Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by msm

Your implication that the U.S. ever supported the Iraqi invasion, based merely on the incompetence of one diplomat, is ridiculous.

I never implied that. I said the US supported the Iraqi invasion of Iran.

If you agree that, just because the U.S. had one policy re: the Iraqi invasion of Iran doesn't mean that the U.S. neccessarily will have the same policy re: an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, then why did you bring it up in this context?

Originally Posted by msm

Here you go, little Brian:

COUNTERING THE
CHANGING THREAT
OF INTERNATIONAL
TERRORISM
Report of the National Commission on Terrorism
Pursuant to Public Law 277, 105th Congress

Umm.. Well yes, of course, 'terrorist' groups form alliances. No one disputes that. You, however, make a specific claim regarding a particular alliance between two particular parties. I searched the doc you linked. No references whatsoever to Iraq, Hussein, Al Q'aeda, or bin Laden. Surely, you can't think the document supports your case?!? :?

______________________

"Precisely because mass man does not recognize any sense of personal responsibility and does not care to distinguish between the intended and actual consequences of any action, he acquiesces in the control of all social efforts on the part of the state. Deceived into thinking that he is the state, mass man does not see that he will soon be living for the state (or the government), and not it for him." -- Nicholas Capaldi

I believe there's a lot of heat being generated here by a couple of misunderstandings. First, I don't think Brian was trying to deny that Al Queda is an international terrorist group. Instead he was denying that there is a larger terrorist network controlling Al Queda and other groups in the same sense that there wasn't one "international communist conspiracy" in the 60's.

And I don't think that Mike was suggesting that because the state dep't employee made a mistake and that the US was obligated to not attack Iraq over it. At this juncture I can't remember what his point was and I'm unwilling to go back and dig it up, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't what msm thinks it was.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Umm.. Well yes, of course, 'terrorist' groups form alliances. No one disputes that. You, however, make a specific claim regarding a particular alliance between two particular parties.

This is what Brian wrote:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I don't expect anyone who denies the existence of an international terrorist network to say anything intelligent about what U.S. policy regarding terrorism should be.

Argumentum ad hominem, yet again.

Here is what sets use of fallacies apart from mere mistaken argument. It is not just bad reasoning but DISHONEST reasoning, in that anyone intelligent enough to use fallacies is also intelligent enough to know that they are false. Thus, anyone who uses fallacies is a liar.

You, sir, are a liar.

The above contains another fallacy, that of presumption. The existence of an international terrorist network is not self-evident. Show evidence thereof, if you want us to believe in it.

At no point does he say anything about a SPECIFIC example of international terrorism, and the context does not suggest that this is what he meant. If this is what he meant, then he should have said that.

Originally Posted by msm

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by msm

Your implication that the U.S. ever supported the Iraqi invasion, based merely on the incompetence of one diplomat, is ridiculous.

I never implied that. I said the US supported the Iraqi invasion of Iran.

If you agree that, just because the U.S. had one policy re: the Iraqi invasion of Iran doesn't mean that the U.S. neccessarily will have the same policy re: an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, then why did you bring it up in this context?

President Bush I was trying to build a coalition to take action in response to the invasion of Kuwait. He wanted Arab countries to be part of this coalition, partly because he needed to use then as bases for operation.

As you have pointed out, we could have taken out Saddam back in 1991. This idea was broached. Removal of Saddam was not necessary to free Kuwait. Thus, regime change would be punishment for invading Kuwait. It is certainly morally justifiable on that basis. He started a war, if Kuwait and her allies defeat him, he can quite rightly be removed from power.

Regime change was rejected by Saudi Arabia and others. The US had no good argument for why Saddam had be punished for invading Kuwait when there had been no punishment for invading Iran. This is why the US response to Iraq's invasion of Iran is relevant. It gives Saudi Arabia and others an excuse to act out of self-interested political calculation, just like the US did with Iran.

