« Bush Uses Hitler in New Ad Campaign | Main | Mystery of “The Pet Goat” Revealed »

June 27, 2004

Comments

Hallie

Thanks for posting about this - it's interesting to hear a US perspective on the interview. Much as I respect Coleman, the interview seemed disappointing, until I heard that she was required to submit all her questions two days ahead of time. Which explained a lot.

You'd better believe I was out on the streets of Dublin protesting the next evening! The majority of Europe agreed with the war? Sure, George.

ledge of liberty

thank you hallie,

i can't impress on you enough how much americans appreciate these protests abroad. the coleman interview was amazing as it's been so long since anyone has been able to get a real interview out of the guy... you see, even here in "america" under the bush administration, all reporters have to submit their questions in advance - and that includes all press conferences.

-peter

Robert

I suppose you would rather be on Koffi Anni's payroll on the UN food for oil program that saw 4 billion diaappear via his son. Or were you part of Chirac's 40 billion deal with Saddam and the subsequent slavery of Iraqui's and extermination of hundereds of thousands Kurds and Iranian's. Grow up, Europeans are being brain washed by believing Islamic terrorists are doing this because of Bush. They already had their agenda in place and GWB just uncovered it. History lets you know that although the US brand of capitalism is not perfect it's the only one that develops countries. Europeans enslaved their colonies and we know what the social-communists did or remember the facist? In fact we are & will be safer. What we have to be weary of is our leaders giving the US over to the UN as many of the new age democrats such as Hillary & Bill, Kerry, and immorals such as Ted K and Jesse Jive Jackasson.

Scott W. Baker

"Grow-up", you little name-calling brat? How dare you?

Okay...okay...okay...let's dimiss Robert's condescending tone, the partisan rhetoric, and the close-call on the racial slur on Jesse Jackson and look at things from a more global perspective.

The people of Earth are neither prepared nor obliged to allow unilateral policies of an unelected President of the United States to drive the course of human history toward endless war and corporate control. This is not an "us versus them" issue, it's an "us versus just about everyone else in the world" issue. Similarly, the people of Earth will not allow shady back room deals between Saddam, Germany, France, and Russia to slip by unnoticed. Ultimately, whether GWB likes it or not, his temper tantrum is going to have long-term costs...starting with his ouster by John Kerry (for good or bad) this coming November.

Why? He went against the advice of his own advisors (which they literally had to set down in front of him and tell him to read because he rarely asked questions, according to statements by Bob Woodward and Bush employees). He ignored the world community, including the Security Council of the UN, which gave him notice that unilateral action could lead to a breech of international cooperation and trust with the US. And he brazenly lied to his own citizens (granted, he didn't gas anyone) as a pretext to grab ahold of Iraq's oil supply. Nothing GWB has done in the past three years has had anything to do with ridding the world of terrorism. Indeed, terrorism can safely be said to be GWB's only asset in terrorizing American's into voting him into office (since we know he's never had that).

GWB couldn't uncover a terrorist plot if Osama himself sent him an engraved invitation to sit in on the planning. He'd be too busy trying to find more dip for his potato chips and asking when the dance of the seven veils will begin.

GWB's pre-war speeches to the UN, the joint session of Congress, the Americans who viewed his state of dis-union addres and the hundreds of millions of global viewers of CNN and other news outlets will go down in history as being just as disingenuous as Hitler's peaceful overtures during openning ceremonies at the 1936 Olympics. None of what he did in Iraq and none of what he's planning in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have anything to do with bringing freedom and democracy. The plan is all about stabalizing the world's energy supply. This is a laudable goal, and a necessity for true attempts to democratize the middle east in the future. But let's not pretend that he has any such hopes for his one-term presidency.

Now, I'm sorry to have compared GWB to Hitler, he's clearly not as evil as Hitler, nor as brilliant. But his father's Yale egg-head buddies have been working hard behind the scenes to give this cheerleader a winning playbook...

Read this April 2001 (note the date) document from James A. Baker III's think tank regarding energy:

http://www.bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/studies/bipp_study_15/bippstudy15.html

The following three paragraphs make it clear what the goal in Iraq is:

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

For the most part, U.S. oil policy has relied on maintenance of free access to Middle East Gulf oil and free access for Gulf exports to world markets, relying heavily on military preparedness. The U.S. has forged a special relationship with certain key Middle East exporters that had an expressed interest in stable oil prices and, we assumed, would adjust their oil output to keep prices at levels that would neither discourage global economic growth nor fuel inflation. Taking this dependence a step further, the U.S. government has operated under the assumption that the national oil companies of these countries would make the investments needed to maintain enough surplus capacity to form a cushion against disruptions.

But recently, things have changed. These Gulf allies are finding their domestic and foreign policy interests increasingly at odds with America’s strategic considerations. They have become less inclined to lower oil prices in exchange for security of markets, and evidence suggests that adequate investment is not being made in a timely enough manner to increase production capacity in line with growing global needs. The opening of new media outlets in the Middle East has also increased the likelihood that a linkage will emerge in the minds of citizens there between the U.S. alliance with Israel and cooperation on oil prices. Moreover, a trend toward anti-Americanism could affect regional leaders’ abilities to cooperate with the U.S. in the energy area. The resulting tight markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil. Iraq has become a key “swing” producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government.

In the past, energy crises have appeared simply to fade away over time. Sometimes, as in the late 1970s and early 1980s, recession solved the problem by radically reducing global energy demand. At other times, additional capital marshaled technological improvements, reduced costs, and created new efficiencies on both the supply and demand sides, fostering complacency among policy makers. Government attention to energy issues tends to fade as prices fall. That complacency could be justified so long as surplus capacities existed. But in a world of energy capacity constraints, complacency could shackle the American economy for years to come. If it does not respond strategically to the current energy situation, the U.S. risks perpetuating the unacceptable leverage of adversaries and leaving the country’s economy vulnerable to disruptions and volatile energy prices.

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

Now, if you still want to pretend that there was a high moral reason to invade Iraq, let's examine the reason GWB wants to demolish the prison at Abu Ghraib.

Read this article excerpt:

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

Bush, who spoke for roughly 30 minutes, announced no concrete new initiatives in Iraq, other than the construction of a "modern maximum-security prison" whose completion will house detainees who are currently held at Abu Ghraib prison, the site of the now-notorious photos of physical and sexual abuses committed by US soldiers against Iraqi detainees. "Under the dictator (Saddam Hussein), prisons like Abu Ghraib were symbols of death and torture," he said. "That same prison became a symbol of disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values."

After the new prison's construction, he added: "We will demolish the Abu Ghraib prison as a fitting symbol of Iraq's new beginning."

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

Or is that REALLY why he wanted to demolish it? Does GWB really see the demolition of this prison as his right as a symbol for Iraq? Let's hear what the Iraqis have to say about it:

"It's a prison that we spent more than $100 million building," said interim Iraqi President Ghazi al-Yawer on June 13.

"And if we consider it's a symbol of Saddam's atrocities -- Saddam used to torture people in each and every basement in Iraq -- so that means we have to demolish all government entities."

Additionally, a military judge in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal declared the Baghdad jail site a crime scene and ordered that it must not be destroyed while U.S. soldiers are on trial.

Perhaps GWB was trying to get rid of evidence that could lead back to his Geneva-Convention-breaking outlaw administration, like a little boy with his hand in the cookie jar, trying to swallow the cookie he's already got in his mouth...

Who needs to grow up?

The comments to this entry are closed.