Source: Page 34 of White Noise Keywords: "boil," "together," "children"

From: Barry R. Reef <vze1nvan@veriREMOVEzon.net> Subject: Re: IRAQI LIBERATION DIVIDENDS Date: 12 July 2004 Newsgroups: alt.politics

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:27:34 GMT, "DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >IRAQI WAR DIVIDENDS SO FAR THANKS TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ONE >YEAR LATER 992 C11 > >(C) Copyright 2004 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved. > >1. The Butcher of Baghdad is jailed. Mass murders, rape and >torture chambers have been eliminated from the lives of the Iraqi >people forever. The worst thing that can happen to an Iraqi >prisoner today is he may be forced to wear his underwear on his >head. > Lie #1. As the torture pictures clearly show. Remember the stress positions? Remember the detainee deaths? "Two Iraqi prisoners were killed by U.S. soldiers last year, and 20 other detainee deaths and assaults remain under criminal investigation in Iraq and Afghanistan, part of a total of 35 cases probed since December 2002 for possible misconduct by U.S. troops in those two countries, Army officials reported yesterday." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2179-2004May4?language=printer or http://tinyurl.com/6copt >2. The bloodthirsty son's of the Butcher, Uday and Qday, have >been exterminated. That blight has been also removed from the >Iraqi people and the world. > Lie #2. Bloodthirsty Butchers still abound in the world. Killing two of them changes nothing, and it's cost the lives of over a thousand Coalition troops so far, not to mention the 6 to 10 THOUSAND wounded troops, or the 10,000 Plus Iraqi civilians killed, or the untold thousands of Iraqi troops killed. That's a lot to pay so you can gloat that Bush managed to kill Saddam's sons. >3. Saddam's remaining WMD are well hidden. Some of Saddam's WMD >are clearly in the hands of the terrorists, and some were moved >out of Iraq into Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iran, and some >WMD were destroyed immediately prior or during the Iraqi >liberation invasion. Please take note the collective intelligence >agencies of the U.N., France, Germany, Britain, Russia, Italy, >Spain, the USA, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait and Israel ALL said Saddam >possessed WMD prior to the Iraqi liberation war. Even Hanoi John >Kerry and President Clinton said that Saddam possessed WMD prior >to the Iraqi liberation invasion. Therefore, blaming President >Bush for not knowing that Saddam had moved his WMD into other >rogue nations and into the hands of terrorists, and that some of >his General's would take it upon themselves to destroy some WMD >stockpiles immediately before and during the liberation invasion, >is preposterous nonsense. President Clinton attacked Iraq on the >basis of his intelligence information, (presumably from Richard >Clarke and others) and proclaimed to the world that he was >"attacking Saddam's Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapon >sites." Hanoi John Kerry also told a New Hampshire audience >during a recent campaign speech that: > Lie #3. No WMDs have been found. No one has come forward to say the WMDs were moved. No foreign intelligence agencies said categorically that Saddam has WMDs in 2002. >Kerry: > >"All of a sudden in 1998, Saddam Hussein doesn't cooperate, Bill >Clinton pulls our [weapons] inspectors out so we could bomb for >four or five days. Which we did," Kerry told a Keene, N.H., >crowd. But in quotes picked up by the New York Sun, Kerry then >complained: > > >"That's it. End of story. Saddam Hussein is left alone. No >inspectors go back in." > >When the Bush administration presented the same evidence >President Clinton used to justify the 1998 attack, Kerry said he >was compelled to authorize the use of force because he had tried >and failed to persuade Clinton to do the same thing. > >Kerry said: > >"So, George Bush brings a legitimate security issue before the >Congress in 2002," the Democratic front-runner told the crowd. >"Am I supposed to turn away and ignore what I said in 1998, what >I thought Clinton should have done?" > >In comments that further bolster the Bush administration's case >for war in Iraq, Kerry reminded his audience that weapons' >inspectors had already uncovered not just evidence of weapons of >mass destruction programs but tons of biological and chemical >weapons themselves, along with a thriving nuclear program. > > > >Kerry said: > >"From the moment that we kicked [Saddam] out of Kuwait in the >early 1990s, all the way through 1998, we had an American team on >the ground under Ambassador [Richard] Butler destroying weapons >of mass destruction," the