Dave Roth's Politics

[Seshmeister]

This week on the radio.

I have to say I'm shocked.

I agree with 90% of his stuff.

Cheers!

[Nickdfresh]

I really haven't had a chance to listen, but I sense that what I have heard second hand tells me he is an ardent libertarian.

[Seshmeister]

Yeah that pretty much sums it up.

All politicians are assholes kind of thing.

Specifically I was surprised at his take on Israel.

[Satan]

Got it streaming down to Hell right now...

[steve]

THOUGHTS FROM A "FIVE PERCENTER"

Same,Sesh. (on the 90% comment...all except the "not voting" part...I believe in casting one for the lesser of two evils - no political system is perfect. Anyway...

I remember getting into an argument (a year ago) with a friend of mine - big Bush supporter.
He was slammin' me for not supporting Bush - whom he was arguing had freed the Saddam's subjects from their chains. He could not comprehend how I could be on the other side of the fence.
After talking to this person for a while, I convinced him that the administration had blatently lied about much of the info (centrifuges from Africa - Condi Rice not claiming to have "not read" (source: Wash Post) the British counter intel part of the report, etc.) used to convince americans of reasons to attack Iraq, and furthermore got him to ADMIT that yes...you never heard ONE WORD from the Bush administration about "freeing the Iraqi people" until you had 200000 troops in Baghdad and zero WMDs. furthermore, I pointed out that we were doing NOTHING in Darfur, an example of FAR WORSE dictatorial brutality. (We still have done nothing - save pointing out that genocide is happening).

But after all this, he flat out said that he was OK with them lying "if that's what it took" to get the job done.

While I see the virtue in getting rid of bad dictators like Saddam when possible, it sickens me that this administration LIED to do it.

I support the part of this war that has served to rid the people of Iraq of a dangerous dictator.

But the problem is I have ZERO faith that that the Bush administration really gave two SHITS about the Iraqi people; when in fact, ridding THEM of Saddam was the only good reason for invading Iraq...and they (bush admin) knew it. Yet this (ridding the IRAQI PEOPLE) of Saddam, was NEVER a reason given. Why?...because Americans would have NEVER launched a war on those premises.

I would have - and another 5% of us might have, but certainly not the mid-westerners most vehemently behind the fear politics of Junior and the neo-cons.

Instead, we were fed shoddy at best info about "mobile labs" and "centrifuges" - meaningless code words to strike up fear.

Saddam was contained, he was no more a menace (to those outside his borders) than any dictatorial regime on the entire continent of Africa...and less a "threat" (to Americans) than other bad guys on the itinerary: Al Queda abroad, Al Queda flooding across the Mexican border, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan (A Q Khan), or North Korea.

So why clean up the mess of one nasty dictator, but not the dozens of other equally bad ones throughout the world?

BECAUSE WE SUPPORTED SADDAM IN THE 80s.

Cheney and Rumsfeld in particular were architects of a defense policy that sought to use Saddam to contain Iran during the Iran/Iraq war. It was common, available knowledge in the 80s that, while we may or may not have actually supplied Saddam with chemical weapons (most analysts think the CIA gave him the know-how), we DID openly give his military satellite targets of Iranian positions... data he used to chem-bomb Iranian soldiers.

A MAJOR REASON FOR THIS WAR - that has not been covered by the "liberal media" - was former Reagan admin officals covering up old messes; thus the peculiar focus on Saddam and not other dictators (includin gKhadaffi! We just bragged about making a deal with a guy that still tortures his own people. We fuckin' rock, huh?)

A large part of Saddam's trial - if there ever is one - will be his use of chemical weapons in the Iran Iraq war. - That said, I support retroactively this war under one condition: Cheney and Rumsfeld testify under oath at Saddam's trial concerning U.S. intel used to chem-bomb Iranians.

[steve]

June 13, 2004

Iraqi General: US Helped Us as We Used Chemical Weapons
by Aaron Glantz
BAGHDAD (IPS) - The Iraq issue today may never have arisen if it were not for the support former U.S. president Ronald Reagan gave Saddam Hussein.
Reagan died Saturday June 5 in his Los Angeles home.
Reagan's two terms as President correspond roughly to the Iran-Iraq war, the longest conventional war of the 20th century.
Saddam Hussein invaded Iran on Sept. 22, 1980 with the stated goal of gaining control of the Shatt al-Arab, the river that has formed a border between Iran and Iraq, and which would give Iraq better access to the Persian Gulf.



The U.S. government was then interested in containing Iran, which had just become one of Washington's major enemies after the Islamic Revolution lead by Ayatollah Khomeini. U.S. hostages had been taken, and Ronald Reagan had just been elected partly on the strength of criticizing President Jimmy Carter's inability to free them.



"America and Saddam thought the same way at that time, because America wanted to destroy the revolution in Iran," retired Iraqi Brigadier-General Zekki Daoud Jabber told IPS in an interview in his Baghdad home.



