SPIEGEL ONLINE: "Iraq: The Start of the Civil War"

(By Ray D.)

Reading SPIEGEL ONLINE Means Never Having to Think for Yourself

When George W. Bush won the 2004 election last November, the first reaction of the journalists at SPIEGEL ONLINE was, "How could this happen?" After years of biased, one-sided, negative campaign journalism against Bush and Conservative Americans, it was hardly surprising that the publication's readers were completely baffled and upset at the election results. An editorial soon followed stating that the United States had become "as scary as Osama bin Laden." These peculiar reactions can be explained only if one understands the well-insulated parallel-reality in which consumers of left-wing German media find themselves. It is a reality in which stifling bias and selective negativity reign. It is a reality in which America and Bush can do no right and all those who support them are religiously denounced as vassals.

Over the past several years, this form of systematic, negative campaign journalism has also been thickly applied to coverage of Iraq at several German media outlets. While some in the press actually make an honest effort to present both the negative and positive aspects of the situation, publications like SPIEGEL ONLINE have been diligently constructing yet another comfortable, parallel-reality for readers in which the negative predominates and critical thought is unnecessary. 

The most recent installation in SPIEGEL ONLINE's campaign of doom is a front-page, three-part masterpiece of bias composed by Georg Mascolo and Bernhard Zand under the headline: "Iraq: The Start of the Civil War". 

SPIEGEL ONLINE Headline: "Iraq: The Start of the Civil War"

The article, which carries the subheadline, "Iraq: The Seed of Evil", begins with dire predictions of collapse and civil war. The introductory paragraph reads (our translation of the original German):

"Sunni suicide-bomb commandos inflict bloodbaths on the Shiites that are gradually forcing the country into a civil war. Instead of become a democratic point of light for the entire region, collapse is threatening. All of the ethnic groups are seeking greater independence."

And the tone of the article barely changes over the next three pages. It is a non-stop litany of negativity as the two authors catalog, point-by-point, all that is wrong with Iraq while totally ignoring all that is right. Apparently, the editors at SPIEGEL ONLINE enjoyed the piece so much they decided to have it translated into English as well...

SPIEGEL ONLINE's English Site Plays the Selective Translation Game with Headlines

Yasser Arafat was a well-known practicioner of duplicity during his long career. He would tell his Palestinian audience one thing, while delivering a completely different message to the West in English. It seems that SPIEGEL ONLINE is engaged in a similar shell game. The "SPIEGEL Online English Site" just published a translation of the Mascolo-Zand article. But the headline was distinctly different in tone. Instead of reading, "Iraq: The Start of the Civil War", it reads "Crumbling Iraq: Is the Country Heading for Civil War?"

Confused Reality at SPIEGEL ONLINE: Has the Civil War Started or Not?

In the German version, the headline clearly indicates that a civil war is already beginning, whereas in the English version, the headline is far more speculative and simply asks whether the country could be heading towards civil war. In fact, the article's actual content completely contradicts the English version's altered headline. The eleventh paragraph of the magazine's English translation reads:

"This civil war, which has in fact been underway for some time, isn't just frightening the citizens of Baghdad, whose lives have become a living hell as a result."

So if the civil war "has in fact been underway for some time," why would you lead the story with a headline asking if the country is "heading for civil war?"

On the whole, SPIEGEL's "English Site" is noticeably less strident in terms of its anti-American, anti-British tone when compared to its German-language counterpart. Few of the magazine's harshest articles, (the sort that we frequently post about here on Davids Medienkritik), ever make it onto the "English Site." Now why might that be? Is SPON afraid to tell English-language readers what it really thinks of them?

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Ignoring History, Ignoring Reality

Now back to our focus, the Mascolo-Zand piece. As usual, the article ignores vital facts and historic context. First of all, ethnic killings in Iraq are hardly a new phenomena that began in 2003 with American military intervention. Saddam's mass graves are filled with untold thousands of Shiites massacred as they sought to claim autonomy from the dominant Sunni minority in 1991. Saddam's mass graves are also filled with untold thousands of Kurds who resisted Arab domination and were slaughtered by the thousands in places like Halabja. Just because today's German media barely reports on Saddam's genocidal mass-murder of Kurds and Shiites, doesn't mean that these acts of barbarism didn't happen. Sadly, ethnic conflict, turbulence and internal strife are hardly new to Iraq and have marked the regions' history for centuries on end. But in the parallel-reality of SPIEGEL ONLINE, it seems that these forces have been suddenly 'unleashed' by US military action.

The Horror: German media would rather not show you this. Hundreds-of-thousands of men, women and children lie dead in Saddam's mass graves. Some will never be found. (source)

The authors' morbid obsession with the negative is reflected in passages like these, (our translation from the original German, SPIEGEL's translation is here):

Five times in the past four weeks, for example, in the Amarija Quarter along the street to the airport, common people have been killed who did not have the slightest to do with the building up of Iraq. (...)

"It looks like a civil war," says Aiham al-Samarrai as well, who last week arrived in Washington for talks. (...)

Last week temperatures climbed to more than 50 degrees Celcius in Baghdad, at the same time the city experienced, what has even been seldom in the time after the war, the simultaneous collapse of the three most important supply systems. (oil, water, electricity) (...)

For months US military have complained that the Iraqi police and Army units are nowhere near capable of pacifying the country. (...)

"The war of confession has begun," declared Imam Dschalal al-Din Saghir in his sermon on Friday and called for restraint. (...)

British and American officials also have evidence of the torture practices of the Iraqi units. (...)

Kurdistan, Shiitistan, Sunnistan - the question remains what fate in such a breaking apart of Iraq would befall the city of Baghdad and its 5 million residents in which none of the three groups has a clear majority.