The US did have a good argument for why Saddam had to be stopped (Saudi Arabia was probably going to be next), The Saudis favored ejecting Saddam from Kuwait. We needed Saudi cooperation so we agreed to the limited objective.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Here is what sets use of fallacies apart from mere mistaken argument. It is not just bad reasoning but DISHONEST reasoning, in that anyone intelligent enough to use fallacies is also intelligent enough to know that they are false. Thus, anyone who uses fallacies is a liar.

You, sir, are a liar

Brian Rush is a stinky.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

There is no evidence that Saddam gave even Hezbollah or Hamas chemical weapons, let alone al-Qaeda. And we know he was allied (and not merely "linked") to those groups.

$25,000 checks to the parents of the Hamas kiddie bomber's families is pretty good evidence that Saddam was a sick stinky like you.

I don't think that anyone posting here is a member of Saddam Hussein's fan club. That man was a nasty piece of work and it is gratifying to see him out of office. I think everyone also agrees that Saddam helped fund Hamas, which is a terrorist organization committing acts of terror against the Israelis, to score points with the Palestinians and other Arab countries.

The questions that everyone is bickering about are:

• Did Saddam specifically fund Al Qaeda work?
• Was it reasonable to believe reports that Iraq had WMD?
• Was Saddam's Iraq a threat to US national interests?
• Was the United States justified in invading Iraq to take Saddam out of power?
• Even if the United States was justified in removing Saddam, was it wise to go in there? and
• Now that we are in there, what should we do?

Beats me if I know the definitive answers to these questions. I have opinions and interpretations of what I've read and heard, as do the rest of us. Reasonable people can have very different opinions and views, without being stupid or traitors or sickos or nasty or warmongers.

Just for the record, I believe that Saddam wasn't involved with Al Qaeda but I am prepared, given evidence, to change my mind. I personally thought that Iraq had WMD, I was undecided on whether we were therefore justified in invading Iraq, and even if we were justified, thought it was probably not wise. In my view, the whole project of creating democracy in the Middle East (besides Israel) is a task best suited for a 4T/1T cusp, not a 3T/4T cusp. Now that we're in there, I don't have any idea what we should do now. :shock:

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Now that we are in there, what should we do?

This one is the most important one. Since both Bush and Kerry favor staying there long enough to leave Iraq a better government (or set of governments) than existed before (a pretty easy target), I sleep easy.

Originally Posted by msm

As for Iraq-Al Qaeda links, the best excuse Brian has to doubt them is the media's constant downplaying of any evidence that comes up. I'm not obsessive enough about it (I believe we should have finished Saddam off in 1991, long before I even heard of Al Qaeda, so it doesn't matter much to me whether Iraq worked with Al Qaeda) to maintain a list, but if someone compulsively saved every solid piece of evidence of a link, there would be at least a dozen by now.

And if a Democrat was president, these links would all be on the cover of the NYT.

For example:

Document links Saddam, bin Laden

The document shows that an Iraqi intelligence officer, Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, assigned to the Iraq embassy in Pakistan, is ''responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group.''

The document shows that it was written over the signature of Uday Saddam Hussein, the son of Saddam Hussein.

Even if half of the dozen turned up false, that would leave six clear links. All ignored by the mainstream media...

Just for the hell of it, I googled Judge Gilbert S. Merritt (the author of the article that msm linked to). Three days after he wrote about finding this document that allegedly links Saddam to bin Laden, Judge Merritt penned this for the Tennesseean:

(Posted for discussion purposes only. Emphasis mine.)


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

Saturday, 06/28/03
'Gag' order contradicts U.S. value Iraqis like

By GILBERT S. MERRITT
For The Tennessean

Federal appellate judge Gilbert S. Merritt of Nashville is in Iraq as one of 13 experts selected by the U.S. Justice Department to help rebuild Iraq's judicial system.

