"If you think Bush is a moron shout 'retard'"

The Brits don't let us down!

The dramatic silence following the 41-gun salute that marked the President's arrival at the Royal Pavilion was broken by a lone heckler addressing himself to the crowd on a loudspeaker.

"If you think that Blair's a poodle, shout 'woof, woof'. If you think Bush is a moron shout 'retard'," he chanted, before the heavy security presence silenced him.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=465451

RE:

That's Retardident to you!

RE:

What's a 41-gun salute for?

I know a 21-gun salute. We use that for Royal visits to Australia and visits by heads of state. But 41 guns? What's the significance?

And it's not just a mistake by The Independent, either. The BBC News website refers to a 41-gun salute too.

RE:

Here's what Bush said last night in London:

<<Americans traveling to England always observe more similarities to our country than differences. I've been here only a short time, but I've noticed that the tradition of free speech--exercised with enthusiasm--is alive and well here in London. We have that at home, too. They now have that right in Baghdad, as well.>>

So now, in Iraq, thanks to this President, 25 million people for the first time in 3 decades enjoy the same right you and those idiots in London and everyone here has and exercise every day - to express their views and criticize political officals and to agitate for change. Let's home they'll use it in a more constructive and adult way than the heroess you have, yelling "moron" and "Bush is the greatest threat to life on earth."

But you don't give a fuck for the people in Iraq because they freedoms they have finally won are ones that were given to you and that you take for granted, and you're so self-absorbed with your petty little partisan agenda that nothing - not even the liberation of 25 million people - can be acknowledged if it gets in the way of your cliched agenda.

RE: Guns...

The 21 gun memorial is unrelated to this salute, which I think harkens back to the old naval customs of saluting ships or harbors with guns. Each rank deserved a certain number of guns, Captain, Commodore, Admiral, then there were more for Ambassadors (I think, or maybe just their underling rank in the English royal system), with Kings and I assume other heads of states getting the highest number of guns. I just wish the guns had been loaded for this salute... }(

RE:

>But you don't give a fuck for the people in Iraq because they

>freedoms they have finally won are ones that were given to you

>and that you take for granted, and you're so self-absorbed

>with your petty little partisan agenda that nothing - not even

>the liberation of 25 million people - can be acknowledged if

>it gets in the way of your cliched agenda.

Reality check. Liberating Iraqi citizens who were miserable under the old regime and providing them with freedoms that are important to us (I don’t know how important it is to them.) was just a positive side-effect of a course that we would have taken no matter what. It is just as clichéd and disingenuous for you to constantly focus on this ONE positive aspect and ignore all of the negatives (misinformation, lies, damaged relationships, etc.) that have resulted.

Do you honestly believe that it is just a tiny minority of agitators that are responsible for all this violence? How are they moving about and being sheltered without the support of a larger group? If this were really perceived as a blessing by an overwhelming majority of Iraqis, they would be turning on these people in droves. They don’t seem to be. And the number of angry, resentful people is just going to grow as our responses become more and more Draconian – which they will.

We have political objectives and we need to move forward and continue to try to make this successful, but let’s not kid ourselves that this was all about the poor Iraqis. A majority of them may be better off when all is said and done, but that is just a happy coincidence.

RE: Imagine

Imagine how much more useful those rights would be if there was a full UN presence and women didn't have to worry about being raped in the streets (I know, as opposed to Saddam's son's hotel room). If we'd had a real plan and a real coalition? But those things take time and George II wanted his war *now*.

I'm 100% for overthrowing Saddam, not because it means more $$$ for Halliburton, but because we (more specifically several of the bastards in this administration) put him in power, encouraged WMD development on his part, and turned a blind eye to his atrocities (even blocking a UN resolution condemning the use of poison gas). It was only when the petty monster we put in place nipped at our hand that the current crop of Hawks gave the least shit about the atrocities or what has been done with the WMDs they were sold (by former Republican administrations!). Even then they couldn't make up their minds, links with TERRORISTS (well, now Iraq's linked to terrorists anyway, thanks to us), WMDs -- thousand of pounds/gallons on 15 minute standby (ooops, we pulled that our of our ass), and now LIBERATION. Until Bush sees what his war continues to do to his poll numbers, even not letting us see the returning caskets, and pulls out, leaving things worse then when he started.