Wayne White was formerly an Iraq expert in the US State Department. Now he works in a Washington think tank. He points to the gloomy historic model Beirut. When there is not imminent success in terms of improving the lives of Iraqis and isolating the terror, the struggle for dominance in the capital city will be fought out - with the massive driving-out of refugees?

And who will have the upper hand in the end? "A winner is not yet clear," says White.

The last few paragraphs are particularly interesting. The article's entire premise seems to be based on the authors' interpretation of the opinions of a former State Department employee currently working at the Middle East Institute. The premise is supported throughout by unbroken, uniform predictions of civil war and chaos. SPIEGEL ONLINE systematically ignores those with differing opinions and a more optimistic view of Iraq's future as if they simply did not exist. Positive events such as the rebuilding of schools, hospitals, power-plants and roads or the nation's economic growth or the sinking US casualty rate or efforts to draft a constitution with the Sunnis are meticulously avoided and omitted. And this is the fundamental problem with much of the German media's reporting on Iraq today.

And so another confused parallel-reality has grown from the seeds of bias sewn by SPIEGEL ONLINE and other likeminded media outlets. It is a parallel reality in which readers' understanding of the world is clouded and distorted by a fundamental lack of journalistic balance rooted in the publication's obsession with the negative and the sensational and its stubborn omission of the positive.

Above all it is a parallel-reality molded to conform to the ideals of the leftist, 1968-generation of Germans who hold so many high positions in the German media today. For them, American defeat in Vietnam was one of the proud, defining moments of their lifetimes. And, of course, whether they are willing to openly admit it or not, nothing would be more satisfying than a replay, regardless of what the consequences would be for the millions left behind at the mercy of a terrorist regime. That is why, despite the many, inescapable differences between Iraq 2005 and Vietnam 1965, the comparison continues to be made.

In closing let it be clearly stated: The point of our criticism is not to deny that major problems currently confront Iraq. They clearly do. The nation is still years from being a peaceful and stable democracy. Violence and terror remain a constant blight. There is clearly much to be done. But there is also clearly much that has been accomplished. To ignore this "other side" of the story with such resolve and to shut out opposing, optimistic points-of-view so completely over three pages is to forfeit ones credibility as a journalist.

Comments

[poguemahone]

Bob - its you who imagine the President "knows" everything

Even Presidents ( and Popes and Kings ) don't know everything Bob

Live with it

As for Iran/Iraq war - yep - pity both the Mullahs and Saddam couldn't lose

Much as I feel about Hitler and Stalin - pity both of them couldn't lose either

Your such a dimwit - you have said "keep Saddam in power" and now your trying to weasel out of it

[Bob]

@Thomas ...

'People like you propose to have left Saddam in place. Admit that you believe that if W Bush was not elected president in 2000 :
- 911 would not have happened'

Of course it would have happened ...

'Not only 911, countless bombings happened during the Clinton "peace" years. These bombings had just no result, everyone ignored them just like you propose to do. Iran became a theocracy.'

Iran became a theocracy in 1975, when people got fed up with the Shah. Not exactly because of Clinton. Ya know ya can't blame the guy for everything ...

'Afghanistan suffered even more.'

This war started in the Reagan era.

'Pakistan has nukes now and soon Iran will too. All this happened during the decades your proposed solution was used.'

Actually that happened on Bush's watch.

But you don't know a lot anyway, so whatever ... keep on repeating what they teach you on FOX and you will be safe ... *lol*

---

@Joe ...

'Or are you just like bob, maybe you are bob'

Yeah, there just can't be more than ONE person thinking differently from you, Joe ... it just CAN'T BE - there's only ONE LIBERAL in the world ... come on ...

'and facts really do not matter to you. That is fair enough you understand, many on the left find facts to be a real bother if they cannot some how be twisted to suit their position.'

It's just that you didn't come up with a single 'fact' supporting your position ... all you do is throw insults, so what do you want, lapdog?

'But then again I know it would be asking much too much to put all of this in a historical perspective.
My God all Germany has done for the last 100 years is invade and kill people.'

Wow - there's 'historical perspective' and 'facts' ... you do know that since WWII ended SIXTY YEARS AGO Germany is no longer in the business of invading and killing people, do you? Man alive ...

If that is the kind of historical knowledge Bush-bots are equipped with, all we can do is pray.

[Zyme]

@ Joe

"Since we are not going to put things in a historical perspective, then why in the world would any German think they should have a UNSC seat. My God all Germany has done for the last 100 years is invade and kill people."

You dont seem to realize who would benefit most from a german UNSC seat - its not germany itself.
By including germans into that council, you would make us confident and calm the situation down to a level that we would accept most likely.
By excluding germans from that council, you anger us and provoke us to look for other alternatives for gaining power..

How about delievering weapons technology to china? that would make you lose quite a deal of influence in asia in the long term - and all the other powerhungry nations like russia, japan, china, india and pakistan would gain that influence directly from your country.
And even if germany didnt benefit from such a constellation, we might do this simply to damage your power as some kind of payback.

Seeing two continents busy with each other more and more, we might be "der lachende Dritte".

[Bob]

@poguemahone ... really funny watching you picking your own arguments apart ... *lmao*

'Bob - its you who imagine the President "knows" everything'

I don't. You do. THIS President knew there were no WMD. They don't tell you that on Fox though ...
and you won't read it on typical right-winger blogs like this one ...

'Even Presidents ( and Popes and Kings ) don't know everything Bob'

Thanks for telling me. I'm relieved. I can sleep well tonight.

'Live with it'

I will.