Merritt, 67, has made trips to Russia and India to work with their judicial systems. He has been sending periodic reports to The Tennessean about his experiences in Iraq and filed this dispatch recently:

This is my last story from Baghdad. The so-called Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA, acting through its head, L. Paul Bremer, issued a ''gag'' order two days ago that says:

''Speaking To The Media. To insure the effective co-ordination of the CPA's message, any plan for a member of the CPA to talk to the media should first be coordinated with the Directorate of Strategic Communication.''

The Directorate of Strategic Communication, according to the order, was a ''recent creation designed with the intention of delivering a coherent strategic information for the CPA.''

The CPA is organized into many separate agencies covering governance, justice, transportation and communication, health, oil, police, culture, finance and several others. All persons working or helping these agencies carry out their tasks are apparently covered by the order prohibiting speaking to the press unless the speech is cleared first by the Directorate of Strategic Communication.

I have been informed that this includes any article I may write, or verbal utterance I may speak, to any members of the press, including my hometown newspaper.

In my opinion, this is a clear violation of the First Amendment to our Constitution, which says that our government may not impose any law, regulation or directive ''abridging the freedom of speech.'' The First Amendment covers any attempt by our government to control the speech of a civilian citizen of the United States, with only a few exceptions.

There are many cases in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals ? more than 2,000 ? that hold that the Free Speech Clause covers state and federal officials and employees. Those cases secure to such employees the right to speak on matters of public concern broadly defined and to converse with the press and others without abridgment or control.

It is true that the government may restrict the release of classified information by its employees, and it may regulate speech that could create ? in the words of an old Supreme Court case ? a ''clear and present'' danger for its citizens.

But this limitation on speech is far broader than that. It includes all speech ? ''any plan for any member of CPA to talk to the media.''

Although the order is clearly unconstitutional, in my view, I intend to comply with its terms from now until I leave Iraq and am no longer subject to it. I will be leaving in a few days to meet my wife, Robin, in Istanbul for a few days' vacation before returning home to Nashville.

It is, to say the least, ironic that, as a federal judge, I was asked to come here to try to help erect and establish constitutional values for the Iraqis, including the rights of free speech and other civil liberties.

Americans are entitled to speak their minds, especially on matters involving government, politics, law, foreign policy and other public concerns. We value robust debate because our founding fathers believed that open debate was good in itself and would lead to better public policy, more scientific and technological progress and better artistic expression.

That is what the Iraqis admire about us and wish to have for themselves. They are thankful that we have liberated them from the tyrant so that they may now have prosperity through freedom of contract and free speech.

Yet, irony of ironies, our own citizens here must now clear our own speech with CPA so that our American values and policies, according to the directive, ''are launched in a coherent and coordinated manner'' pleasing to the Directorate of Strategic Communication of the Coalition Provisional Authority. Having ''launched'' our bombs and won the war quickly, I do not think that this kind of control of free speech is the kind of free speech policy most Americans want us to ''launch'' in Iraq.

Yes, irony of ironies. Indeed.

Originally Posted by msm

This one is the most important one. Since both Bush and Kerry favour staying there long enough to leave Iraq a better government (or set of governments) than existed before (a pretty easy target), I sleep easy.

I do not think anybody realises that the allied occupation of Iraq is going to take a lot longer than people expect it will take. The allies ruled Germany for four years after the defeat of the Nazi's and even longer in Japan. I predict that a large US presence will have to be there for several more years to come.

Iraq is just the first step in a wider war against ?Axis of Evil?, which will be fought against regimes like the Mullahs in Iran, House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, Bathhist dictatorship in Syria and the Palestinian authority. I also see Europe, Canada and Australia/NZ being a major battleground in the war against terror, because a lot of Al Qeada operative cells are based there*.

If Bush is re-elected president and the Fourth Turning reaches the regeneracy stage in his second term, he will widen the campaign against the ?axis of evil?. If this happens it would be very interest how his successors Republican or Democratic will contiude this fight.

* These countries are a ripe breeding ground for Islamist groups because the Muslim communities in these countries are generally marginalised from mainstream society and unemployment and welfare dependency is reaching outrageous levels. It is surprising how many of these Al Qaeda operatives in these countries are one form of government income support or another. The governments in these countries are not really serious in taking necessary measures to get rid of these operatives.