When Reagan was President, Gen. Jabber was in charge of communication and radar for the Iraqi military. Almost from the beginning of the conflict, U.S.-manned AWACS aircraft leased to Saudi Arabia were used to relay intelligence to the Iraqi military.
"It was very important to us," Gen. Jabber told IPS, "because it allowed us to know where Iran's planes were; where they would strike."
More significant assistance for Saddam's regime would come later, but it took Reagan some time to arrange that.
Reagan took the first step in November 1983 when he removed Iraq from the U.S. government's official list of "nations that support international terrorism." That opened the door to full diplomatic and economic cooperation between Iraq and the United States.

The next month he sent an emissary to Baghdad bearing a personal letter for Saddam. That emissary was none other than current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

A declassified official note at the time read: "Saddam Hussein showed obvious pleasure with the President's letter and Rumsfeld's visits in his remarks."



Rumsfeld also met Saddam's foreign minister Tariq Aziz. According to a State Department memo made available by the National Security Archives in Washington, Rumsfeld told Aziz: "The United States and Iraq share many common interests," and that the Reagan administration had a "willingness to do more" to "help Iraq."



In 1984 Tariq Aziz, now under arrest after being on the list of Iraqis most wanted by the U.S. administration, traveled to Washington and met Ronald Reagan at the White House. Following that meeting, the United States made its intelligence in the Gulf available to Iraq on a regular basis, and set up direct links between the CIA and the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.



Through this time the Reagan administration largely ignored reports that Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons against the Iranian army and against domestic Kurdish insurgents.



"While condemning Iraq's resort to chemical weapons," a U.S. government press release read, "the United States finds the Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of Iraq to be inconsistent with accepted norms."

[knuckleboner]

Re: THOUGHTS FROM A "FIVE PERCENTER"

Originally posted by steve

But the problem is I have ZERO faith that that the Bush administration really gave two SHITS about the Iraqi people;

you need look no further than the fact that bush gave saddam several ultimatums (none of which mentioned human rights) before we invaded.

had saddam decided in december 2002 to let any inspector bush wanted in, with zero interference and let them go wherever and whenever they wanted, would opertation, "iraqi freedom" have ever existed?...


as for dave, he's got that firefighter/EMT thing going for him now. so how's about mayor of pasadena?

[steve]

Good points, man.

Do you think Saddam's lawyers will try to bring Cheney and Rummy to testify? I'm thinking this might be a good "Vegas Odds" type of question.

I say yes. In fact, I think it's a pretty obvious yes. Saddam already started to do it at his prelim. hearing.

The REAL question then is will Saddam ever even see trial as a result of this? Will he be whacked beforehand? Will the "liberal" media not cover that "irrelevant" part of the trial?

Or, will he get off and room with OJ?

[knuckleboner]

i like the last part.

i see WB sitcom.

"Saddam & the Juice," saturday nights on the WB.

"hilarity ensues as former iraqi president, saddam hussein, moves in with former heisman winner, o.j. simpson. saddam promises to help o.j. find the real killers and o.j. promises to help saddam find his buried weapons of mass destruction."



but yeah, not a bad call on saddam trying to call cheney and rumsfield. i'd say there's a decent chance of that. zero that they go, though.

most likely, it'll be a boring trial. i'm guessing saddam doesn't testify.

(but i'm REALLY hoping his former information minister does...)

[FORD]

Re: Re: THOUGHTS FROM A "FIVE PERCENTER"

Originally posted by knuckleboner


as for dave, he's got that firefighter/EMT thing going for him now. so how's about mayor of pasadena?

I know he still owns a house there, but has he actually spent enough time in pasadena in recent years to claim residency?

Seems like every time I've heard an address mentioned in the last several years, it's either been New York or Florida.

[Nickdfresh]

Re: Re: Re: THOUGHTS FROM A "FIVE PERCENTER"

Originally posted by FORD
I know he still owns a house there, but has he actually spent enough time in pasadena in recent years to claim residency?

Seems like every time I've heard an address mentioned in the last several years, it's either been New York or Florida.

I think Cape Cod or Martha's Vineyard may now be in that mix.

[steve]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
i like the last part.

i see WB sitcom.

"Saddam & the Juice," saturday nights on the WB.

"hilarity ensues as former iraqi president, saddam hussein, moves in with former heisman winner, o.j. simpson. saddam promises to help o.j. find the real killers and o.j. promises to help saddam find his buried weapons of mass destruction."



but yeah, not a bad call on saddam trying to call cheney and rumsfield. i'd say there's a decent chance of that. zero that they go, though.

most likely, it'll be a boring trial. i'm guessing saddam doesn't testify.

(but i'm REALLY hoping his former information minister does...)

http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612287298

I've had that sitcom spinning around for quite a while. Don't tread on me, mofo.
I am hoping the Information Minister is the star witness.

[kentuckyklira]

Re: THOUGHTS FROM A "FIVE PERCENTER"

Originally posted by steve
I remember getting into an argument (a year ago) with a friend of mine - big Bush supporter.
He was slammin' me for not supporting Bush - whom he was arguing had freed the Saddam's subjects from their chains.

Well, shooting moving targets is more fun, ain´t it?

[BigBadBrian]

Re: Re: THOUGHTS FROM A "FIVE PERCENTER"

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
Well, shooting moving targets is more fun, ain´t it?

Indeed. How fast can you run?

[UNCLAX72]

i need to get that