Two of the MisAdministration's Lies exposed

One of the main reasons that our Pretendident used to justify his war on Iraq was the alleged connection between Saddam and 9/11. In fact, in some polls, more than 2/3 of the American people believe that Saddam had something to do with the attack. The fact remains that despite being a brutal dictator and human scum, Saddam had no more to do with the 9/11 attacks than Fidel Castro did. It was in effect a lie told by the MisAdministration to garner support for the war, and it largely worked. But now, none other than Dick Cheney has admitted that the claim was a lie. The following is an excerpt from Tim Russert's interview with Haliburton's Vice President, I mean, our Vice President (emphasis on vice) Dick Cheney.

RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

CHENEY: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.

RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

CHENEY: We don't know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn't have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93, that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we've learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in '93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story that's been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop any more of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know.

Another lie we were told was that Al Qaeda was operating in Iraq. Of course, it is now because our invasion brought them there. Prior to our invasion however, they were not there. This was confirmed by none other than Condoleeza Rice:

This was from an interview Condi did on the Faux news Sunday morning show two weeks ago:

"Nobody would be surprised if Al Qaeda is trying to set up operations in Iraq," Rice told Fox News. "They know that Iraq is the central battle now in the war on terrorism. They know that if Iraq becomes stable and prosperous that they will have been dealt a mortal blow."

Why would Al Qaeda need to "set up" operations if they were already there as the MisAdministration claims?

Damn html.

The Cheney/Russert interview ends with the second "We don't know"

There's no doubt that the Administration, in order to convince Americans that the war was necessary, pressured intelligence agencies, exaggerated and hyped what they knew, and made claims that even they knew were probably false. The war in Iraq was perfectly justified, but not for the inflated and/or fictitious reasons the Administration gave. All of that is unacceptable and should be investigated much more thoroughly by our stupid, easily led press and by our submissive, fearful Congress.

Despite all of that, so much of what you just wrote in your post is a total lie.

>But now, none other than Dick Cheney has

>admitted that the claim was a lie.

How stupid do you have to be in order to write this? The very first words that you quoted Dick Cheney saying were "I don't know" in resopnse to the question of whether there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Cheney even cites the evidence that could suggest, but doesn't prove, this connection. How is saying that he doesn't know if there is a connection, and citing the evidence for believing that there is one, an "admission" that there is no such connection?

More imporatantly, neither Cheney nor Bush (or Rumsfeld or Rice) ever claimed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. So for you to say that they did is just a total lie.

There are plenty of good reasons to strongly criticize what this Administration did leading up to the war, and one can even legitimately question whether they were dishonest in the things they said (which is different than saying something they believed to be true, but which turned out to be false). But, as usual, you are so consumed with personal, emotional hatred for all things Repbulican that in trying to depict Bush as a liar, you yourself lie and lie, which is why, as usual, the things you say and people like you are this President's best friend.

My dear FFF, at least we have you half way there. The Misadministration has been very clear in tying Saddam to the events of 9/11.

So, if the MisAdministration clearly ties Saddam to 9/11, and then comes out and says later "We don't know", the original claim is a lie.

I notice you didin't dispute Dr. Rice's comments.

AJC columnist Cynthia Tucker put the whole Saddma/9-11 connection in context very well, I think:

Remember Saturday Night Live's Subliminal Man?

President Bush must have adored the character -- played for several years by comedian Kevin Nealon -- because he's doing his best to imitate him. The president rarely gives a speech about Iraq without chanting Sept. 11 several times, hoping the American public will link the two.

The strategy has worked. According to a Washington Post poll released last weekend, 69 percent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein played a role in the terrorist atrocities of Sept. 11.

There's just one problem: It's not true. There is not a shred of evidence that Saddam or his minions had anything to do with the assault, which was planned and carried out by al-Qaida members, most of whom were Saudis.

