is the US sliding into Fascism? Evidence for and against

I agree with the facts. WMD have never been found. Iraq never had the money or the time to mass produce the WMD. The motive and the means was still there, however. In all probability, there are WMD in the hands of Jihad rogues as we speak. Knowing that once they use such weapons, the war against them will only intensify, my speculation is that there is a certain time planned for a coordinated future attack, similar to 9-11.Mainly convential weapons...some gas....Iran has the nukes, so hopefully the nukes are protected. Perhaps a dirty bomb or two.

Well I'm not really looking for collusion on this, or some sort of conspiracy theory.
But I was trying to identify some obvious conflicts of interest in our current administration. Yes, unfortunate, but true.
Still, that won't stop domestic oil interests from capitalizing on the high prices. Ah yes. But there is no shortage of places to look for malfeasance in tax breaks with the current administration, is there?The medicare drug benefit essentially creates a multi-billion dollar pipeline of cash from public funds into the large pharmaceutical corporation bank accounts, while at the same time abdicating Medicare's rights to bargain for lower prices.
And on top of that, the same companies are going to be able to repatriate billions of $$$ in foreign profits almost tax free.See here in case you don;t subscribe:Drug Makers Reap Benefits of Tax BreakBy ALEX BERENSON
Published: May 8, 2005A new tax break for corporations is allowing the biggest American drug makers to return as much as $75 billion in profits from international havens to the United States while paying a fraction of the normal tax rate.
Jonathan Drake/Bloomberg News{ Merck produces drugs in Singapore, where tax rates are lower }The break is part of the American Jobs Creation Act, signed into law by President Bush in October, which allows companies a one-year window to return foreign profits to the United States at a 5.25 percent tax rate, compared with the standard 35 percent rate.

quote:

---

Where did anyone (besides liberals) say imminent threat?

---

Mar. 6, 2003 George W. Bush
"Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people and to all free people."Mar. 14, 2004 Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser
"I believe to this day that it (Iraq) was an urgent threat. This could not go on and we are safer as a result because today Iraq is no longer going to be a state of weapons of mass destruction concern."Rumsfeld: (9/19/02) "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.""No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.""Absolutely."
? White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03Aug. 6, 2002 Dick Cheney
"What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness. We will not simply look away, hope for the best and leave the matter for some future administration to resolve."Dan Bartlett, White House spokespersonOn January 26, 2003, when asked on Wolf Blitzer if Saddam was ?an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?? Bartlett responded: ?Well, of course he is.?2 On September 18, 2002, Rumsfeld said: ?Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.?President George Bush:?The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.? (October 2, 2002)?There?s a grave threat in Iraq. There just is.? (October 2, 2002)?The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace.? (October 16, 2002) [Emphasis added.]?There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to America in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein.? (October 28, 2002)?The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands.? (November 23, 2002)?I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq.? (November 1, 2002)?This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined.? (September 26, 2002)Vice President Cheney:On August 29, 2002, Vice President Cheney said: ?Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness.?On January 30, 2003, Vice President Cheney said: Iraq poses ?terrible threats to the civilized world.?On January 31, 2003, Cheney said: Iraq is ?a serious threat to our country, to our friends, and to our allies.?

quote:

---

1st of all we have the 1.77 TONS

---

tons of what?

quote:

---

and 1,000 "Radio Active items"

---

Like what?Nuclear warheads attached to rockets, sitting in silos, able to reach the US?

quote:

---

BUT besides that we still don't know where they went.

---

Or if they were ever there in the first place.Just before 9/11 both Powel and Rice seemed to think that Iraq had no significant WMD capability, yet they completely reversed this view immediately after 9/11.Why did they do that?

quote:

---

And they went somewhere. Not finding something is not proof that it wasn't there. You can't prove a negative.

---

So, why didn't Bush allow the inspections to continue until we found them. if they were there?

quote:

---

WMD was only 1 reason.

---

It was by far the most influential reason.And it turned out to be either a lot of lies or some pretty severe incompetency.Also, quote mining Blix is not useful to your case.I can (and have in the past) give you the text of a whole interview with Blix which says that Bush pretty much just ignored much of what the inspections team told him.