Massachusetts Democrat explained. > >"People are quick to forget that," Kerry added. "Very quick to >forget that." > >"For seven and a half years," he continued, "we destroyed weapons >of mass destruction, folks, and you know what, we found he had >more of them than we thought he had. And we found he was further >down the road to the creation of nuclear weapons than we thought >he was." > >End Kerry Statements. > > >Doug Says: Conclusion: Both Presidential Candidates in the past >election said and believed Saddam possessed WMD and would have >invaded Iraq to remove Saddam. Even VP Al Gore said "There can >never be peace in the Middle east as long as Saddam Hussein >remains in power." > >The Bush detractors are hypocritically attempting to condemn >President Bush for doing precisely what President Clinton did, >and what VP Al Gore and Hanoi Kerry wanted to do and supported. >This ubiquitous well heard "President Bush rushed to war against >Iraq" false accusation is nothing more than a contrived diatribe >that is selectively used against the Bush administration by >people that would have and did the precise same thing that the >Bush administration did! Hypocrisy rules when President Bush is >accused of lying about Saddam's WMD. > >Also, isn't it strange that all of Saddam's neighbors, even those >with much less wealth, such as Libya, ALL possess WMD in great >numbers? Yet according to all Bush detractors, good ol Saddam did >not! Sure he didn't . . . If you believe that then I have some >grassy knolls to sell you in the Nevada dessert. > >4. Although we have not released to the public our entire >spectrum of knowledge in respect to Saddam's WMD, (yet) we did >find tons of WMD in a neighboring country that was allied to >Saddam. Libya gave up its arsenal of WMD and dismantled its >progressive nuclear program all because Colonel Qhaddafy realized >the USA led coalition had the resolve to invade and remove a >dictator . . . and that he was next. > Lie #4. Qhaddafy turned in what WMDs he had because he caved in to the economic stagnation that was caused by years of UN sanctions. Even goofy Dougie Grant was saying Iran was next, not Libya. >So although we have not yet found all the weapons in Iraq we >seek, we did find and destroy an arsenal of WMD that were >designed to specifically threaten the world that was related and >allied to Saddam. Libya was Saddam's ally, and we must wonder >considering the extent of the Libyan WMD arsenal whether some of >those weapons came originally from Saddam? > >So in truth we have already found and destroyed WMD stockpiles >and programs, existing both in Iraq and Libya, that were >threatening the free world, just like we said we would before the >liberation invasion of Iraq. The only difference is the WMD we >were seeking were not in the precise location we thought they >were. Also, were some of Saddam's WMD moved to Libya before the >Iraqi liberation? I am being told some were, and of course we >have already found them. Remember also that Libya was a member of >the axis of evil. And It appears that due to our liberation >invasion of Iraq we have managed to kill two terrorist birds with >one stone (or a GPS-guided bomb if you will.) > Lies >5. We have found in Iraq mobile biological weapon labs, dozens of >chemical weapon labs, 53 hidden MIG aircraft, dozens of >proscribed missiles and plans for WMD programs, and our forces >have been attacked with artillery shells filled with Sarin Nerve >Gas and Mustard Gas, all which represent flagrant violations of >U.N. resolution 1441 and many previous U.N. resolutions. We have >proved irrefutably the U.N. inspectors were wrong and >ineffective. We have also proved incontrovertibly that Saddam was >deceiving the United Nations, and would have continued to >successfully deceive the U.N. Inspectors forever. The Libyan >discovery and surrender of tons of WMD alone, which of course the >U.N. inspectors would have never been able to discover, not to >mention force to surrender nor reveal, *alone* justifies our >removal of Saddam from power. > Lies and mis-representations mixed together. >Had we not removed Saddam then Saddam and Qahaddfy would have >continued to be allies and they would have continued to work >cooperatively to develop WMD to furnish the various terrorist >organizations that Saddam and Qahaddfy were supporting. Thank you >President Bush, PM Blair, PM Howard, and the rest of the leaders >of the sixty-seven nation coalition that had the resolve to take >the political flak and do what was right for the free world! >These coalition leaders are true leaders, and not just the normal >run of the mill political hacks that seem to be trying to detract >from their obvious success in riding the world of a clear