That's the difference between these neocons and liberals. Liberals always want to see people helped out as much as possible, things made better, and so far, things are much worse for the average Iraqi then before bombing started. They're free, you scream, they are not, they are occupied, thousands of civilians were killed, basic services are much worse then before the bombing, and there are now terrorists blowing up anybody they can at random. That is what we were worried would happen and why we wanted other alternatives to Bush's war. You see, neocons are only concerned about the welfare of the people as a last resort, when their two previous lies have been seen through, and only while it's politically expedient.

We are being lied to, it's as obvious as the nose on our faces that the only concern of these neocons is $$$. They were handed a plan, by Clinton's people, of dealing with the Taliban and Bin Laden. This was based on the atrocities in Afghanistan and worldwide operations by Bin Laden. This was all dismissed and ignored as paranoid and obsessive, ignored until Bin Laden affected Wall Street on 9/11.

Remember the conservatives lining up to cut the legs out from under our commander in chief, even after the USS Cole, screaming WAG THE DOG as he sent strikes in against Bin Laden and Saddam?

These are the ASSHOLES who now say it's treason to disagree with them! FUCK THEM and those who go along with this hypocrisy!

RE:

>Reality check. Liberating Iraqi citizens who were miserable

>under the old regime and providing them with freedoms that are

>important to us (I don’t know how important it is to them.)

>was just a positive side-effect of a course that we would have

>taken no matter what.

You don't know that this is true at all. Tony Blair put it best, in my opinion, when he gave one of the most eloquent speeches in the history of human oratory before the Joint Session of the U.S. Congress earlier this year.

He said that he believes with "every fibre of his being that (they) were right about the need for the war," but that EVEN IF THEY TURN OUT TO BE WRONG, the worst that can be said is that they overthrew an incomparably oppressive, brutal, truly evil regime - and, as a result, history would be very kind to this war. How could it not be? Who could vehemently condemn a war that does genuinely emancipate 25 million human beings from 30 years of the most inconceivable, inhumane brutality imaginable?

You have no idea whether or not the extent of Saddam's evil tipped the balance for Blair and/or Bush in deciding to go to war. It was always a factor mentioned publicly.

The thing that people don't understand is that decisions such as whether or not to wage war are NOT subject to mathematical precision. Intelligence is not an exact science. It's all probablities - weighing the pros and the cons, assessing probabilities. I am quite certain that the extent of Saddam's brutality played a role in that analysis, and I don't see how yuo can be certain that it played no role.

I agree that Saddam's brutality was not, by itself, reason enough to go to war. Wars should be fought for self-interest and security, and not as a charity mission. But the nature of the dictatorship certainly played a role for most people in supporting it, and I take both Blair and Bush at their word that it did for them, too.

>It is just as clichéd and disingenuous

>for you to constantly focus on this ONE positive aspect and

>ignore all of the negatives (misinformation, lies, damaged

>relationships, etc.) that have resulted.

I don't "constantly focus on this ONE positive aspect." I have talked a lot about what seems to be the manipulative process used to justify the war; the politicization of intelligence before the war; the appalling lack of preparation for the post-war; and the bellicose tone used to alienate allies. All of those were bad things.

But the liberation of 25 million is significant and I think underplayed - actually ignored - by the same liberal crowd that always tries to hold itself out as being the Standard Bearers for Human Rights around the world. Somehow, the indifference among this group to the demise of one of the world's most evil dictators is rather deafening.

>Do you honestly believe that it is just a tiny minority of

>agitators that are responsible for all this violence? How are

>they moving about and being sheltered without the support of a

>larger group? If this were really perceived as a blessing by

>an overwhelming majority of Iraqis, they would be turning on

>these people in droves. They don’t seem to be. And the

>number of angry, resentful people is just going to grow as our

>responses become more and more Draconian – which they will.

In every dictatorship, there is an elite that benefits from oppression. The predominantly Sunni Baathists from Saddam's region of Iraq were bestowed with all sorts of privileges which have disappeared and are replaced now with the threat of retribution from the people they oppressed for 30 years. So naturally they are against the liberation and are fighting it. So what?

>We have political objectives and we need to move forward and

>continue to try to make this successful, but let’s not kid

>ourselves that this was all about the poor Iraqis. A majority

>of them may be better off when all is said and done, but that

>is just a happy coincidence.

It's amazing how dismissive you are about that. Nobody said - including Bush - that the liberation of the Iraqis was, by itself, reason to go to war, or that it was the primary reason. But when analyzing whether the war was a good thing or not, I think it's pretty fucking callous, and revealing, to simply discount the fact that this number of people, for the first time ever, have the opportunity for true freedom in their lives.