First of all, Tristan, I agree with you that Bush will widen the scope of the war if he is reelected.

Second, it's hard for me to explain, but I just get the feeling that Germany and Japan were just plain tired by the time we occupied them. I feel like Iraq has a certain amount of spunk at this point. Maybe it has to do with where the different occupations took place in the saeculum of the conquered country. What I guess I'm saying is that I think that Iraq will take longer and be messier than Japan and Germany. Obviously I think that the Arab world is in an unraveling and have not chosen between their two main awakening ideas: reform vs. fundamentalism. What do you guys think?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

H.C.:

Let me deal with the specific issue of whether Saddam was likely to have used chemical weapons on us via some terrorist group, and then I want to say something more general.

We agree that he was very unlikely to have done so using Iraqi agents. But the advantage of using Iraqi agents is that he himself would have remained in control. Iraqi agents worked for him; Hezbollah terrorists were independent. Nation-states tend to keep pretty tight control over weapons of mass destruction.

Hussein was not a nation-state, he was an autocrat. That's not necessarily directly relevant to the point at hand, but it is a significant distinction.

Now, on a more general note. In raising national security and safety against attack to the preeminent position, I believe you are speaking generationally, as this is a tendency of Nomads as they approach midlife. Perhaps in reaction to a risk-laden youth, they tend to raise security, personal, familial, and national, to a very high priority.

You're partly right. There is a strong element of Xer pragmatism in my views, and I do base them partly on the suspicion that Strauss and Howe were basically right (though there's more to the story of history than just the cycle). It's also based on my views of basic human nature, grounded in observation and study of history.

But there are dangers in this. It is never possible to eliminate all threats or to be ultimately secure. And let the history of the Soviet Union show the consequences of pursuing safety above all: one's neighbors and rivals are likely to misconstrue this policy as one of aggression.

The Soviet Union was motivated by a basic policy of aggression, though it was often indirect aggression. They had to be to survive, since only constant expansion or perception of expansion could overcome the natural weakness of their system and ideology. One might stretch a point and call it a defensive aggression, but they did indeed hope eventually to overcome and destroy the West and America. They never really denied that, many of them boasted of it, quite sincerely.

Beyond a certain point, the pursuit of security is accomplished only at a cost to both our liberty and our relations with others. We must ask ourselves carefully where that point of diminishing returns lies. That an action may reduce a risk from a specific identified source does not automatically make it a wise action.

This is our difference. We don't necessarily disagree on every basic principle (though obviously we do on many), but we evaluate the data very differently. I have no more use for unprovoked aggression than you do. I don't consider the Iraq situation a case of that.

I will grant that Iraq is a very, very weird special case.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I frankly doubt that factor 4 improvement in efficiency is going to happen, for various reasons

State them, please.

In the West, or developed states such as Japan, I don't see any reason such improvements aren't workable.

But as the Third World develops, I fully expect it to do so in a chaotic, haphazard manner, inefficiently, clumsily, and probably in some cases violently. (This assumes they do develop, which is what my previous point was predicated upon.)

I don't believe the organizational, cultural, and political/economic resources exist for the Third World to improve its efficiencies that much in the medium-near future. This is a personal opinion based on the general performance of sub-Saharan Africa and (to a much lesser extent) South America over the last 50 years.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by msm

Again, historically most guerilla insurgencies fail. What makes you think this will be one of the rare exceptions?

So cite me some of that guerilla history. But you better not include Vietnam or Korea.

What you don't seem to understand is that guerllia insurgents don't have to win outright; they simply win by not losing. But we, on the other hand, must win outright, because we lose by not winning.

One of the first rules of battle (please check me out on this, all you military experts) is not to let the enemy decide how you're going to fight. Didn't we win the Revolutionary War on that basis? Clearly the insurgents are deciding the terms of these battles. And I think they will win in the end.

It all boils down to whether we're willing to defeat them.