But, as a result of the gross misperception, Bush carried overwhelming public support into his invasion of Iraq. Had Americans not been misled into believing that Saddam had a hand in Sept. 11, it is unlikely they would have supported the president's crusade to topple him.

Bush told any number of blatant lies to gin up support for his high-risk war. A sampling: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program . . . Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq . . . a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon." "We have . . . discovered . . . that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."

But the president's campaign to link Saddam to the atrocities of Sept. 11 was a bit more subtle, relying on deception, inference and distortion rather than outright lies. It gave the administration the cover of plausible deniability whenever it was challenged on the point.

In September 2002, I asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about the White House campaign to link Saddam to Sept. 11. He quickly and adamantly denied any such effort.

"I don't know of anyone in the administration who has uttered the words Sept. 11th and Iraq," he said. "Do you know anyone?"

Here's how the scam worked: While no one in the Bush administration ever baldly stated that Saddam had worked with al-Qaida to plan and carry out the attacks, administration spokesmen invoked Sept. 11 whenever they were asked about the planned invasion of Iraq. Rumsfeld himself used the ploy.

In testimony before Congress that same month, Rumsfeld responded to skeptics who wondered what provoked an urgent need to attack Iraq. "Some ask what has changed to warrant action now," he said. "Well, what has changed is our experience on Sept. 11."

In late 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Mohamed Atta, who planned the attack, had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. In fact, the United States never got confirmation -- pretty well or otherwise -- of such a meeting.

And in a March speech just before the invasion, Bush said, "The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."

As the web of lies has begun to unravel, the administration has started to retreat a bit from its made-up intelligence and sexed-up threat assessments. Administration spokesmen no longer refer to Saddam's "nuclear weapons" but to Saddam's "nuclear weapons program." In early August, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz acknowledged that there is no link between Saddam and Sept. 11. "I'm not sure even now that I would say Iraq had something to do with it," he said in a radio interview.

But Bush cannot give up the false Saddam-Sept. 11 link. He is counting on it -- and the implication that he is a fearless commander in chief, willing to pursue our enemies wherever they may be -- to carry him to re-election. So he referred to Sept. 11 four times in Sunday's brief address.

How long will it take for the public to wise up?

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tucker/index.html

>My dear FFF, at least we have you half way there.

None of my views has anything to do with what you sputter out. Reading your posts is like reading a caricature of a shrill, lobotomized DNC spokesman. You never deviate from the dogma. Other than to illustrate how irrational and blindly dogmatic your strain is, your posts are utterly bereft of any information or value.

>The

>Misadministration has been very clear in tying Saddam to the

>events of 9/11.

Please concentrate on this so that I only have to teach it once.

The Administration has argued that the war in Iraq is an important aspect of the war on the militant Muslims who perpetrated 9/11 and other similar acts. According to this argument, this is so NOT because the Iraqi Government helped to plan and perpetrate 9/11, but because fundamental change in the Middle East - i.e., democratic governments, prosperours, free societies, Western-oriented values, etc. - are prerequisites to extinguishing the forces that give rise to Muslim fundamentalism, and ridding the region of a poison like the Baathists and replacing them with a democratic governmment will go a long way to forward that goal.

Whenever the Administration links Iraq to the War against Terrorism, it is on that basis - not on the basis that Saddam Hussein helped to plan 9/11. Now, anyone is free to disagree with the Administration's view, but you shouldn't lie and say that the Administration has claimed that the Hussein Government is responsible for the 9/11 attacks, because that just isn't so.

>I notice you didin't dispute Dr. Rice's comments.

To believe that her comment that "Al Qaeda is setting up operations in Iraq" somehow precludes the notion that Al Qaeda and Iraq had previous links is too stupid to merit a reply. I do believe that the Administration wildly exaggerated unconvincing scraps of unreliable intelligence in order to assert this Iraq-Al Qaeda link, but as usual, in your zeal to make the case, you lie and rely on semantic games and just make yourself look stupid and thereby undermine the serious criticism that should be made.

>>My dear FFF, at least we have you half way there.