>

RE:

As a former Yale cheerleader, who never was into reading(he still isn't), maybe Bush could come up with a good "Retard" cheer.

RE:

>You don't know that this is true at all. Tony Blair put it

>best, in my opinion, when he gave one of the most eloquent

>speeches in the history of human oratory before the Joint

>Session of the U.S. Congress earlier this year.

Of course neither of us will ever know what was in their hearts, but I believe the rhetoric before and after the invasion is pretty telling. Before the invasion, it was all about the threat Saddam posed and WMD’s. There was mention of human rights violations, but you’ve got to admit that it was heavily slanted towards the nature of the perceived threat. Now that it’s obvious to everyone, except those who choose to remain blind, that there were no WMD’s; the Administration doesn’t get to spin this into some kind of humanitarian effort.

>I am quite certain that the extent of Saddam's

>brutality played a role in that analysis, and I don't see how

>yuo can be certain that it played no role.

And why do you think you can be “quite certain” but I cannot? I think the certainty that either of us feel comes from a basic belief in the goodness of George W. I’ll admit that, at my very core, I do not believe he is a good person. I think he is a self-absorbed, self-serving autocrat. Naturally, I will always suspect his motives. I think I do a better than average job of keeping an open mind about specific issues, but I simply do not trust him.

You, on the other hand, seem to come from the opposite direction. I’m well aware of the criticism and disillusionment that you have posted about the Administration recently, but I believe your starting point is still that they are good people with good motives. Obviously, I don’t know what is in your head, but that is the impression that I get.

>It's amazing how dismissive you are about that. Nobody said -

>including Bush - that the liberation of the Iraqis was, by

>itself, reason to go to war, or that it was the primary

>reason. But when analyzing whether the war was a good thing

>or not, I think it's pretty fucking callous, and revealing, to

>simply discount the fact that this number of people, for the

>first time ever, have the opportunity for true freedom in

>their lives.

No one is being dismissive, but you agreed that the brutality was not enough reason, in itself, to go to war. Apparently, that’s all there was. That doesn’t mean that I’m being callous by not giving the Administration a ‘pass’ simply because there was one good outcome that, you and I both agree, was not sufficient reason to go to war. (Sorry about the clumsy sentence.)

It’s interesting that I am defending this position because I did, and do, support the war, but it was all for political reasons. Iraq’s unwillingness to meet the terms of the Gulf War surrender. The possibility of establishing a successful and friendly democracy in the Middle East. The need to try a new approach to a very old problem.

That’s why I criticize this Administration. They are failing completely on all those objectives. They appear to be backing down and looking for a way out (or at least down) and Iraq will be no better off than Afghanistan. We will have failed every goal except removing Saddam, and there is even the potential that they will screw that up by leaving a vacuum that he, or someone just like him, will fill.

RE:

>Of course neither of us will ever know what was in their

>hearts, but I believe the rhetoric before and after the

>invasion is pretty telling. Before the invasion, it was all

>about the threat Saddam posed and WMD’s. There was mention of

>human rights violations, but you’ve got to admit that it was

>heavily slanted towards the nature of the perceived threat.

Yes, of course this was the case. Very few people would think that a war was justified if the only reason to fight it was to get rid of a mean leader. The likelihood that Saddam possessed WMD's was absoultely the Administration's primary STATED rationale for the war; nobody denies that. But the evil of the Saddam regime was virtually always mentioned as a contributing justification.

>Now that it’s obvious to everyone, except those who choose to

>remain blind, that there were no WMD’s . . . .

I literally don't know how anyone can say this. Before the war EVERY FUCKING PERSON of any consequence agreed that there were WMDs. I'll show you quotes from Clinton, Chirac, Madeline Albright - EVERYONE, including those opposed to the war - saying that Iraq had active WMD programs and probably WMDs. The question was NEVER "did Iraq have WMDs?" The only question being debated was: "Would inspections solve this problem or do we need regime change?"

Also, WMD's are easily disposed of. Do you know how easy it is to destroy or dispense with a chemical or a vial of some bacterial agent?

I do agree - given all the scientists we have in custody, the documents we have accessed, the evidence we can obtain - that there was probably no real WMD threat at the time we invaded, but it's hardly "obvious," and this notion that "BUSH LIED!!!" because he said what everyone in the world also thought, including his own intelligence agencies, is really silly.

; the Administration

>doesn’t get to spin this into some kind of humanitarian

>effort.