HC: Just how do you propose to do that? Nukemgood?

Still waiting for your answer on this one, HC.

Sorry, I've been through this argument so many times it gets tiresome repeating it.

I don't know every detail of how to do it. No such engagement ever goes according to plan.

But I frankly don't believe the theory that the insurgents have infinite patience, infinite resoures, etc. To some degree, we defeat them simply by remaining when they try to manipulate home-front emotion to drive us out. Keep that firmly in mind, the violence in Iraq, though it falls upon the American soldiers (and inncoent Iraqi bystanders too), is not primarily aimed at them, it's aimed at the home audience in the United States. It's an attack on what they percieve to be the balance-point of the struggle, the public will.

It's a little like the endlessly stated fears, 2 years ago, that the 'Arab Street' would 'inevitably' rise, or the predictions in the national media that the Taliban would hang on indefinitely and inevitably create a quagmire. (Quagmire has the been the word of the day for over 2 years now.)

Somehow 'inevitably' turned into 'maybe someday'.

I was seeing such predictions, and self-confident assurances that Bush and the Pentagon had blown the war, mere days before the fall of Kandahar. The only people more surprised at how fast the Taliban were overcome than the Taliban were the quagmire-theorists in America, who see every military action as Vietnam II.

I'm not convinced that we're seeing the rise of any inevitable quagmire because I've been expecting an upsurge in violence in Iraq, and I said as much more than once, for nearly a year now. It's aimed at the symbollic instance of the 'handover', and it's even more aimed at creating a particular 'spin' in the public mind in America, to encourage retreat and influence the election. I'll make a further prediction, it's likely to get worse yet, especially since our national and international media are playing their game, wittingly or not.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

I was seeing such predictions, and self-confident assurances that Bush and the Pentagon had blown the war, mere days before the fall of Kandahar. The only people more surprised at how fast the Taliban were overcome than the Taliban were the quagmire-theorists in America, who see every military action as Vietnam II.

I'm not convinced that we're seeing the rise of any inevitable quagmire because I've been expecting an upsurge in violence in Iraq, and I said as much more than once, for nearly a year now. It's aimed at the symbolic instance of the 'handover', and it's even more aimed at creating a particular 'spin' in the public mind in America, to encourage retreat and influence the election. I'll make a further prediction, it's likely to get worse yet, especially since our national and international media are playing their game, wittingly or not.

Back in 91, I had a friend who was very much into military history. He predicted a quagmire for Desert Storm. I tried not to rub it in too badly.

I'm curious as to whether the former Iraqi military can restore some semblance of peace in the Sunni triangle, without embarrassing human rights incidents, and while respecting civilian control of the military from the upcoming Iraqi governing council. It doesn't much matter if they hate the US and want us to leave, so long as they can accept internal policing and get their own acts together.

I'm still in 'Answer hazy, ask again later' mode.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

It's a little like the endlessly stated fears, 2 years ago, that the 'Arab Street' would 'inevitably' rise, or the predictions in the national media that the Taliban would hang on indefinitely and inevitably create a quagmire. (Quagmire has the been the word of the day for over 2 years now.)

What is a quagmire? My understanding is it is a conflict that drags on indefinitely without resolution. The Dutch war of independence was a quagmire for the Spanish. It dragged on and on, sometimes hot, sometimes cold for 80 years before the the Spanish threw in the towel and formally recognised the United Provinces in 1648. The war's de facto end came in 1609.

The Vietnam war was a quagmire. It dragged on and on for decades, the defacto end came in 1975. The formal end came even later (when did the US recognise Vietnam?)

Is the Afghanistan war a quagmire? First, it's way too early--less than three years. It could become a quagmire; the Taliban have not been eliminated nor have they sued for peace. A low level insurrgency continues and the primary objective of the war, decapitation/disruption of al Qadea, has not been achieved (bin Laden remains at large and al-Qaeda terrorist actions continue). But it is too early in the conflict for the term quagmire to be used.