and >present danger. No wonder President Bush and PM Blair were >nominated for the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize. > LOL This year, so was Hitler and Slobodan Milosevic!!! (begin quote) "Other nominees are varied and include: Pope John Paul II; the European Union to mark its expansion to include former East bloc states; the Salvation Army; former Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler; former Czech president Vaclav Havel; former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic; and Chinese dissidents." (end quote) http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1035353.htm >6. We have uncovered a list of 267 names of world leaders and >United Nation officials that Saddam was bribing to help him stay >in power. Many of these names represent key United Nations >officials, and one name represents the son of the U.N. Secretary >General, Kofi Annan. We have proved demonstrably the United >Nations, France, Germany and Russia had self-serving and ulterior >motives to oppose the liberation of Iraq. And so did many other >leaders of other nations that were secretly receiving financial >benefits and under-the-table money from Saddam. > Another lie. We didn't uncover anything about the UN Oil for Food scandal, and it had little to do with Saddam staying in power. l >We have also proved the United Nations is corrupt, and cannot be >relied upon to serve the free world in the manner it was >designed. Major changes are needed in the U.N., and those changes >will only be forthcoming if President Bush is reelected. I must >also mention that Hanoi John Kerry said he would have turned over >the entire Iraqi problem to the United Nations. That means Kerry >would have, in effect, turned over the fate of Iraqi people and >perhaps the fate of the entire world to people that were secretly >taking graft money from Saddam! > >Kerry is also saying that if he is elected he will still turn >over the fate of America to the corrupt and inept United Nations! >When will these liberals ever learn they cannot duck the >responsibility of making decisions that will affect the lives of >all Americans? The liberals want their cake and eat it too, they >want the power of high office, but want to abdicate the >responsibility that high office demands to the corrupt United >Nations. > >I believe the American people are tired of all this lawyer type >double talk and posturing. Each time we elect a lawyer to our >Presidency we realize, about a year later, that we were lied to >profusely by that candidate. These "lawyers" - like Bill Clinton >and Hanoi John Kerry - use double talk, lip service, and >convoluted moves to gain office, and then when they are elected >they cheat the American people out of what they promised. These >"lawyer politicians" have more moves than a rattlesnake. And it >truth, the rattlesnake might make a better President than any one >of these "lawyers." (Note if Kerry and Edwards are elected, then >we will have two shysters running our executive branch). > What a dick Dougie is, or a parrot which has no dick. This lawyer bashing is just the latest Bushie Party line. > > >7. We have uncovered a long history of Saddam's support of >terrorism, including Al Qaeda. We also have witnessed the >murderous and extortion tactics of the terrorist organization >that Saddam created himself, the Saddam Fedayeen. We all remember >viewing these terrorists on film provided by the news media. They >were dressed in all-white martyr uniforms, outfitted with suicide >belts and ski masks, parading and high-stepping for Saddam on >film. Those "Fedayeen" are clearly radical Muslim terrorists, and >those that are incredibly claiming that "there is no evidence >that Saddam was connected to terrorism" are either blind, stupid, >lying, or all three. The Camera does not lie, and we all have >seen the film shot by none other than Saddam's son, Uday, that >show the world the aforesaid Fedayeen terrorists high stepping >for Saddam on parade. We have also witnessed the hundreds of >terrorist acts committed by the Saddam Fedayeen before, during >and after the Iraqi liberation. Mostly, these "Fedayeen" are >murdering the Iraqi people wholesale, and the "Fedayeen" ranks >represent a majority of foreign terrorists from Al Qaeda and >other radical Muslim terrorist organizations. Obviously, Saddam >has been connected with radical Muslim terrorism, and has been >acting cooperatively with these terrorists for years - long >before the 911 massacres. The fact the Intelligence Committee and >the 911 Commission "overlooked" the Saddam Fedayeen as a >terrorist connection to Saddam is beyond preposterous, it is >laughable to a point it is idiotic. > >8. The Iraqi people are now enjoying more oil