>

>None of my views has anything to do with what you sputter out.

> Reading your posts is like reading a caricature of a shrill,

>lobotomized DNC spokesman. You never deviate from the dogma.

>Other than to illustrate how irrational and blindly dogmatic

>your strain is, your posts are utterly bereft of any

>information or value.

Thanks for acknowledging that you are FFF.

>>The

>>Misadministration has been very clear in tying Saddam to the

>>events of 9/11.

>

>Please concentrate on this so that I only have to teach it

>once.

>

>The Administration has argued that the war in Iraq is an

>important aspect of the war on the militant Muslims who

>perpetrated 9/11 and other similar acts. According to this

>argument, this is so NOT because the Iraqi Government helped

>to plan and perpetrate 9/11, but because fundamental change in

>the Middle East - i.e., democratic governments, prosperours,

>free societies, Western-oriented values, etc. - are

>prerequisites to extinguishing the forces that give rise to

>Muslim fundamentalism, and ridding the region of a poison like

>the Baathists and replacing them with a democratic governmment

>will go a long way to forward that goal.

>

>Whenever the Administration links Iraq to the War against

>Terrorism, it is on that basis - not on the basis that

>Saddam Hussein helped to plan 9/11. Now, anyone is free to

>disagree with the Administration's view, but you shouldn't lie

>and say that the Administration has claimed that the Hussein

>Government is responsible for the 9/11 attacks, because that

>just isn't so.

I think we already know that Iraq was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but the true purpose of the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with what you stated above and everything to do with: distracting us from the MisAdministration's failure to capture Osama bin laden. By re-introducing Saddam as the boogey man, the MisAdministration was free to pursue it's true goals of providing wealth to Shrub and Cheney's oil buddies.

The truth of the matter is that by invading Iraq, we abandoned the war on terror. Osama has been allowed to go free and AlQaeda has had the opportunity to regroup. That alone should be cause enough to impeach the Pretendident.

>I notice you didin't dispute Dr. Rice's comments.

>

>To believe that her comment that "Al Qaeda is setting up

>operations in Iraq" somehow precludes the notion that Al Qaeda

>and Iraq had previous links is too stupid to merit a reply. I

>do believe that the Administration wildly exaggerated

>unconvincing scraps of unreliable intelligence in order to

>assert this Iraq-Al Qaeda link, but as usual, in your zeal to

>make the case, you lie and rely on semantic games and just

>make yourself look stupid and thereby undermine the serious

>criticism that should be made.

More lies. If it was too stupid to merit a reply, why did you now reply? The fact remains that she said what she said. If Al Qaeda was already IN Iraq, and Condi really believed it, she would not have made that statement. It was a slip of the tongue, but it falls in step with the all the other untruths regurgitated by this MisAdministration.

"

There's no doubt that the Administration, in order to convince Americans that the war was necessary, pressured intelligence agencies, exaggerated and hyped what they knew, and made claims that even they knew were probably false. The war in Iraq was perfectly justified, but not for the inflated and/or fictitious reasons the Administration gave. All of that is unacceptable and should be investigated much more thoroughly by our stupid, easily led press and by our submissive, fearful Congress."

That is called LYING Doogie!NO WAY AROUND IT THEY LIED LIED LIED

And the irony is that, whether or not there were links between al-Qaeda and Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Iraq is rapidly becoming a centre for al-Qaeda thanks to the disorder under the US administration.

Well done, Dubya!

Now all we need to do is invade Iraq to save the world from terrorism....

>And the irony is that, whether or not there were links

>between al-Qaeda and Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Iraq is

>rapidly becoming a centre for al-Qaeda thanks to the disorder

>under the US administration.

Oh, look what we have here - another wonderful, humanistic "liberal" longing for the "order" that used to prevail in Iraq under the magnanimous, efficient Saddam Hussein Administration, and lamenting the "disorder" that comes when a brutal dictator is deposed. Yup, things would be so much better if only Saddam Hussein were back in power - he sure did make the trains run on time.