If it continues for another decade with no resolution then it will be a quagmire.

The situation in Iraq is similar. We had an opportunity to avoid a potential quagmire in Iraq by following a different war strategy. Had we not raced for Baghdad, but instead occupied the non-Sunni areas of the country (and the oil fields), but left the government in charge of the middle portions, we would still be officially be at war with Iraq. Instead, we have a de facto war, but we are not officially at war.

By remaining officially at war with the Iraqi government we could continue to bomb them. We could use lethal force on Sunnis crossing the lines into American-held territory. We could state as a precondition for a discussion of a cease fire that Saddam and his sons be deposed and handed over to us (or clear proof of their deaths supplied). Presumably, some general or group of generals would depose Saddam and then we could deal with the new man or men. If not, we continue the war (and nation building on our side of the lines) until Saddam finally is deposed. We don't take down the government, but instead force them to yield, to sue for peace.

We would sign a cease fire and then start negotiations about how to reassemble the country, bringing in representatives from the Shia and Kurdish areas. While the politicians are hammering out these issues we could get on with the process of nation building, but from a higher starting position as there would have been no collapse of government and less looting. So the first year after the war would see negotiations in Baghdad about what changes are to be made to the existing Iraqi government (with the Baathists at the table). US forces would provide security in the non-Sunni areas of the country while the Iraqi army (still in existence) would provide security in the center of the country. The security situation would be much improved as there would be no major goup left out. Each player would control his own people. This is a requirment for that man to sit at the table. For example, Sistani would be required to keep Sadr on a leash while his people are hasing things out with the Baathists and the Kurds. The Baathist generals who deposed Saddam would have to keep control of the army and through them their section of the country.

Once something of minimal acceptance to the US was achieved we could then sign a peace treaty and go home. The war would be over, offically, with the US as victor. There would be no quagmire.

Instead we raced for the capital and the government disappearred. There was no one to deal with. No one to effect a surrender. Instead the old regime continues to fight on as an insurrgency and there is no new regime. A year later there still is no government in Iraq. There is still nobody with whom we can deal, expect tribal and religious leaders. But these people only speak for portions of the country.

When we defeated Germany and Japan, their governments surrendered to us, they didn't dissolve. There were people with who we could deal. We purged the worst Nazis from the German government but left enough of it intact for continuity. How can you nation-build without even a state?

So there is a high probability of a quagmire in Iraq for the simple reason as there is no end in sight. Unless we are 100% successful and Iraq becomes a stable democratic nation we can't leave without looking like we are cutting and running. And if we stay for a long enough period without a favorable resolution, it will be a quagmire.

More Germans, I believe, died in the aftermath of 1945 than did in the actual war. The years between 1945 and 1950 are a dark blur, of which Americans are largely ignorant given the afterglow of a great victory.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The Vietnam war was a quagmire. It dragged on and on for decades, the defacto end came in 1975. The formal end came even later (when did the US recognise Vietnam?)

Is the Afghanistan war a quagmire?

Vietnam was merely a part of the much larger forty year struggle of the Cold War with expansionist Communism. The "containment" battlefield was, first, Europe (the Marshall Plan saved it) and then Indochina, and was determined early on the Truman Doctrine. When Nixon exposed and exploited the fascade of Eastern Communist unity, by going to China in 1972, the importance of Indochina, as this idelogical and geopolitical battlefield, was greatly reduced. Thus when we left Vietnam, it's greater purpose in that struggle had already been served.

The "quagmire" thus was one that took place not on the physical battlefield, but rather in the hearts and minds of those who fought it. Winning the Cold War was a tremendous feat for the U.S. and it's Western allies. Yet little cheering is left to show for the victory. Certainly not the kind of elation and cheering that occured on V-J day in 1945.

The war of terrorism will be fought in much the same long, draw out way, because it is also both ideological and geoploitical as was the Cold War. The notion of "quagmire" during WOT will be generational in nature. And the question ever present before those scared, like John Kerry and George Bush (with charges of "he served" and "he evaded" responsibility), by Vietnam will be the choice of isolationism and retreat or "firm resolve" to see the great conflict through to the end.