'As for Iran/Iraq war - yep - pity both the Mullahs and Saddam couldn't lose'

Ya know, the Mullahs and Saddam didn't do the fighting ... it was regular soldiers being
sent to die by the millions - it was innocent civilians ... obviously you don't care about them AT ALL as you pretended to do. You did however call me a racist, because in your twisted mind you confused my words with yours and you somehow thought I didn't care about 'poor Iraqis' ... when I'm against this war because those very Iraqis and thousands of Americans are dying in it, something which you not only accept but condone ...

'Much as I feel about Hitler and Stalin - pity both of them couldn't lose either'

Again, they didn't do the fighting.

'Your such a dimwit - you have said "keep Saddam in power" and now your trying to weasel out of it'

Not at all. Saddam in power is better than radical Islamists in power, wouldn't you agree?
Needless to say both of them aren't very good for 'poor Iraqis', but then again, that's of no concern to you anyway.

---

@lucklucky ... What's 'Iraqui' - never heard that term.

I suggest you do a little reading. The US was a major contributor to Iraq's weapons programs, the Washington Post had piece on that a while ago ...

BTW poguemahone is calling that a lie, when in the next sentence he a) defends the policy and b) regrets this policy ... He keeps changing positions!!! :D Just like Kerry does ...

[lucklucky]

"I suggest you do a little reading. The US was a major contributor to Iraq's weapons programs, the Washington Post had piece on that a while ago ..."

So your source is an article in WAPO hehe unbelievable!! Oppose to that i have hundreds or thousands articles read in Aviation magazines and also Military ones. I actually played simulations of Iraq-Iran war and researched OOBs and TOE's, do you know what that means btw?

[Bob]

I do ... so you're into military stuff, fascinating (honestly)

What's so unbelievable about a Washington Post article? Ah, I forgot ... of course it's LIBERAL ...

It's just the first article that popped up on google when I did a search on the topic.

There's many thousands more. It's a known fact.
Don't try to deny stuff everybody knows, you're making a fool out of yourself.

[Bob]

Here's info about corporations that supplied Iraq's weapons program:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm

And another one:

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/time.html

Excerpt:

'U.S. officials take a dismissive attitude to revelations about complicity in Saddam's military reign of terror in the '80s. Officials tell us that American corporations did nothing wrong when they shipped chemicals, germs, nuclear materials to Iraq. After all, they say, Saddam was a U.S. ally in the '80s.

The entire U.S. arms trade is based on a heinous premise: that atrocities and war crimes in the Third World are acceptable so long as they fit within U.S. global strategy and aims.'

Of course you'll dismiss all information as left-wing propaganda, and since right-wing publications obviously won't touch these kinds your world view won't be disturbed.

A perfect propaganda machine - report and read only the news that fit your world view ... dangerous

[Chaos]

What's your point Bob?

You obviously hold the belief that the government of the US supporting Saddam against Iran was wrong. Very well.

But now you condemn the government of the US for no longer supporting Saddam while you condemn it for once supporting him. Because he was a rather bad character who we never should have supported.

So what exactly is your problem? You should be a great supporter of Bush, he took his father's and Clinton's changed stance on Saddam and actually backed up the words of his two predecessors, who most definitely did not support Saddam during their Administrations. He rectified the mistakes of the Reagan Administration concerning Iraq, mistakes you roundly condemn. He fixed your problem, but you're mad at him.

But wait - you're just an emotional knee-jerk anti-Bush moron. Of course you're going to be an illogical dolt.

[Joe]

Chaos,

There is no point. That is why you are wasting your time. There is no point and there is no thought. It is like the references provided - they have to make you blush a bit as they are so bias. This has to mean there really was noting to pull up from the M$M to support this silliness.

OT:

I am considering sending in a small contribution for Cheney in 08 just so Helen Thomas will kill herself. Another one of M$M unbias and factual reporters........LOL

[lucklucky]

Lying again! now dual use stuff masquerading as weapons? Btw that list strangely misses German dual use firms.... 7 of Chemical factories in Iraq were from FGR and the remaining were europeans also. Do you know what was in that list? Aditives for plastics and paints, high speed film cameras, spectometre analysis, computers, scientific equipement, etc etc. The UN put the first advice and report about chemical warfare in Iran-Iraq war and advice against some limited dual use exports(mainly specific chemical components) for Iraq in 1984, USA was the first country to have a law against them in same year.

That silly leftist sites even misses that was Pentagon the most stringent oponent to SOME dual use exports to Iraq and that Commerce Department was more favorable. But werent talking about weapons.

Second that list is way incomplete misses thousands of firms that sold stuff that can be used to build weapons but also pacific things. And forbiding them to Iraq was like sending the country to stone age.

But none of them is a weapon. What sustained the Saddam regime was guns, tanks , aircrafts, individual weapons etc..

[Del Hoeft]

Plan A; Establish democracy in Iraq and the Middle East

Plan B; Sectarian civil war within Islam occupies Muslims with killing one another instead of killing everybody else.

Plan C; What the Hell, it's a knock-down-drag-out global war between Islam and everybody else. And as Churcill said the only thing worse than war is losing one. I for one hope to God that Plan A works.

[WhatDoIKnow]

The Bobs know beyond any doubt that Bush knew about the WMDs (or lack thereof). The Bobs don't have and don't need any shred of evidence to support their theory, because they know. Their knowledge superseeds any facts, because when you know something, facts only stand in your way. Therefore, the simple fact that ALL Western countries, including the UN, were convinced that Saddam had WMDs is totally irrelevant to the Bobs. In spite of all that... Bush knew. End of the debate for the Bobs. I can see how attractive it is to be a Bob. You don't need much intelectualizing when you can speak only in absolute truths.