And don't you think it's somewhat preferable to have Al Qaeda terrorists flooding into and fighting in a foreign country where we have 130,000 of our soliders, rather than having them covertly plotting attacks on U.S. soil or places like that club in Bali where over 200 of your fellow citizens were slaughtered?

>Well done, Dubya!

>

>Now all we need to do is invade Iraq to save the world from

>terrorism....

You are the worst kind of scum, because you said previously that you SUPPORTED the war in Iraq. Now that you think it's not turning out well (a ludicrous conclusion after only 4 months), you refuse to admit that you did support it and pretend that you didn't, blaming it on others who did. Pathetic.

>Oh, look what we have here - another wonderful, humanistic

>"liberal" longing for the "order" that used to prevail in Iraq

>under the magnanimous, efficient Saddam Hussein

>Administration, and lamenting the "disorder" that comes when a

>brutal dictator is deposed. Yup, things would be so much

>better if only Saddam Hussein were back in power - he sure did

>make the trains run on time.

FFF, you really need to get a grip. The WAR was waged not for any of the Bushit you state above, it was waged because: a) Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (lie) b) Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the US (lie) and 3) it had ties to ALQaeda (lie). Had the MisAdministration waged war for the reasons you regurgiatet above, no one would be arguing with you. The fact remians that Shrub and his cronies LIED about every aspect of this war in order to get oil and money for the Halliburton Corporation and to distract the electorate from its failure to capture Osama bin Laden.

>And don't you think it's somewhat preferable to have Al Qaeda

>terrorists flooding into and fighting in a foreign country

>where we have 130,000 of our soliders, rather than having them

>covertly plotting attacks on U.S. soil or places like that

>club in Bali where over 200 of your fellow citizens were

>slaughtered?

I am sure the families of the dead soldiers appreciate your concern for them.

Hans Blix: Iraq destroyed weapons of massive destruction 10 years ago

Further proof of the Misadminstration's lies:

Sept. 17 (Xinhuanet) -- Former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix now believes Iraq destroyed its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago and that intelligence agencies were wrong in their weapons assessment that led to war.

　　In an interview with Australian radio from Sweden, Blix said the search for evidence of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons would probably only uncover documents at best.

　　"The more time that has passed, the more I think it's unlikely that anything will be found," Blix said in the interview, which was broadcast on Wednesday.

　　"I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed almost all of what they had in the summer of 1991," Blix said.

　　In 1991, the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found what it called a secret nuclear weapons program in Iraq. It spent the next seven years dismantling Baghdad's nuclear capability, until its inspectors were thrown out of Iraq.

　　Before ordering the invasion that toppled President Saddam Hussein, President Bush referred to an imminent threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as a prime justification for war.

　　"In the beginning they talked about weapons concretely, and later on they talked about weapons programs...maybe they'll find some documents of interest," Blix said.

　　Blix spent three years searching for Iraqi chemical, biological and ballistic missiles as head of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission.

　　U.N. inspectors left Iraq in March this year as American and British forces prepared to invade. Calls for their reinstatement have been denied, with the U.S. occupation authorities preferring instead to set up their own body, the Iraq Survey Group.

　　After more than five months of searching, no weapons of mass destruction have been found by the Iraq Survey Group, which consists of about 1,500 experts.

　　U.S. officials said in July that the search had uncovered documents pointing to a program to develop such weapons.

　　But the U.S. media network ABC News reported on Monday that a draft report by the Iraq Survey Group provides no solid evidence that Iraq had such arms when the United States invaded.

　　The U.S. government has consistently said the search for weapons of mass destruction will take time and that it is confident evidence will eventually be uncovered.Enditem (China Daily)

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2003-09/17/content_1086387.htm

I'm pleased that Saddam is no more.

But this debate is not about whether he was a good guy or not.

This is about the reasons we were given for the Iraq war. Those reasons did NOT include as a serious reason that Saddam was a nasty piece of work.