Nobody is trying to do that. But they are saying that there were multiple justificaitons for the war, and an undeniable, substantial good that has come from it is no more Saddam.

That's the Tony Blair Argument I described earlier - we don't think we were wrong about WMD's, but even if we were, the worst you can say about what we did is that we liberated 25 million human beings from unimaginable oppression.

>I think the certainty that either of us feel comes from a

>basic belief in the goodness of George W. I’ll admit that, at

>my very core, I do not believe he is a good person. I think

>he is a self-absorbed, self-serving autocrat. Naturally, I

>will always suspect his motives. I think I do a better than

>average job of keeping an open mind about specific issues, but

>I simply do not trust him.

Do you believe this about all of the people in his Administration? And about Tony Blair and the Prime Ministers of Spain and Italy and Australia? You don't think that they, and Bush for that matter, are moved at all by reports of the sorts of sickness going on in Iraq under Saddam? It's all just pretense?

>It’s interesting that I am defending this position because I

>did, and do, support the war, but it was all for political

>reasons. Iraq’s unwillingness to meet the terms of the Gulf

>War surrender. The possibility of establishing a successful

>and friendly democracy in the Middle East. The need to try a

>new approach to a very old problem.

Agreed - I never thought Saddam had any REALLY threatening weapons - ceratinly not ones that he could threaten the U.S. with. If we're going to start talking abotu threatening weapons, I'd like to begin with those many nuclear weapons sitting in the middle of Pakistan.

And I think the real justification for the war, which I also supported, is that we needed to demonstrate in the heart of the Middle East that we were willing to fight militarily on the ground; get more influence in that region, and estaablish a democratic government there so that Muslims don't continue to see the U.S. as the agent of their misery and suffering.

>That’s why I criticize this Administration. They are failing

>completely on all those objectives. They appear to be backing

>down and looking for a way out (or at least down) and Iraq

>will be no better off than Afghanistan. We will have failed

>every goal except removing Saddam, and there is even the

>potential that they will screw that up by leaving a vacuum

>that he, or someone just like him, will fill.

I think you're declaring defeat prematurely. Recent annoucnemnts by the Administration are worriseome (how can we say we will turn over authority in June? How do we know it will be ready then? Isn't that just a way to get Bush out of this mess before the election?), but at the same time, building a democracy there is not easy. It's going to take time, be messy, and have lots of obstacles.

I think the jury is still out on whether we have the resolve to do this (interesting that I think Howard Dean speaks about succeeding there with more resolve than I think Bush has at the moment), but if we do succeed in that goal, I don't see how anyone can question whether the war was justified and worthwhile.

>

RE:

>I literally don't know how anyone can say this. Before the

>war EVERY FUCKING PERSON of any consequence agreed that there

>were WMDs. I'll show you quotes from Clinton, Chirac,

>Madeline Albright - EVERYONE, including those opposed to the

>war - saying that Iraq had active WMD programs and probably

>WMDs. The question was NEVER "did Iraq have WMDs?" The only

>question being debated was: "Would inspections solve this

>problem or do we need regime change?"

That’s just not true. There were plenty of people questioning it – including the weapons inspectors if I’m not mistaken. The Administration went on an aggressive spin campaign to convince the world that the danger was EMINENT and that we had to invade NOW. Having a WMD program and having WMD’s are very different things when you are talking about a clear and PRESENT danger that supposedly makes further negotiation impossible.

>Also, WMD's are easily disposed of. Do you know how easy it

>is to destroy or dispense with a chemical or a vial of some

>bacterial agent?

I don’t know a lot about it, but I would think that the equipment necessary to produce that vile would be much more difficult to dispose of than the vile itself. It is very, very hard to believe that they would not have found some clear evidence by now.

>I do agree - given all the scientists we have in custody, the

>documents we have accessed, the evidence we can obtain - that

>there was probably no real WMD threat at the time we invaded,

>but it's hardly "obvious," and this notion that "BUSH LIED!!!"

>because he said what everyone in the world also thought,

>including his own intelligence agencies, is really silly.

That’s because you apparently believe he is trustworthy…I do not. My personal belief (and of course I can’t PROVE it) is that Bush honestly believed that there were WMD’s so he didn’t think there was anything wrong with using half-truths and selective reporting. Well, he was wrong and he doesn’t get a pass just because it was an honest mistake. It was a very serious mistake.