If the Bobs can't even understand this simple concept, they will not be able to understand that the (shameful) status-quo of last decades has been irremediably lost on 911. They will NEVER understand that the concept of shaking up & shaping up Middle-East dictatorships through war or political pressure is a result of the lost status-quo. In their confused minds the status-quo is alive and well. The Bobs don't enjoy coming out in the frightening world of facts. In order to avoid that they cling to everything, even to the ghost of the dead status-quo.

Coming from a country whose people were on the receiving end of such a status-quo, I can only say I am happy it's dead and I hope that the civilized world will stop craving, building and maintaining such status-quo's. If the Bobs want to play around with the ghosts of status-quo, so be it. They just shouldn't try to revive them, while living safely on the comfortable side of a status-quo. I believe that in today's world and especially in the future there is no place anymore for "containing" dictators in the name of "stability". "De-containing" dictators is a difficult, long, ugly and dirty job, but it has to be done and it has to start sometime. I hope the Bobs will not stand (too much) in the way of the ones who are willing to do the job. The "progressives" shouldn't try to derail real progress.

[Thomas]

@Bob

I don't think you are smart enough to pull off a classical trick of the left, but you did it anyway (unconsciously I suppose) :
you pretend that I wrote somewhere that Iran became a theocracy during the Clinton years. That's not what is written, I’ll try to explain it again so you could understand : during the decades that the classical solution of the left was used (thus also long before Clinton, is it clear to you now ?), the situation deteriorated substantially, ALSO during the Clinton years.
Deliberate misreading ? Na, you just didn't get it as always ;-))

Anyway, you still don't come up with a solution of your own. One that works.

The Bush solution has its flaws, but it DOES work (until now) : no suicide bombings in the USA.

What's more, finding WMD in Iraq is completely irrelevant in the war on terror. With or without that reason, Saddam had to go. It was just one of the various reasons to take out Saddam first before the Saudis, Iran or Syria. They will follow though, don't worry. Or they clean up their act themselves, or the USA/Israel will do it for them.

It’s really not that difficult to understand, the Bush doctrine is as easy as Al Qaeda’s. But you don’t seem to understand either of them, you try to play the deveil’s advocate. You want to be a bystander, not taking any position. There’s ony 1 explanation for this behaviour : you must REALLY hate Bush, even more then you hate islamic fundamentalism (do you hate it ? I’m not sure about your position there either).

Anyway, it may be too late to propose a solution from the “left” after 911. Suppose tomorrow a new bombing DOES happen in the USA, a totally different strategy will be needed.

1. Before 911 : talk talk talk talk
2. after 911 : bring democracy, move the fight to the ME
after the new 911 : neither of the previous solutions will work anymore. So what will be the next plan ? Think about that. The gloves will come off !

[Bob]

@Thomas ... you're funny ... you've already proven that you don't know a thing about history, now you wanna weasel out by blaming ME I misread ... *lol*

But this much I concede to you - parsing the illogical, simplistic and naive utterances of a misinformed Bush-lapdog chickenhawk is not always easy ... :D

'Anyway, you still don't come up with a solution of your own. One that works.'

Go after the terrorists. Not after some weak, contained former sitting-duck dictator like Saddam.
WHERE IS BIN LADEN?

None of you folks even has ONE word about him, because you KNOW that God-like President Bush BLEW IT.

'What's more, finding WMD in Iraq is completely irrelevant in the war on terror.'

President Bush, your hero, said just the opposite and went to war because of it.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with the war on terror, it has now, because these pinheads turned Iraq into a safe haven for terrorists. And even worse, so much assets are pulled away from the ACTUAL war on terror and wasted in Iraq, while the situation in Afghanistan is going south again.

'It’s really not that difficult to understand, the Bush doctrine is as easy as Al Qaeda’s.'

*LOOOOOOL*

'You want to be a bystander, not taking any position. There’s ony 1 explanation for this behaviour : you must REALLY hate Bush, even more then you hate islamic fundamentalism (do you hate it ? I’m not sure about your position there either).'

I've not even stated my position yet, so how can you know? All I'm saying is that the Iraq war was a fundamental mistake. You don't know any of my other positions, so STFU!

I do not HATE Bush, I merely criticize him - something you guys seem to have forgotten since Clinton went.

I also do not HATE islamic fundamentalism (although it's hard to NOT hate them, I have to concede).

A wise man does not HATE his enemy, because hate obscures clear thinking.

Something one can see right here with you guys, you just hate everybody else.

You hate liberals, you hate muslims, you hate Germany, you hate France, you hate China, you hate Russia, basically you hate everyone but your Great Republican Leadership. Praise Bush! Praise Bush!

Lunatics ...

'Suppose tomorrow a new bombing DOES happen in the USA, a totally different strategy will be needed.'

Interesting. Of course you don't elaborate, but keep on blabbering:

'neither of the previous solutions will work anymore. So what will be the next plan ? Think about that. The gloves will come off !'

So you're hoping for the nukes to fly or what? Are you hoping torture won't be off limits anymore?

As I said ... lunatics ...

[Bob]

@Chaos - you haven't read my postings properly.

'

What's your point Bob?

You obviously hold the belief that the government of the US supporting Saddam against Iran was wrong. Very well.

But now you condemn the government of the US for no longer supporting Saddam while you condemn it for once supporting him. Because he was a rather bad character who we never should have supported.

So what exactly is your problem? You should be a great supporter of Bush, he took his father's and Clinton's changed stance on Saddam and actually backed up the words of his two predecessors, who most definitely did not support Saddam during their Administrations. He rectified the mistakes of the Reagan Administration concerning Iraq, mistakes you roundly condemn. He fixed your problem, but you're mad at him.'