If this were a reason, then I challenge you to tell me when the USA is planning to invade other equally nasty regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, China and, of course, Cuba.

"You are the worst kind of scum, because you said previously that you SUPPORTED the war in Iraq. Now that you think it's not turning out well (a ludicrous conclusion after only 4 months), you refuse to admit that you did support it and pretend that you didn't, blaming it on others who did. Pathetic."

No, you're not listening to what this debate is about.

Yes, I supported the war on Iraq. Why? Because I believed George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard when they told us that Iraq had WMDs that unquestionably threatened the peace and stability of the whole Middle East and beyond.

Now it turns out that these statements were at best mistaken and at worst lies. That means that the whole basis for supporting the war was untrue.

THAT's why I am now criticising what happened, and what is happening today, It's got nothing to do with the fact that the war is also going rather badly at the moment.

Alas, that sad fact makes the present situation worse, because it means we have a real mess in Iraq that lacks any pretence at legitimacy, because it was justified by reasons that have turned out to be false.

And you might also note that I said it is "ironic" that whether or not al-Qaeda was involved with Saddam, it is certainly involved with Iraq now. Regardless of your beliefs about the war, this sad fact is also unquestionably ironic as well.

Oh, and by the way, it's the mark of someone who has no idea how to argue rationally that they end up attacking the person rather than the argument. How about dropping the personal abuse and trying to respond to the arguments? I don't object to you as a person, and I'm happy to meet you in sensible argument. But your personal attacks are unnecessary and frankly just plain rude, and reflect poorly on you rather than me.

>FFF, you really need to get a grip. The WAR was waged not for

>any of the Bushit you state above, it was waged because: a)

>Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (lie) b) Iraq posed a

>clear and present danger to the US (lie) and 3) it had ties to

>ALQaeda (lie).

Actually, the war was waged because Ameriucan politicians and Tony Blair have been bought and paid for by the Zionist lobby, pointe a la ligne!

I am sorry,but the anti-zionist spiel just does not work here.If Isreal was that powerful than any question of a Palastinian State(which I belive in)would be moot-because all the palastanians would be dead.

I do belive that Isreal,along with Saudi Arabia,have been involved in this in a big way-but in a way that a boy-standing on the edge of a schoolyard fight-eggs on the combatants by yelling "fight-fight"while not participating in the brawl itself.

We have a regime in place that is so set to do battle any place in the world that our oil/manufacturing/mineral/natural resource monopolies are threatened that we need no outside influence.Amerika will act on it's own,and damn the consequinces.

It is a shameful time to be an american for those of us who can think beyond the scope of a "B" western movie.

Now auntieS.please go peddle your papers elsewhere

>We have a regime in place that is so set to do battle any

>place in the world that our oil/manufacturing/mineral/natural

>resource monopolies are threatened that we need no outside

>influence.Amerika will act on it's own,and damn the

>consequinces.

A war for oil is not unrelated to a war for Israel. Having a zionist overseer in the region along with corrupt oligarchs have been the two prongs of American middle east policy for a long time. However, just because the jewish neo-cons have slithered back under their rocks (recall how ubiquitous they were here and elsewhere in the run up to the war) is no reason to forget the blood that now lies on their hands. Never forgive! Never forget!

RE: Hans Blix: Iraq destroyed weapons of massive destru...

So Clinton gets impeached for lying about a bj and this unelected POTUS gets away with lies that result in loss of lives of >300 troops, and billions of $$$.

Cry for my beloved country - the last great hope of mankind.

>I'm pleased that Saddam is no more.

What a touching sentiment. You regret that a war was fought to remove him; you consider it a "disaster" that he was removed; but you're glad he's gone. You want it both ways - you want to wash the blood from your hands but still embrace the good which this war did. The real world doesn't work that way.

>But this debate is not about whether he was a good guy or

>not.

>

>This is about the reasons we were given for the Iraq war.