Top Stories - Reuters


Report: Disney Blocking Anti-Bush Documentary

31 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!



LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore's documentary linking President Bush (news - web sites) with powerful Saudi families, including that of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), is stirring up controversy even before its release.


Reuters Photo



That's if it even gets released.


Hollywood trade paper Daily Variety said in its Wednesday edition that Walt Disney Co. has moved to prevent its Miramax Films unit from distributing "Fahrenheit 911."


The Disney edict could herald the bloodiest political battle yet between Miramax's feisty co-chairman Harvey Weinstein and Disney CEO Michael Eisner, who oversaw the purchase of Miramax a decade ago, Daily Variety said.


"Fahrenheit 911," Moore's follow-up to his Academy Award-winning film "Bowling for Columbine, will still premiere in competition at the Cannes Film Festival (news - web sites) in France later this month. Rumors had been circulating of a July release date in North America, but the film does not appear on Miramax's summer schedule, the paper said.


It quoted a Miramax spokesman as saying that the company was "looking forward to resolving this amicably."


Officials from Miramax and Disney were not immediately available for comment on the report.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Just for the hell of it, I googled Judge Gilbert S. Merritt (the author of the article that msm linked to). Three days after he wrote about finding this document that allegedly links Saddam to bin Laden, Judge Merritt penned this for the Tennesseean...

Yes, Judge Merritt is a very well-respected Democratic judge in Tennessee. I should think that the fact that he openly criticizes certain policies in Iraq would demonstrate his trustworthiness concerning documents indicating that the former regime met cordially with Al Qaeda.

Of course, Brian Rush would point out that LOGICALLY, just because the regime met with Al Qaeda doesn't prove that they supported Al Qaeda in terrorist activities.

I mean, they could have just been organizing a soccer league or something...

Originally Posted by msm

Yes, Judge Merritt is a very well-respected Democratic judge in Tennessee. I should think that the fact that he openly criticizes certain policies in Iraq would demonstrate his trustworthiness concerning documents indicating that the former regime met cordially with Al Qaeda.

I don't have any reason to doubt that Judge Merritt saw such a document. But he may be leaping to a hasty conclusion. As far as I know, the Bush administration hasn't mentioned this document in their attempts to justify this war. Why wouldn't they? It would seem to me that they could use all the evidence they could get. Instead, we get that same discredited story about Mohammad Atta meeting with an Iraqi agent in Prague.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

As far as I know, the Bush administration hasn't mentioned this document in their attempts to justify this war. Why wouldn't they?

This is a very good point. Depending on my mood, I teeter between thinking the Bush administration is extremely meticulous about what evidence it's willing to trumpet (putting the lie to many myths about it*), or it is just chronically bad at making its case in the public arena.

For example, the U.S. government agency in charge of collecting and interpreting satellite espionage is the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. The head of that agency, James R. Clapper, has gone on record saying that the NIMA tracked a considerable amount of large vehicular traffic moving from Iraq into Syria shortly before the Iraq invasion. He specifically argues that this was likely to be WMD-related equipment being moved to Saddam's Baathist allies in Syria.

Intel Chief: WMD Moved Outside Country

Even the much-publicised report by David Kay (which contains many examples that Iraq continued to violate the terms of the cease fire, but the media spun it the opposite way) agreed that there was good evidence that Iraq moved WMD to Syria.

Yet, never has the Bush administration trumpeted this. It simply has allowed the media to control the way these facts are spun (or not covered at all).

Now, last month, Al Qaeda attempted to attack Jordan with chemical weapons which all agree could have killed tens of thousands of people had the attack not been stopped. (Why was that not headline news?) According to the Jordanian government, the weapons came from Syria.

King Abdullah: Al-Qaida WMDs Came From Syria

It's very strange, is what it is. Nobody can claim that the Bush administration is ginning up any evidence in its favor, that's for sure...