No matter how I read that, it still ends up "implying that this was the purpose of the war" or at least a BIG purpose of it. Especially when I go back and reread your original statement which still sounds even more like it implies this purpose: Putting "spread democracy" in quotes sure implies some kind of duplicity for starters.Actually it's not true that it never gets any coverage. It's a pretty common accusation of the Bush administration that the war was *really* about oil and not about any of the things it was said to be about.

That's a good example. I'd heard about the repatriation scheme but forgot about it. I'm glad you're not into conspiracy theories. They aren't really necessary when Bush and Co. don't go to great pains to disguise flagrant giveaways.Now that I think about it, this isn't really on topic, is it?

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

The implication I was making with the quotes is that the war was first sold on the grounds of national defense (eliminating WMD) and when they weren't found, it quickly changed into a humanitarian mission (spreading democracy). True enough, but I'm not talking about America securing access to the oil in Iraq, but rather the personal profits being made Bush himself and the domestic oil comanies that support him.
I think I have already explained how they continue to benefit from the high oil prices that were triggered by the war, while the rest of us pay the higher prices.

I'm not sure it's that far off topic.Fascism is always associated with consolidating control over people and resources to give a privilidged few control over many.Oil is a pretty important resource these days.

Would that be like the war on porn, the war on drugs, and the war on Iraq?By the way what is the difference for it to be PC in some circles to say gays should be married, and it being PC to say gays should not be married in another? Eventually one gets instituted... why not the one with expanded ideas of freedom?Conservatives are for freedom, right?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Wrong again, read some history. The far left was active against Hussein when Bush Sr and Rumsfeld were helping him butcher the very people we are now claiming to be avenging.Do you want a picture of Rumsfeld smiling and shaking hands with Hussein around the same time the massacres took place? What you won't find is a member of the far left doing it, they were busy pleading with the US gov't to stop helping him.Whoops.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes.I feel that it is always better to err on the side of greater freedom. I don't see how it is possible to support rendition to foreign countries and discrimination against gays and claim to stand for freedom.Has anyone brought up the proposed bill that would regulate content on pay cable and satellite TV? The specifics of the legislation escape me, but that is a damn good example of suppression of free speech. Unlike most of the kids at my school, I wouldn't glibly declare us to be already under the yoke of a new Hitler, but a bill like this would go a long way towards convincing me.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

Disinformation is not just using fake quotes. Disinformation is using real quotes and facts out of context to suggest something they don't really suggest.Tal was engaging in disinformation by making it look like people actually held similar views of Saddam Hussein as the Bush administration claimed to have. This is not true and evident even from the quotes that were cited.There is no question that some indicate that certain individuals were accepting the Bush administration's intelligence on Iraq at the time. Those people can be made fum of for that, though that does not incriminate everyone on th left for having believed all of the intel including some of the other people cited.Furthermore, I really didn't see any quote that suggested they were for what Bush did. Indeed the Kerry quotes were pretty indicative of a different line of reaction to the threat he viewed Hussein posed, not to mention the TYPE of threat Hussein posed. That's the point I was making. There was no need to interpret them. Yet Tal presented them in a list and in a context to give them his own interpretation (i.e. spin). If you believe those listed quotes supported Tal's position, then you did believe his interpretation, rather than reading the statements for themselves.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Evidence is better. The only weapons were old, abandoned ones which were likely not even recognized as such by the Iraq regime. If "militia" have them they likely are unaware of what they have. That's why you found some being detonated as simple explosives instead of in a way that would be appropriate for chemical munitions.What they did have is chemical, perhaps some biological, and spent nuclear material. That is different than having weapons. It is already public knowledge that the US did not secure known sites the UN requested and so such stocks have made it into the hands of the public. Just as bad as having been obtained with intent, are the many people who simply looted such material and have no idea of their danger. Of course another even will someday happen. I will note that 9-11 did not require WMDs, and neither did the Oklahoma city bombing. On the flip side the Japanese subway poisoning, as well as the US Anthrax attack, while being WMD material attacks, did not come from Jihadists... one was Japanese and the other is currently believed to be the work of an American (at the very least it was OUR ANTHRAX).If you fear another 9-11 coming from a bunch of Jihadists using foreign made WMD tech, you will likely be looking the wrong way when it comes. Uh, while I agree with this sentiment towards Jihadists, it is a bit onesided. All fundamentalists need some help, and that includes here.We went to Iraq, met the enemy, and the enemy was us.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Ok, I know there are other threads where discussing the Iraq war is more appropriate, but I just can’t let your post go by without comment.As usual, you are distorting events, repeating overused talking points, and speaking from a complete lack of historical context. I remember all the news stories in the run-up to the war, all the news accounts of Iraq’s activities during the months prior to the war and all the issues about Iraq in the entire decade of the 1990’s.Where were you? Did you participate in political discussions back then?You would reduce the entire US policy towards Saddam and Iraq over the last 20 years to a single catch phrase — No WMD — No justification for war. Nice and neat, tie a little ribbon around it and call the debate over.Sure WMD’s was part of the justification for war and it is disappointing and not the least bit disconcerting that nuclear WMD’s were not found. But to pin the entire rationale for the war on that one and only one item is to ignore all the history of the conflict in the Bush, Clinton, and Bush Sr. administrations.