production than >they experienced before the war. Approximately 2.7 million >barrels per day production will be achieved soon, and this >production is in spite of the desperate terrorist attacks on the >Iraqi people and their assets. Before the war of liberation the >"war protesters" howled and screamed that the USA was going to >war "for oil." Yet that myth has since been completely debunked. >Moreover, since the terrorists are now trying to control Iraqi >oil production, and the terrorists are wantonly murdering Iraqi >people every day, where are the "war protesters" now? They seem >to have disappeared and always disappear when the terrorists are >doing the killing and trying to steal Iraqi assets. How about the >slogan "terrorism for oil" - which is clearly true and >appropriate - but where are the signs and the marchers? > >9. The financial and arms support that was being provided to the >Palestinian terrorists from Saddam has been halted forever. >Therefore, the attacks on innocent Israelis have been reduced by >about 90%. There is just no more money in murdering Jews anymore. >That "job opportunity" has been almost eliminated thanks to >President Bush and the other leaders of the coalition that had >the resolve to liberate Iraq and remove Saddam. The Jews of the >world should rejoice and support President Bush and the other >leaders of the coalition without reservation. President Bush is >the only U.S. President in recent history that has supported >Israel's right to defend itself with force of arms. It is about >time. > Another lie. Saddam was giving money to the families of dead suicide bombers, as was Bush's best buddies, Saudi Arabia. Another lie. Every US President has supported Israel for the last 50-some years! >10. More Iraqis are employed for more money than ever before. The >quality of life for an average Iraqi has tripled, even in spite >of the terrorist attacks by the radical Muslim goon interlopers >coming to Iraq from Syria and Iran. The new Iraqi Government has >even authorized previous members of the Baath party to return to >their old jobs if they swear an oath of allegiance to the new >Iraqi Government. > Another lie. Unemployment is still estimated at between 30 to 50 percent, depending on the source. 50 percent unemployment is the most common figure. (begin quote) "The economic situation is somewhat better. President Bush may have again been too optimistic in his May 1 radio address when he said that life in Iraq is now "a world away" from what it was under the Saddam Hussein regime. But the material conditions for Iraqis have generally been restored at least to 2002 levels—except for the all-important unemployment rate, which remains far too high." (end quote) http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20040516.htm >11. More Iraqi businesses, hospitals, schools, power and related >services, are open now than ever before. > More lies! Power: "Electricity production is generally estimated to hover between 4,000 and 4,500 megawatts a day, no more than the prewar norm of 4,500 megawatts. By contrast, California's electrical consumption this summer is projected to be 44,000 megawatts, according to the California Independent System Operator, which manages the state's power grid." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/30/MNGKT7EC481.DTL Hospitals: "'Lacking so many things,' Iraqi hospitals are barely alive By LARRY JOHNSON SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER FOREIGN DESK EDITOR The World Health Organization on May 21 reported that Iraq's hospitals were running at 20 percent of their capacity. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/iraq2003/126059_iraq11.html >12. The Iraqi provisional Government has adopted a democratic >constitution outline. This is the first democracy in that region >since Afghanistan. Democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq spells the >beginning of the demise of radical Muslim terrorism, and the >terrorist know it, and that is why they are so desperate to stop >the new Iraqi government from holding power in Iraq. > Another lie. Iraq and Afghanistan aren't Democracies until they have freely elected governments. >13. Many of the radical terrorists that were fighting our troops >in Afghanistan have moved to Iraq. Our liberation invasion of >Iraq has brought these terrorists out in the open to fight our >military. The height of the terrorist attacks in Iraq represented >approximately 12 attacks on U.S. and allied forces per day. These >attacks have been reduced to less than three attacks per week on >average. The terrorists are clearly losing in Iraq. The most >important issue for the world to understand in respect to our war >on terror is that if we were not fighting these terrorists in >Iraq, we would be fighting them in Afghanistan or elsewhere, even >perhaps in Pakistan or in the USA. > More lies. The foreign fighters in Iraq come from many countries. Plenty of Islamic fighters remain in Afghanistan. In February: "Meanwhile, attacks on coalition forces have dropped from 50 per day in November to between 15 and 20 a day, Kimmitt said. And gun battles with guerrillas have been supplanted by remotely detonated bombs and suicide bombers. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4016883/ US Military deaths in Iraq, 6/29 (hand-over of sovereignty) to 7/11 35 killed or 22.3 per week 6/01 to 6/28 46 killed or 11.5 per week 5/01 to 5/31 84 killed or 12.8 per week http://icasualties.org/oif/ Clearly these figures prove Doug is lying. >A. The liberation invasion of Iraq was directly connected to, and >represented an integral part of our overall war on terrorism - so >say our Generals. So do we believe the leaders of the SLA ("SLA" >=Screaming Liberal Army) like Hanoi John Kerry in respect to war >and its tactics, or do we believe our Generals that have studied >war for decades? > Another lie! "Retired General Zinni assails U.S. policy on Iraq" http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20040416-9999-7m16zinni.html "The Last Word: Wesley Clark" Jul 9, 2003. Iraq distracts from the War on Terror. http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_War_+_Peace.htm >14. The Iraqi transitional Government has taken over complete >control of Iraq with few exceptions. The Iraqi Army and Police >force will take over the security of the Iraqi people, and they >will be supported by the U.S. led coalition forces only if >necessary. Once the Iraqi Government has secured Iraq from >terrorism, then U.S. forces and other coalition forces will be >slowly removed from Iraq. The Iraqi people are once again feeling >a national pride, and they are standing up against the >terrorists, and many Iraqi civilians are pointing out the >terrorist interlopers to the coalition forces. The coalition >forces have been released from playing street cop, and that >release means the coalition forces can now seal the Iraqi >borders. Closed Iraqi borders means the terrorists that presently >exist in Iraq have entered a "roach motel." > More lies. " U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has indicated that the new Iraqi government will get less than full sovereignty in the hand-over of power set for 30 June." http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/election/2004/0427powell.htm "PRIME MINISTER Iyad Allawi and his companions in Iraq's transitional government must be wondering what kind of used car they have bought from the Bush administration. They have a sovereignty that is so limited that they do not control their country's air space or its ports. The security forces they do control are so limited, undertrained, and untested that Iraq's new leaders are completely dependent on foreign soldiers even for their very lives. " http://www.thestarlitecafe.com/discus/messages/87567/88394.html?1088925133 > >15. Iran, the most prolific mass murdering nation in the world >today, and the direct sponsor of all radical Muslim terrorist >murders that have been conducted throughout the world, including >911 and the recent Spanish massacre, is witnessing the demise of >their great plan of Muslim world domination - and they are >feverishly trying to build nuclear weapons as fast as possible to >try and avoid the inevitable writing on the wall. When Iran >finishes its nuclear weapons, it will become the most dangerous >rogue nation in the world, and the most likely to be vaporized by >a coalition of free nations that will not tolerate such vicious, >murdering thugs possessing nuclear weapons. As of this writing, a >*majority* of our nuclear ICBM's have been re targeted to Iran. >If the USA is attacked with WMD, there is a good change Iran (and >its allies) will be turned into a greasy spot. > This one is to0 crazy to comment on, but I'll give it a shot. Iran isn't the most prolific Mass Murdering country today. Sudan is. The most dangerous "rogue nation" besides the United States, is North Korea, because unlike Iran, which has a wealth of oil, North Korea has little to loose, and much to gain, by trading nuclear weapons to terrorists and other nuclear-wannabe nations. >16. North Korea has agreed to conduct negotiations to disarm its >nuclear weapons. Would have Kim Jung El agreed to conduct these >negotiations (with China in attendance) if we had not shown Kim >El our resolve to stand up to tyrants and rogue nations? Of >course not. Look what Kim did to the Clinton administration when >Madeline Albright approached Kim El with an "olive branch in one >hand