>Those reasons did NOT include as a serious reason that Saddam

>was a nasty piece of work.

This is totally false. In virtually every speech given by President Bush and by everyone else in his Administration prior to the war - as well as in speeches by Blair, PM Howard, and others - the domestic evils of Saddam Hussein (how he gassed the Kurds, how he tortured and mass murdered Shiites and other domestic opponents, how he's a brutal, repressive, sadistic dictator) were stressed again and again.

It's amazing, but unsurprising, that the brilliant political analysts of the "BUSH LIED!!!!!!!" strain can't refrain from lying about Bush when articulating their critique.

>If this were a reason, then I challenge you to tell me when

>the USA is planning to invade other equally nasty regimes such

>as Saudi Arabia, Iran, China and, of course, Cuba.

We've already had this discussion. You claim that you are interested in rational political dialogue but the reason it's impossible with you is because you come here, spew crap, and then refuse to answer responses to your crap. A few weeks go by, and then you come back and spew the same stuff.

For instance, you came here and defended that vile Le Monde cartoon (repugnantly published on 9/11) which compared the U.S. to Al Qaeda and suggested that there were no differences between 9/11 and what the U.S. has done many times before, including in Chile. I asked you whether or not that is your belief - i.e., that there are no meaningful differences between the U.S. and Al Qaeda because what occurred on 9/11 is indistingushable from what the U.S. has done many times before. You refuse to answer.

Rational dialogue doesn't mean coming here and giving lectures in monologue form and then refusing to answer criticisms of what you say. It means responding to questions and inquiries made by those to whom you address your remarks.

I think it's incredibly signigicant whether or not your world-view is the one that is expressed by the Le Monde "cartoon" - namely, that the U.S. and Al Qaeda are basically the same, and that the U.S. has perpetrated its own 9/11's on others before. I suspect that many here, including many Americans criticial of Bush and the war, think this (but are too cowardly to say so, and so contrive patriotism to mask this view), and I suspect, given your defense of that article, that you do, too.

Anyone who thinks that the U.S. is the functional equivalent of Al Qaeda should just say so. It will avoid a lot of wasteful fake debate about other things masquerading as rational political debate but which are really just an expression of the view that Bush is the same as Osama bin Laden and the U.S. is the same as Al Qaeda. I see way more hatred and obssessive hostility by many here directed at Bush than I ever see from such individuals directed at Muslim terrorists.

So what's your answer to that? Is that your view? And if not, how could you possibly embrace that Le Monde cartoon which did nothing other than express that perspective?

Sadly you continue to choose abuse to rational debate.

OK, let's deal with some of your points.

Go back and read what I said about the Le Monde cartoon. It made a valid point that while we were remembering all the dead in 9/11, we should also remember the tens of thousands who died in Chile in a coup that happened ON THE SAME DAY (note that, the very same day) in 1973. That anniversary was going on simultaneously with the 9/11 memorials in New York and Washington. And that coup was undeniably engineered by the USA. The involvement of the CIA is well documented and beyond argument. So on one and the same day we should remember the thousands who died in the terrorist attacks AND the tens of thousands who died in an American-sponsored coup in Chile. Not a difficult task, I would have thought, nor a difficult concept to grasp, nor one that is unduly offensive to anybody.

You can speak with more personal knowledge about George Bush than I can because you have the misfortune to hear his ramblings on a regular basis as an American resident. I was in London when Blair presented his powerful defence of the forthcoming Iraq campaign to the House of Commons in January. It emphasised with great force the threat posed by WMDs. I have also noted my own Prime Minister's speeches on this topic, which prior to the war emphasised WMDs (and after the war emphasised the evils of the regime). I do know that Bush also emphasised WMDs at times, so it was certainly at the least a significant part of his case for a war against Iraq.

Of course I am pleased that Saddam Hussein has gone. Let me go further. I would like a world in which dictators like him were routinely overthrown and replaced by democratically elected governments. But we don't have such a world. It raises serious questions of who decides which regimes should be overthrown, and by whom they should be overthrown.