I never roundly condemned the US government for supporting Saddam back then when it was in US national interest. What I condemn is the hypocracy in pretending the US never did back him.

What I condemn is that Bush used valuable resources needed in the war on terror and wasted it in Iraq, where the situation is now worse than before. Iraq is now a giant terrorist camp. Congrats.

Saddam just killed of the fanatics. Of course he was a butcher, there are mass graves, innocent people died. But Saddam served US national interest better than yet another Iran-style theocracy serving as a training camp for terrorists.

'But wait - you're just an emotional knee-jerk anti-Bush moron. Of course you're going to be an illogical dolt.'

Insults won't help your argument, lapdog.

[poguemahone]

Some real gems here -

"I've not even stated my position yet, so how can you know? All I'm saying is that the Iraq war was a fundamental mistake. You don't know any of my other positions, so STFU!"

Ah - the KERRY ARGUEMENT - you don't have any position - any alternative solution to anything - but you know whatever was done was the wrong thing to do

So go ahead - beyond your previous idea that we should have left Saddam in power ( that was so nice ) - what is your new suggestion for the WoT? "get OBL!" you say -
and if we did - what - he signs the peace treaty and the war is over?

Is this your 4th grade understanding of this war?

"I do not HATE Bush, I merely criticize him - something you guys seem to have forgotten since Clinton went."

Sure Bob - sure Tell us about something good Bush has done

"I also do not HATE islamic fundamentalism (although it's hard to NOT hate them, I have to concede).

A wise man does not HATE his enemy, because hate obscures clear thinking."

You are such a fucking dimwit its hard to believe idiots like you can type

Do you even know what Islamic Fundamentalism is? Do you know what sharia is? What a dhimmi is?

Islamic fundamentalism ( or facism more accurately ) is the enemy here Bob

No Bob - its fine to hate ones enemies - how about this "I hate the nazi's" - General George S Patton

Was he unclear to you?

No its been explained to you that despite your earlier assertion - Presidents don't "know" everything

You may believe that Bush knew there were no WMD - but thats not what the evidence says ( the British, French and German intelligence agencies also believed it most likely he was hiding WMD )

Of course, in your world it must be simpler to think the President "knows" all - he's even hiding that spaceship in Area 51 isn't he

To explain the scope of the GWoT to you is also beyond my interest - you think its "get OBL!" - thats fine

You don't suggest how this will help the long term war - or that you even understand the war - so you stick with whats simple

Bob - "fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life"

[Cousin Dave]

Bob: You prohibit us from judging you, yet you grant yourself the privilege of judging us. It's quite clear to me that your "draft dodger" comment was a direct attack on posters who disagree with you. Well, here's my judgement of you: You are living a life of complete fantasy. You have no connection with reality whatsoever. And you are arrogant enough to believe that reality must be forced to conform with your desires.

You, quite frankly, can go to hell. And I say that in the nicest possible way.

[Joe]

Cousin Dave,

I find people like you are referring to who complain about service to our nation, in other words those who have served and those who have not, fall into the group of having never served.

They hold in contemp those who serve or have served. I find this to be interesting be they American or European because they owe their freedoms to those who they belittle. They do not value what they have nor do they acknowledge those who gave it to them. They some how think freedom really is free.

So for people like the bobs of the world you feel a bit sad for them or at least I do and pity the darkness that fills so much of their lives for they will always want more than they will have and yet never realize they have so very much.

@poguemahone ...

> Ah - the KERRY ARGUEMENT - you don't have any position

Actually I don't see the point in posting all of my positions and convictions when we're talking about one single issue

> So go ahead - beyond your previous idea that we should have left Saddam in power ( that was so
> nice ) - what is your new suggestion for the WoT? "get OBL!" you say -
> and if we did - what - he signs the peace treaty and the war is over?

So what you're saying is we SHOULDN'T capture and/or kill Bin Laden, the man behind 9/11???

> Is this your 4th grade understanding of this war?

I've got an engineers degree, so 4th grade has been a while ...

> "I do not HATE Bush, I merely criticize him - something you guys seem to have forgotten since
> Clinton went."
>
> Sure Bob - sure Tell us about something good Bush has done

I fully support his Space Program.
Your turn - something good Clinton has done, please

> "I also do not HATE islamic fundamentalism (although it's hard to NOT hate them, I have to
> concede).
>
> A wise man does not HATE his enemy, because hate obscures clear thinking."
>
> You are such a fucking dimwit its hard to believe idiots like you can type

You're the best example for my sentence being right. You HATE, therefore you can't think.

> Do you even know what Islamic Fundamentalism is? Do you know what sharia is? What a dhimmi is?

Other than you I do know what it is - that's why I understand that it isn't really a success that the Iraqi government has a couple of days ago installed the Sharia as the law of the land ...

> Islamic fundamentalism ( or facism more accurately ) is the enemy here Bob

So you've just proven that you don't know what fascism is, pogue ... that's what comes from repeating the idiots on FOX ... try to look up 'Fascism' yourself (use my spelling ;) ) and you'll understand why the term is inaccurate with regard to Islamists.

> No Bob - its fine to hate ones enemies - how about this "I hate the nazi's" - General George S
> Patton
>
> Was he unclear to you?

That one's a real treat ... :D

You know what Patton also said: About captured SS officers: "A bunch of great looking SOBs with these uniforms"

About Nazi-Germany: "We attacked to wrong country" He thought the real enemy was the Soviet Union ...

No, pogue, hating your enemy will get you nowhere. Learn about how he thinks, operates and about his weaknesses - then destroy him with that knowledge.

But all YOU want is revenge - which is going to produce more enemies because you kill innocent people in the process.