and a Champagne bottle in the other." Kim drank the >Champagne, ate the olive branch, and we all know what he did to >Ms. Albright. > Bullshit. North Korea is a problem caused by Bush's pre-emptive war strategy, and his Axis of Evil speeches. They abandoned the commitment they'd made with the Clinton Adminstration because Bush was so threatening. >17. Osama Bin Laden is most likely dead and buried in Tora Bora, >and many Al Qaeda goons are hiding in caves and begging for their >lives in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I noticed that all Al Qaeda >leaders run for the hills with their forked tails between their >legs while their "recruits" are ordered to stay and die fighting. >Does the word "coward" mean anything to anyone? No doubt the Al >Qaeda terrorists will attempt to continue to attack innocent >people throughout the world until we address its Iranian >sponsorship, but at least we have Al Qaeda and its allies on the >run. Would the opportunity to destroy radical Muslim terrorists >in the numbers we are achieving in Iraq been possible without the >liberation invasion of Iraq? Perhaps, but our biggest problem in >Afghanistan was forcing the terrorists out in the open so we >could use our overwhelming military force against them. The Iraqi >liberation invasion has accomplished that objective beautifully. >The terrorist goons are streaming into Iraq, and most are staying >there . . . permanently. Although I do not believe one American >casualty is worth the lives of a million terrorist goons, I >realize that we have lost fewer men in our entire war on >terrorism than we lost in a single week in Vietnam, or in a >single hour in some of the WWII battles. Considering what our >military has accomplished so far, I would say that accomplishment >is nothing short of amazing. > Al Qaeda is stronger than ever as many news reports and the State Department's (corrected) Terrorism Report shows clearly. There are relatively few "terrorists" in Iraq, as the Pentagon now admits, but many many Iraqi resistance fighters. How many dead Iraqi woman and children is one dead terrorist worth? Our Military, (Bush's use of our Military) has destabilized two countries, and neither is better off now then before we attacked them. >None of the Democrats will admit it, this being an election year, >but we all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to President Bush, >PM Blair, PM Howard, and the other leaders of the coalition that >liberated Iraq. Without their resolve to stay the course after >Saddam was removed from power, and their astute understanding of >the Global war on terrorism, we still would have been facing WMD >threats from Saddam, Libya, North Korea and Iran. > LOL, Saddam didn't have any WMDs, Clinton and the UN got him to destroy them all, and North Korea has produced nuclear weapons on Bush's watch. Libya didn't have a serious WMD effort, because it's been crippled by UN sanctions just as Iraq was. >Moreover, if Hanoi John Kerry had been in power, based upon his >past votes, Saddam still would be in control of Iraq and Kuwait, >North Korea would have more than 100 nuclear weapons, and Libya >and Iran still would be threatening the world . . . not to >mention our troops would not even have one tenth of the weapons >they presently are using to defeat terrorism. Moreover, if Kerry >had his way, our troops would not even have body armor to protect >them from terrorist bombings! > Delusional crap. Before Bush invaded Iraq, it wasn't a threat to its neighbors. Bush is in Power, and North Korea is still making nukes, and it was Bush who sent our troops to Iraq without body armor, because he is so stupid, he thought they'd be welcomed with flowers there. >The American people made the right choice in 2000 by electing >President Bush, and then the American people made another right >choice in 2002 by giving the majority of Congress to the >Republicans. We need to back up those previous correct decisions >with another correct decision in November 2004 . . . reelect >President Bush and stay the course . . . it is the right course >and we are sailing in a steady ship. Screaming liberals, shyster >lawyers and hypocrites like Hanoi Kerry will sink it. > >Doug Grant (Tm) > 3000 died on 9/11 because Bush and his cronies ignored terrorism for 8.5 months before 9/11. We're still short 1.2 millions jobs during Bush's tenure, Terrorism is at an all time high. Osama Bin Laden is still at large. Afghanistan is still a real mess, run by drug growing and dealing warlords, and Iraq is a festering boil that is causing American lives every god-damn day. Doug Grant is a liar, plain and simple!

Back to 2004 Archive, "The Usenet Project" - Back to Starve.Org Main Page - Contact - Starve Archive