quote:

---

On December 17, 1998, the Congress voted nearly unanimously in support of our troops while they are engaged in Operation Desert Fox.

​

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 conveyed the sense of Congress regarding U.S. policy toward Iraq. It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. (Public Law 105-338, October 31, 1998)

---

A total of 195 Democrats, 221 Republicans, and one Independent voted to support this statement of policy.Congress, in 1998, overwhelmingly supported removal of Saddam. REMOVE not CONTAIN. This was long before Bush II was in office.Where did the Clinton administration and Congress get the idea that removing Saddam was necessary US foreign policy? From a variety of sources and from the long history of US and Iraqi relations.Chief weapons inspector David Kay testified before Congress that removal of Saddam is the only option.

quote:

---

The danger posed by Saddam’s development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons cannot be stopped by international monitoring. The former chief nuclear weapons inspector for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), David Kay, testified to Congress on February 25,1998 that it is unreasonable to think an inspection system "can uproot a weapons program that a country is determined to protect with deception, denial, and cheating.

---

Bill Clinton most assuredly thought Saddam’s regime posed an immanent danger. In his speech announcing Operation Desert Fox, the President stated categorically that our military action against Iraq was precipitated by Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with UNSCOM, the United Nations Special Commission whose multinational weapons inspectors seek to enforce the disarmament clauses of the Gulf War armistice.

quote:

---

"[Saddam's non-cooperation] presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere.Without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years."

---

But the weapons inspections were ineffectual: Again, David Kay testifying before Congress states:

quote:

---

The weapons are inherently small in amount and can be moved around. Uprooting a protected weapons system in a country that is genuinely not defeated, that you don’t occupy, I think is, quite frankly, beyond us. You cannot hope that inspection, just as I do not think you can hope air power, can do it.

​

What is required is a political strategy that is designed not to deal with Saddam, but to remove Saddam from power.

---

So weapons inspections don’t work, what about the air strikes during the Clinton administration? They were ineffective also:

quote:

---

Military analysts have likewise cast doubt on the ability of air strikes, on whatever scale, to eradicate Iraq’s decentralized, covert weapons program. Professor Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies told the House International Relations Committee in February 1998, "a military campaign which focuses simply on trying to root out the weapons of mass destruction is not likely to be terribly successful, either in the very narrow military sense or in a broader, political sense." Chemical and biological agents are often small enough to hide anywhere.

---

Despite the ineffectiveness of the air strikes, we continued to pour money down the drain in a futile containment effort. An effort that had been in place for many years:

quote:

---

The Clinton administration had to ask Congress for a $600 million supplemental appropriation just to cover the costs of the February mobilization against Saddamone of three in 1998 alone.

---

That’s 1.8 BILLION dollars spent by the Clinton administration in 1998 alone in support of a failed containment policy.So what else can we try? What about assassination? Been there, tried that. Clinton tried a botched covert CIA operation in 1996 to assassinate Saddam:

quote:

---

In early 1996, after years of delay, the President authorized a $100 million CIA covert operation to unseat Saddam Hussein. But the President personally decided to take no action when later that year Saddam sent ground forces into the Kurdistan "no-fly" zone and seized Irbil, the region’s capital and the center of the CIA-sponsored resistance.