> No its been explained to you that despite your earlier assertion - Presidents don't "know"
> everything

That was your assertion.

> You may believe that Bush knew there were no WMD - but thats not what the evidence says ( the
> British, French and German intelligence agencies also believed it most likely he was hiding WMD )

No. The only evidence came from the British and it was forged.

> Of course, in your world it must be simpler to think the President "knows" all - he's even hiding
> that spaceship in Area 51 isn't he

Is he? Interesting.

> To explain the scope of the GWoT to you is also beyond my interest - you think its "get OBL!" -
> thats fine

You couldn't explain it because YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT

> "fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life"

Sorry to hear that - have you tried eating less, have you tried to stop drinking? Try AA.

All you can come up with is insults, that's because you don't know how to argue when the conversation goes beyond the talking points they teach you on FOX. That forces you to revert to insults, which shows how immature you are. You're a joke

[James W.]

@Bob

“The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction”, made up of Republicans and Democrats, clearly state in the wmd report that there was NO political pressure to influence the pre-war intelligence. The report goes very much into detail on how the intelligence was poor and misinterpreted.

“As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally
asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter
any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence
and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced
the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.” Page 51

http://www.wmd.gov/report/wmd_report.pdf

So, if you have any PROOF that Bush lied and people died—bring it on!!!

BTW, you leftists want your cake and to eat it too. On one side, the left argues that OBL would never work together with Saddam Hussein because…blah, blah, blah; on the other side, the left claims that OBL was happily supported by the US (the great Satan) to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.

I love the logic.

[Bob]

@CousinDave ...

... so what's your point? Except for insults there's nothing there.

@Joe - the word is 'contempt'.

I don't hold anyone in contempt, I criticize ONE single person who has tried - successfully - to avoid going to Vietnam and who now lightly sends off young Servicemen and -women to die.

Love the soldier - hate the war

[Bob]

Oops, that was me @ 8:47pm

@ James W. ...

> On one side, the left argues that OBL would never work together with Saddam Hussein because…blah,
> blah, blah; on the other side, the left claims that OBL was happily supported by the US (the great
> Satan) to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.

Where's the contradiction? Both statements are true - it's a known fact.

About your other claim --- there's hundreds of articles, books, administration statements that clearly show that the Bush admin took 'evidence' which the weapons inspectors called 'a pile of bullshit' to have an excuse to go to war ... "we KNOW Iraq has WMD - we KNOW where they are" --- *lmao*

[James W.]

> You may believe that Bush knew there were no WMD - but thats not what the evidence says ( the
> British, French and German intelligence agencies also believed it most likely he was hiding WMD )

No. The only evidence came from the British and it was forged.

Wrong Bob. Please read chapter 1 in the wmd report. I don't want to paste dozens of pages here. It states clearly that several of the world's intel agencies were mistaken. BTW, the British still stand by their intelligence on uranium.

[Bob]

@James W. - I'll read it over the weekend ...

[James W.]

Where's the contradiction? Both statements are true - it's a known fact.

BS! If you can't see the contradiction, then you're beyond help. A known fact? Oh, I forgot! For a leftist, opinion = fact.

Bush received evidence from his intelligence agencies. Much of the intelligence seems to have been wrong. Bush can only go on what he's being told. I'm sorry, but I will take a highly detailed report written by a group of Republicans and DEMOCRATS, who had unfettered access to intel--to include some international intel, over your collection of articles.

[lucklucky]

Right now 7 French Jihadists already died in Iraq, what they would have been preparing without it?

[Thomas]

@Bob

"Go after the terrorists. Not after some weak, contained former sitting-duck dictator like Saddam.
WHERE IS BIN LADEN?"

-You idiot, 26.000 soldiers are doing that job right now. What do you suggest ? Send in 150.000 more to find Bin Laden ? Some politician you would make ! What a visionary !

'What's more, finding WMD in Iraq is completely irrelevant in the war on terror.'
"President Bush, your hero, said just the opposite and went to war because of it."

-He said a lot of other things too. Reasons you don't want to hear. Bad logic, bad conclusions.

"All I'm saying is that the Iraq war was a fundamental mistake."

- That's an opinion, you're entitled to that. Most people don't think that, that's why they re-elected W. Live with it, and try to be constructive. If you don't like the solution of the republicans, just try to understand it, instead of throwing in useless rantings.

"You don't know any of my other positions, so STFU!"

-Typical liberal : I don't take a position, I just criticize. WAW, you're so informed ! It must be the JOOOOS who did it !

"So you're hoping for the nukes to fly or what? Are you hoping torture won't be off limits anymore?"

-That's what is at stake here, so you better start using your head instead of your easy critiques. You think this war is a joke ?

[poguemahone]

You know the problem with the internet for you Bob - its easy to go back and paste the exact statements you made and prove you are lying

Me "No its been explained to you that despite your earlier assertion - Presidents don't "know" everything"

You: That was your assertion

OH was it - so when you wrote

@poguemahone ... really funny watching you picking your own arguments apart ... *lmao*

'Bob - its you who imagine the President "knows" everything'

I don't. You do. THIS President knew there were no WMD. They don't tell you that on Fox though ...
and you won't read it on typical right-winger blogs like this one ...

Leaving aside the usual slam at FOX ( having any alternative to the MSM really drives you up the wall doesn't it ) - you are saying here - as a FACT - what Bush KNEW

And you know this how?

Oh right - you don't?