What public institutions are failing us...

===============
* Oh, and BTW, in his new book, Joe Wilson now says Iraq DID seek uranium yellowcake from Niger after all, explaining why said yellowcake has been found in Europe mixed in with scrap metal from Iraq, as confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

But keep the "Bush Lied" meme going, people! It's only real life we're dealing with here.

When you see what we had to go through to develop, it really is no surprise that development is pretty crazy in 3rd world countries. Especially since they have the technology that it took us hundreds of years to develop. We're still dealing with the consequences of technology outpacing social change. Imagine that on a much larger scale and you have the Middle East today. It's like those alternative history novels where they go back to the Civil War and give them machine guns. It's just not pretty.

Originally Posted by msm

Even the much-publicised report by David Kay (which contains many examples that Iraq continued to violate the terms of the cease fire, but the media spun it the opposite way) agreed that there was good evidence that Iraq moved WMD to Syria.

Yet, never has the Bush administration trumpeted this. It simply has allowed the media to control the way these facts are spun (or not covered at all).

I seem to remember that Rumsfeld mentioned something about Syria last year -- it was news for one day or so, and then it was dropped.

So is Syria next?

Now, last month, Al Qaeda attempted to attack Jordan with chemical weapons which all agree could have killed tens of thousands of people had the attack not been stopped. (Why was that not headline news?)

Actually, it was. I remember seeing the story on at least one of the cable news networks and hearing it on NPR. I think it probably got drowned out by the Fallujah story and then by the "Nightline" controversy and finally the Iraqi prison scandal. Notice, too, that Thomas Hamill's escape isn't getting quite the attention that Jessica Lynch did.

It's very strange, is what it is. Nobody can claim that the Bush administration is ginning up any evidence in its favor, that's for sure...

I think there are at least some people in the administration who know that if they did gin up evidence, and got caught at it, they'd be absolutely crucified, especially in today's climate.

* Oh, and BTW, in his new book, Joe Wilson now says Iraq DID seek uranium yellowcake from Niger after all, explaining why said yellowcake has been found in Europe mixed in with scrap metal from Iraq, as confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

I'll look for that when I read the book. :wink:

Actually, the embedded post within that "freespeech.com" link is from a Washington Post article by Susan Schmidt and includes the following passage:

It was Saddam Hussein's information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as "Baghdad Bob," who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.

Saw as a possible effort to buy uranium? Was Baghdad Bob explicit about this request or wasn't he?

Later in the WaPo article:

In his book, Wilson recounts his encounter with the unnamed Niger official in 2002, saying, he "hesitated and looked up to the sky as if plumbing the depths of his memory, then offered that perhaps the Iraqi might have wanted to talk about uranium."

But this Niger official still won't go any farther than that! Sorry, it's not good enough to discredit Joe Wilson's original claim.

But keep the "Bush Lied" meme going, people! It's only the real life we're dealing with here.

Add to that "Bush Is Incompetent," I'd say.

Believe me, I noticed when they mentioned the wepons moving to Syria back then. My thought was "Ah, setting the agenda for the President's next term are we..."

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

I seem to remember that Rumsfeld mentioned something about Syria last year -- it was news for one day or so, and then it was dropped.

So is Syria next?

Our culture is not united, vastly limiting the president's power when compared, say, to FDR, who could send thousands of Japanese-Americans to concentration camps, wage wars in which thousands per day died, ally with Joe Stalin without anyone smirking, and distribute campaign literature comparing a vote for his Republican opponent with aiding and abetting the Nazi foe.

In particular, the news media was on FDR's side.

Today, we have a news media blatantly opposed to Bush, actively trying to derail him.

So, no, no Syria while Bush is in office. Certainly not before the election, and probably not afterwards (unless something really bad happens, like 20,000 dead in Amman.)

We were already at war with Iraq. The same cannot be said of Syria. The WOT will go slower from now on (like the Cold War).

On the other hand, if Kerry wins, he'd have a pretty free hand, with a friendly press...