>That's the Tony Blair Argument I described earlier - we don't

>think we were wrong about WMD's, but even if we were, the

>worst you can say about what we did is that we liberated 25

>million human beings from unimaginable oppression.

I love Tony Blair, but it’s actually not the worst thing you can say about the war. However, unless they turn things around, it might be the ONLY good thing you can say.

>Do you believe this about all of the people in his

>Administration? And about Tony Blair and the Prime Ministers

>of Spain and Italy and Australia? You don't think that they,

>and Bush for that matter, are moved at all by reports of the

>sorts of sickness going on in Iraq under Saddam? It's all

>just pretense?

Pretty much. I’m sure it moves them -- it would move a stone -- but that generally doesn’t amount to war. How else to you explain their lack of concern about all the other horrible tyrants in the world? It’s been said before, but how come they aren’t concerned about the atrocities occurring in Africa?

I actually believe that they were primarily motivated by the political objectives I mentioned before. I don’t fault them for that, because I think those are appropriate political motives. I just find it hypocritical to try to convince the world that it was for any other reasons.

>I think you're declaring defeat prematurely. Recent

>annoucnemnts by the Administration are worriseome (how can we

>say we will turn over authority in June? How do we know it

>will be ready then? Isn't that just a way to get Bush out of

>this mess before the election?), but at the same time,

>building a democracy there is not easy. It's going to take

>time, be messy, and have lots of obstacles.

And that’s what is really pissing me off and making me think that I could be very correct in characterizing George W. as self-serving. If we get out before the job is done, it will all be for nothing. I know he is not the brightest bulb on the tree, but even he had to understand that it was going to be very, very difficult.

RE:

I agree that we shouldn't judge the justification for the Iraq invasion with the wisdom of hindsight. If there was a compelling case for getting rid of WMDs before the war, it doesn't matter if it turns out that Iraq was bluffing and it didn't really have WMDs at all.

In short, the serious threat of WMDs was a proper justification for invading Iraq.

The issue is that there is evidence, in the USA, the UK and in Australia, that experts advised the governments of all three nations that the threat of WMDs was not as strong or as imminent as they were saying. Indeed, the experts said that some information relied on (eg the obtaining of uranium from Niger) was just plain wrong.

In short, there is a serious possibility that we were misled by our governments into thinking that there was a real threat of WMDs in Iraq.

And that is a very serious problem indeed. A government has to be honest with its people, within the limits of disclosing national security information, about the justification for sending troops to war. It is not acceptable in a free and democratic society for a government to mislead its people about the primary cause of an imminent war.

If the allegations against Blair, Bush, Howard and others stick, they have to resign. It's that simple. Not because we haven't found any WMDs, but because they misled the people.

As to fighting the war to get rid of a brutal regime, I'm all in favour of this as a reason for going to war. The problem is, it is not a valid reason for a war in international law, and it's never been raised as a reason in the past.

I'm old enough to remember the first reports of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. Everybody knew that there was a humanitarian catastrophe going on. But NOBODY - not the USA, not Australia, not Britain, not the Soviet Union, not China - was prepared to intervene. When the Vietnamese finally invaded, I suspect that most people in the west were quietly relieved. I certainly was. Whatever the Vietnamese did could hardly be any worse than Pol Pot.

We can repeat this story hundreds of times over since World War Two. I'm not aware of any occasion where anybody has used the brutality of the regime as a serious reason for invading another country. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because we've had a lot of armed conflict since 1945.

I'm not prepared to accept Blair's and Bush's twists and turns on this issue, because I know perfectly well that they will never invade any other country just because the regime is brutal. I am 100% confident that there are no plans to invade Saudi Arabia, for example, a country which routinely discriminates against women in the most grotesque fashion and cuts off the hands of thieves. I am equally confident that despite the Tian an Men Square massacre, the USA is not working out how many troops will be required to bring about regime change in China. Or North Korea. Or any other of the dozens of brutal disgusting regimes on this planet that are every bit as abhorrent as Saddam Hussein's.

In short, the claim that the war is justified because Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator is absurd in the current state of international law and policy. This is not a justification for war, even though it ought to be. Rather, it is a smokescreen by desperate leaders trying to avoid the risk that history will judge them as liars rather than liberators.

I don't know whether Bush, Blair and Howard lied to us. I hope they didn't, because even though I don't like any of them, I hope that our political system was capable of throwing up better leaders than that. But I acknowledge that there is a real possibility that they, or those close to them in the leadership, did lie to us.

And that disturbs me greatly.