And its been pointed out to you several times that there are volumes of documents showing that ALL of the major intell agencies held the same view - that it was overwhelmingly likely that Saddam retained WMD - either stockpiles or capabilities

Personally I think Saddam even thought he had some stuff - you don't tell a guy like that that there is nothing after all

But for you to say Bush KNEW demonstrates some level of naivte about the nature of the world thats hard for me to grasp

It sounds like a 10 year old who thinks the President knows everything

As for your comments about how it was ordinary Iraqi and Iranian people who were dying in the 1980-88 war - isnt that ALWAYS the case?

Wasn't it ordinary Germans dying from 1939-45?

Would you say that the Allied cause then was also bad because of the effect on the people?

[mamapajamas]

Not only is Spiegel's theory hair-brained, their "facts" are way off as well.

Sunni suicide bombers? SUNNI suicide bombers???????????

Uh, Spiegel, the Sunnis aren't the suicide bombers. They're the people who are shooting guns. The Sunni insurgents (the only group there who actually ARE insurgents!) were the people who had cushy jobs and high incomes under the Saddam regime. They want their extravagant lifestyle back.

The suicide bombers are Wahabbis and mostly foreigners. They're the group of al Qaeda who follow that lovely Jordanian, al Zarqawi. These are called "terrorists", and they are responsible for most of the deaths in Iraq.

Sunnis aren't inclined toward suicide.

[mamapajamas]

@Poguemahone: "Leaving aside the usual slam at FOX ( having any alternative to the MSM really drives you up the wall doesn't it ) - you are saying here - as a FACT - what Bush KNEW

"And you know this how?"

Bob knows because he's psychic, of course ;). Only HE can read the mind of the President, don'cha know!

@Bob: "About your other claim --- there's hundreds of articles, books, administration statements that clearly show that the Bush admin took 'evidence' which the weapons inspectors called 'a pile of bullshit' to have an excuse to go to war ... "we KNOW Iraq has WMD - we KNOW where they are" --- *lmao*"

And you know that the "hundreds of articles" that you're referencing are true in the midst of all this disinformation about this war... how?

Oh, wait... that's right. You're psychic. You can read President Bush's mind. I forgot...

[leo]

@ james w.:

there really is NO contradiction between OBL having nothing to do with saddam and having received support by the US - he didn´t like saddam because saddam was a secular dictator, and he DID receive money from the US .

@ pokemyhoney, mamapajamas: you are dodging bobs arguments because you can´t provide any facts.

@atthesestilldefendingtheWMDbullshit

You can be pro or contra the war in iraq there are good arguments that can defend the this war but WMD are not among these.

Mr blix and mr el baradai made the case very clear at the end of the UN security council farce.

Anybody still memembering the poor Mr powell and his clear evidence and the answer of mr blix "if that´s all they have than it is worse as i thought".
How many countries belive that WMD myth at the end in the UN? The US UK and Spain that´s all.

Which secret services belived that, on what base show me your facts dates and links not even the CIA belived in that at the end. That´s why Rumsfeld got his own evidence producing staff.

anybody remembering this poor ambassador that should investigate that fake uran deal in africa that bush mentioned in his adress at the union speech. You know this karl rofe thing at the moment. These documents where the IAEA not even need hours to make sure that they were wrong.

Anybody remembering that british report written from students more than a decade old an completly untrue.
How desperate must a government be to use such bullshit and sell it as evidence?

etc.etc.etc. I can continue as long as you want with comments of the bush administration that they know what they have where they are and so on and on and on.

You can defend the iraq war why not but if i were you i would hope these governments (UK,US) sold lies to make the case and it easy for the public to support such a war otherwise this means they are not capable to do their job.

[helian]

@Anonymous

>>"You can defend the iraq war why not but if i were you i would hope these governments (UK,US) sold lies to make the case and it easy for the public to support such a war otherwise this means they are not capable to do their job."

The liar here is you. Unless you are an idiot, you know very well that there are strong refutations of every point you have made. They are on the web, in blogs, in magazines, and in newspapers, easily accessible to anyone. Some may hold water, and some may not, but it's hardly an open and shut case at this point. Yet you pretend that these counter-arguments don't exist. People who present laundry lists of hackneyed propaganda lines without so much as mentioning or attempting to address the counter-arguments aren't interested in getting at the truth. Their game is ostentatious self-righteous posing. Their game is claiming to be holier than thou. Their game is pretending to superior virtue, rushing for the moral high ground. In a word, they are liars. Want to carry on a serious discussion here? Want to really contribute? Stop pretending your tired propaganda lines haven't all been addressed about a million times already. Stop presenting them as holy writ, and admit there are serious counter-arguments. Then address those arguments. Otherwise you are what's known in the blogging world as a troll, and I suggest you take your dog and pony show of public virtue down the road to a venue that will be more appreciative.

[James W.]

@Leo

You did not help your argument with that link. Here's an excerpt:

The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading.

The best that your link does is raise question about the POSSIBLE funding of Afghan Arabs (not Bin Laden himself) INDIRECTLY through the ISI. However, it seems you didn't read poguemahone's posting.

Bin Laden himself has repeatedly denied that he received any American support. “Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help,” bin Laden told British journalist Robert Fisk (search) in 1993. In 1996, Mr. Fisk interviewed bin Laden again. The arch-terrorist was equally adamant: “We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans supported the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies.”

In the course of researching my book on Bill Clinton and bin Laden, I interviewed Bill Peikney, who was CIA station chief in Islamabad from 1984 to 1986, and Milt Bearden, who was CIA station chief from 1986 to 1989. These two men oversaw the disbursement for all American funds to the anti-Soviet resistance. Both flatly denied that any CIA funds ever went to bin Laden. They felt so strongly about this point that they agreed to go on the record, an unusual move by normally reticent intelligence officers. Mr. Peikney added in an e-mail to me: “I don’t even recall UBL [bin Laden] coming across my screen when I was there.”