This is not for the USA to decide all by itself. Nor should the USA, Britain or Australia be justifying such actions with arguments and evidence that turn out to be false.

And if we don't have this ideal world, we have to ask the question: when is it legitimate to overthrow regimes like Saddam Hussein's? Why overthrow his, and not the equally barbaric regime in Saudi Arabia or China or North Korea, for example?

We now have a mess in Iraq. It would probably have been a bit of a mess even if it had been a UN force that had toppled Saddam, not the US virtually on its own. But there would have been two major differences about the mess under a UN invasion: first, there would have been a much more multinational force including, probably, Arab troops, who would have been less likely to become a focus of local anger; and second, as an internationally-sanctioned invasion, the force would have had more legitimacy and hence more clout to try to deal with those problems caused by the invasion.

The current mess is obviously not as bad for the locals as the Saddam regime was. But it's a mess, and it poses significant problems for all of us now because if we all don't do something about it, Iraq really WILL become a terrorist stronghold even though the evidence says it was not such a stronghold prior to the invasion. Remember, too, that the invasion of Iraq has been put forward as part of the War on Terror, a response to the tragic events of 9/11. How tragically ironic that it may well be our response to those terrorist attacks that turned Iraq into a terrorist-dominated state rather than making the world a safer place.

OK, I think I've responded to all your points, and done so rationally, I hope.

>Sadly you continue to choose abuse to rational debate.

Unless you consider "abuse" to mean that someone is not agreeing with what you say, this suggestion is entirely inaccurate.

>>Go back and read what I said about the Le Monde cartoon. It

>made a valid point that while we were remembering all the dead

>in 9/11, we should also remember the tens of thousands who

>died in Chile in a coup that happened ON THE SAME DAY (note

>that, the very same day) in 1973.

Can you just please answer what I am asking you: do you think that the U.S. is materially different than Al-Qaeda? Do you think that what occurred on 9/11 isn't materially different than what the U.S. itself has done before to others?

If, as you claim, the purpose of that disgusting Le Monde cartoon which so moved you was to commemorate the 1973 coup in Chile, why did it depict airplanes with the words "USA" on them flying into the Twin Towers with the word "Chile" written on them? Do you think the cartoon perhaps meant to suggest an equivalence between what Al-Qaeda did to the U.S. on 9/11, and what the U.S. did to Chile in 1973?

I don't see how you can deny that it did; that was the only purpose of the cartoon. Which leads me to ask you, yet again: Do you see the U.S. and Al-Qaeda as equivalent, and do you belive that the what occurred on 9/11 isn't distinguishable from what the U.S. has done before?

I would appreciate it if you would answer that, and I will then be happy to respond to your other delightfully posed points.

Do I think al-Qaeda and the US role in Chile in 1973 are the same?

YES!

Within days of the coup in Chile, engineered by the USA, perhaps as many as 30,000 innocent civilians were massacred by Pinochet's forces. Certainly the number of deaths exceeded 9/11.

And why were they killed? Who knows, they happened to be enemies of the armed forces, that's all. They were innocent civilians, as were the people who died in the World Trade Centre.

Perhaps you should look a bit more closely at what happened in Chile in 1973.

And if you do, the point of the cartoon might become apparent. It was not "disgusting" - indeed, your strong reaction to it suggests that the point it was making is one that needs to be made because some of us have forgotten what happened just 30 years ago.

And before you misrepresent me once again, I believe that what happened on 9/11 in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania was abhorrent and must not be forgotten. I had nightmares that night, and I still think of it with horror and disbelief at what some of my fellow human beings can do to each other.

It does not belittle the memory of those who died that day, however, to recall another appalling event in recent history that leads to similar feelings of horror and disbelief at what some of my fellow human beings can do to each other. Human beings, from all sorts of countries, have a truly appalling evil streak in them. It's in me, too, and I hope that I never succumb to it.