon, a country that Syria now dominates.

The correct word is not "militias," it's "terrorists." But they just can't pass judgement on the bad guys, can they? Only on the good guys.

[Timmy]

The Bush administration recognized that that Iraqi oil is crucial to prevent the country from disintegrating into Afghanistan-style poverty and chaos. They didn't recognize that the liberals would seize upon an already looted museum (before the fall of Baghdad) as the most important consideration the coalition should have while it's fighting the bad guys. Personally, I say screw the museum. Those things have been looted hundreds of times over the past few thousand years. They'll turn up.

[AFPhys]

It is amazing how many times I look at the "criticism" of these dopes, am able to overlook the gratuitous commentary like "boyBush", and find myself cheering and hoping the worst (in their minds) is true. I really love reading the hysterical stories like this!

[Maceman]

Unless 'Premise 2' turns out to be invalid, then W is guilty of naked aggression and is fully responsible for the death of 100+ American soldiers. Among other things.

The discovery of terrorist connections -- including the training camp south of Baghdad, gives Bush all the justification he ever needed for this war, even without WMD.

[NewLand]

GWB is NOT concerned...

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

The discovery of terrorist connections -- including the training camp south of Baghdad, gives Bush all the justification he ever needed for this war, even without WMD.

No, it doesn't.

1 - the 'legal' justification for invading Iraq was its possession of WMD's. Unless Iraq posseses WMD's, then the war was illegal.

2 - the discovery of anything other than WMD's in Iraq will not make the war legal.

3 - an Al Quaeda training camp was recently discovered in Washington State or Oregon. It's possible that other exist but have not been discovered yet. It is estimated that hundreds or thousands of terrorists operate in the United States. Should W then bomb and occupy the United States?

[Timesink]

The Oil Ministry was secured early in the battle of Baghdad, even if the hospitals and museums were not; that told us about one Bush administration priority.

Actually, Pfeffster, it tells us nothing (and I'm assuming your statement is true, even though you offer no proof). Perhaps the Saddamites were using it to house snipers and anti-aircraft batteries. Perhaps it was a full-blown military installation more than an "Oil Ministry." Perhaps we had intel that much of the most damning paper trails were housed in that building. (And, of course, the main reason we need to secure the paper trails is in order to SHUT UP jerkoffs like you, Pfeffy Boy, who care more about Bush-bashing than human lives.)

Oh, by the way, Pfeffster - may I call you Pfeffster? No? Oh, that's too bad, cause I'm gonna do it anyway - what good is securing a hospital when all the doctors and nurses have already run away, afraid they're going to get killed by Fedayeen for treating anyone that doen't have a Ba'ath Party membership card? What good is "securing" a museum when the museum staff and Saddam himself have long since appropriated all the good stuff? On and on and on.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Personally, I say screw the museum.

Of course you do :)

[ChuckHam]

1 - the 'legal' justification for invading Iraq was its possession of WMD's. Unless Iraq posseses WMD's, then the war was illegal.

Says who?

2 - the discovery of anything other than WMD's in Iraq will not make the war legal.

Says who?

[Miss Marple]

First exercise in logic:

Because we have not found WMD's, nor announced it if we have found them, is not proof that they do not exist.

As has been reported numerous times, many people in the museum community think a great many of the artifacts had already been removed, either for safe-keeping or due to Saddam's people already selling them. Substantial proof is now in print for both of these efforts.

The question I have is why you, who have never, to my knowledge, posted anything to do with archaeology, suddenly posted a thread about this with the exact same point as William Pfaff, noted Clintonista and receiver of DNC talking points. THAT was my point.

The US military did its job. The answer to the museum mystery will eventually be solved. YOU, however, will still be refusing to address the point of my post.

[dead]

1 - the 'legal' justification for invading Iraq was its possession of WMD's.

Completely and utterly wrong.

The "legal" justification was Iraq's failure to comply with various UN resolutions regarding disarmament (among other things.) Even if we find nothing, Iraq still failed to comply with the resolutions.

One of the political justifications was the WMD.

[yankeedame]

In the short term, American power will impose its choices. In the long run, Iraq the Middle East will prevail.

(And more's the pity)