Bin Laden flat out denies American support--period. The two CIA agents that would know about the funding of Bin Laden, say there was none--period.

[poguemahone]

Leo - Bobs not providing any facts

He is stating an opinion as a fact - the opinion being that Bush KNEW that Saddam has no WMD

This opinion is fantasy as far as I am concerned The public evidence overwhelmingly says that EVERY Intell agency in the world held roughly the same view - that Saddam was obsructing the inspections and most likely retained WMD stockpiles or capabilities

Now - you can take the position that without definitive evidence ( like Saddam holding a vial of nerve gas and a copy of todays London Times )there is no justification for military action

This is the Blix and Clinton position

Personally I think 9/11 changed the way we must deal with these issues - Bob disagree's

He can disagree - but to make statements about what other people knew and didn't know that contradict their public statements to the contrary is simply to state opinion as fact

As for OBl being "created" by the CIA - it has been demonstrated time and again that this is simply a lie

It might make the Left giggle with joy to think that OBL was a creation of the Reagan admins policy in Afghanistan - a Frankenstein that came back to haunt us ( a bit of justice there in the view of the Michael Moore's of the world no doubt ) but its simply not the case

Again - this has been demonstrated quite clearly

What we are dealing with when discussing these things with the "its all chimpymchalliburtons fault" left is people who are stating opinions as facts

And when you prove the opinion to be wrong - the just jump to the next allegation and never concede they were wrong on Point 1 or 2 or 20

They retain their opinion and are immune to the facts that contradict their held opinion.

There is a word for this kind of person - they are fundamentalist lefties

[Tom Penn]

Alternatives to MSM: http://afreeiraqi.blogspot.com/, http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/, http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com

[Fabian]

an interesting comment from australia

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16119046%255E12272,00.html

[mamapajamas]

Leo: "@ pokemyhoney, mamapajamas: you are dodging bobs arguments because you can´t provide any facts."

Where am I dodging arguments? I'm agreeing with Bob... after all, HE is the psychic one, not me. Only HE can read President Bush's mind ;). He KNOWS the WHOLE one and only REAL truth because he was there... inside Bush's mind.

Right? (snicker)

[Doug]

@Bob -
that the US played a key role in building up Saddams weapons arsenal is a fact, even if people don't want to remember that.

Maybe people prefer to remember things that actually happened. Care to name a single U.S. weapon in Iraq's arsenal from 1988-2003? A link for your entertainment.

Maybe if Mr. Bush had done that, he wouldn't have come to some errors in judgment which made America start a war the reason for which proved to be bogus.

I challenge you to accurately enumerate the reasons. I'll even drop some hints a little farther down.

Had I known there were no WMD, which I would have if I was the President, I would have left him in power because a contained non-islamist butcher not wanting to destroy the US is better than out-of-control lunatics chopping everybody's heads off, accumulating, joining forces in an what is now to become an Islamist state like Iran with the Sharia as its law.

First off, Iraqis will not accept an Islamist state. Yes, there are some Shia bearing grudges, some Sunni fearing reprisal, and some Kurds wanting complete independance - but on the whole, Iraqis seem to respect that fact that not all of their neighbors will aggree with them, and desire pluralistic solutions. An Islamist state is anything but.

That aside, Saddam DID want to destroy the US - he was unabashedly hostile:

- An assaination attempt on a US president
- Involvement in the first WTC bombing
- Involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing
- Firing on no-fly zone patrols an average of over 500 times per year
- Although it was a U.N. mandate, he regarded disarmament was a "game" that he played against the US for years

The sanctions may have been the only thing that kept his mischief so limited, but he was systematically outmanuvering that barrier. And this "non-islamist":

- Added Koranic writing to the Iraqi flag
- Built the "Mother of All Battles Mosque"
- Payed the families of suicide bombers
- Gave over Salmon Pak for terrorist training
- Gave a commercial airliner hull to Abu Nidal for hijack practice
- Gave sanctuary and medical care to at least al Zarqawi

Although no islamist himself, he was clearly courting that crowd - and why not? Islamists have been the proxy forces used by various mid-east regimes against the west for decades, and proxies were precisely what he needed. He touted their anti-Israeli lines, threw land and money at them, and clearly had more than a tacit understanding with varied terrorists.

It was no secret that various Islamist terror groups had been trying to aquire WMD for years, and there was no confidence that Saddam had abandoned pursuit of WMD (which was the actual problem, incidentally - not whether there were or were not stockpiles, but whether he meant to have them). There was no reason to expect that terrorists targetting the US wouldn't seek weapons from the most tyrant who most wished us ill, and there was no reasonable expectation that Saddam would have no willingness to share with his proxy buddies.

That was a risk there was no reason to take, because it shouldn't have existed in the first place. He was supposed to have transparently disarmed and given up on obtaining WMD. He failed -- refused -- to do so, and frustrated efforts to see it done. He gamed himself out of power - playing that game insured that his would be the catalytic nation.

Well I tell you what - most Iraqis don't have anything to do with terrorists

Agreed - but some do, and there must be ordinary Iraqis who know who they are. All those foreign fighters have to sleep somewhere - I don't think they're at the Palestine Hotel. People in Iraq know where they sleep, get their food, and so on.

Where's the contradiction? Both statements are true - it's a known fact.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Mr blix and mr el baradai made the case very clear at the end of the UN security council farce.

Indeed. It's a shame someone writes this stuff down, huh?

Blix: "Resolution 687 (1991), like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq but such was often withheld or given grudgingly. Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

We told Saddam the games were over. He didn't believe us. I guess he can thank the appeasemonkeys who assured him they'd see that he came out of it ok.