​

Iraqi secret police dragged hundreds of CIA-recruited Iraqis and Kurds from their homes to torture and execution. The Clinton administration left them helpless. Far from weakening Saddam, the covert action, as a result of the administration’s failure to support it, allowed Saddam to reassert direct control over Kurdistan for the first time since the Gulf War.

---

After this, Clinton was very reticent to initiate actions against Saddam despite Congressional appropriations to liberate Iraq:

quote:

---

As of 1998, the economic embargo was rapidly disintegrating in the face of rising international opposition, and Iraq’s weapons program was continuing to expand despite periodic spasms of U.S. military reaction whose timing is quite obviously controlled by Saddam himself.

---

The US congressional House policy committee concludes the following in 1998. Note here that the House committee was recommending removal of Saddam BEFORE he acquires WMD’s. All of this was long before the Bush administration took office.

quote:

---

The crisis in the Gulf today is only the latest episode in a cycle of Iraqi defiance and U.S. response that spans the entire Clinton presidency. Yet there is no reason to believe that this pattern can continue indefinitely. The three pillars of the Clinton policyeconomic sanctions, the UNSCOM weapons inspection program, and periodic military mobilizations and strikesare buckling.
Saddam Hussein has now effectively obstructed weapons inspections for 400 days.

​

At some point, he will succeed in breaking out of the Gulf War peace agreement and acquiring both weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver themif he is left in power.

---

quote:

---

Only when Saddam is replaced by a government willing to live in peace with its neighbors and with the people of Iraq will this threat be lifted. A U.S. policy to do thatand not simply half-measuresis what we urgently require.

---

So all the intentions were there to remove Saddam on the part of both Congress and the Clinton administration, but it didn’t get done. Why? If you remember, the late 1990’s were good economic times.It was much easier and safer for Clinton to not rock the boat and pass that messy problem on to the Bush administration. Bush, on the other hand, met the challenge head on and we are all the safer for it. Source

Just a note for you to answer Schraf's list of quotes answering this question. I would have done it, but she beat me to the punch. Material =/= weapons. Remember the W in WMD is Weapons. Thus your comment of material we captured (which as you sources cited note was already known before the invasion), is immaterial.As far as your "can't prove a negative" comment, have you read the ISG conclusions? How about the comments from Bush, Powell, Rice, etc etc (except Rummy I guess)?You are all alone soldier. The first set of facts (up till 1990) detail Saddam's rise to power with the aid of the Republican administration of the US. We fully supported the war with Iran as they had just converted to an Islamic state and threw out our puppet gov't. Saddam was secular and would help keep them at bay. Reagan, Bush Sr, and Rummy had no interest in the Kurds and allowed them to be slaughtered while the left petitioned them to stop supporting this madman.At 1990, we see Saddam cross a line with Bush Sr, by invading Kuwait which was NOT on our agenda. There is evidence he was allowed to believe it was okay to do this, and perhaps he would have been allowed to do it if outcry wasn't as loud.The question to YOU is why did Reagan and Bush Sr not do what they did for oil rich Kuwait, when it was simply the Kurds getting gassed en masse?You have the timeline, you answer the question using your common sense test. This second timeline is wholly fallacious in that it is contructed with mined quotes, to make it appear that Blix was indicating that inspections were not working and that Saddam was successfully hiding weapons/obfuscating inspectors.In fact, while Blix said the sliver of words you managed to mine, he also stated that the Iraq was increasingly cooperative and the inspections process was working.The January quote you have from Blix was NOT an end determination that Iraq had not complied nor ultimately failed to prove anything, as the process was still engaged and Blix had an estimated timeline for completion such that a proper verdict could be rendered. Near the final hours of Bush's rush to war, the French publicly stated that they would be willing to back a resolution openly allowing for use of force, if the inspections were allowed to be completed according to the proper inspection timetable, which was a delay of just a few months.It was Bush's declaration that we were going in anyway, which forced the inspections to end and the inspectors to leave.You are getting worse at this game.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)