The New York Times published the resignation letter of John Brady Kiesling. Mr. Kiesling is a diplomat with the State Department who has served the US for 20 years. He was most recently posted to Athens after serving several other embassies.

His resignation letter states rather clearly his beliefs about the current administration's approach to foreign policy. I thought it was rather well stated. And to see it come from a career bureaucrat, it was rather surprising. If he is willing to state these things so directly, how many others are there who are keeping concerns buttoned up?

Here is an excerpt from his letter:

And the link to the whole piece:

US Dilpomat Resigns in Protest

President Bush's doctrine of preemption is a radical adjustment in U.S. foreign policy. In and of itself, that doesn't make it good or bad. It is a dramatic departure and it's a bit of a surprise that the reaction of the diplomatic corps has been so non-reactive.

The diplomatic corps is fundamentally conservative, and I don't mean this in the Republican/Tory political sense, It prizes stability above all else. And the President's policy is destabilizing. Those of us who support the President believe that this destabilization is good ... that stability allowed al-Qaeda to plot terrorist strikes against the U.S. and U.S. citzens, and allowed Iraq and North Korea to acquire weapons of mass destruction ... that stability allowed Rwandan genocide ... that stability has Israeli civilians subjected to continual suicide attacks and threats from Iraq's WMD's. The intellectually-honest opponents to the pre-emption policy view this policy as being costly (in terms of dollars and lives of U.S. soldiers) and as increasing, not decreasing the amount of terrorism directed at the U.S. and our allies.

It would have been nice for there to have been an intellectually honest debate in this country over the policy. The Democrats (especially the Senate Dems) fundamentally lack courage right now and were unwilling to engage in this debate in the last election. Instead, they voted for the policy in general and, ever since, have continually bitched and moaned about the particulars: Whine ... We still haven't gotten Osama. Waaaaah. Whine ... North Korea is worse. Waaaaah. Whine ... We're acting unilaterally, even with Britain and Italy and Spain and Denmark and all of eastern Europe on our side. Waaaaah.

Now, as we're getting to the point where we have to move on Iraq, the (Senate) Dems still won't talk about the preemption doctrine, and instead, have decided to keep calling President Bush a liar. Over and over again. It's every day's talking point.

I'm sorry, that's name calling. It's not serious debate. The President's preemption plan is a viable strategy in light of global, anti-American, Islamofascist terrorism. Is it the only available alternative? No. But calling Bush "shrub" and a "liar," as liberal commentators and Senate Dems want to do, is not debate. It's name calling.

I'll give the diplomat credit for at least engaging in debate and not mere name calling (although the charge of politicizing intelligence is ancient ... every presidency is accused of that). But we can't be paralyzed by debate. Sometimes you have to act. And we're just a few short weeks away from acting.

I heard Howard Dean speak last night here in Philly - what a refreshing and authentic candidate. He is not afraid to say that he disagrees with his fellow democrats on the war resolution. He said that Saddam is not an "immediate" threat and sees the North Korea situation as more serious. I agree. He also spoke about the issue of affirmative action saying that the democrats cower at the thought of suppporting (or being perceived to support) affirmative action. He pointed out that in this century the white man will be the minority and that, in fact, in California we now have 4 distinct minorities. He says we need affirmative action to level the playing field.

He criticized W for using the word "quota" 7 times in a recent speech about the Michigan issue. That case was never about quotas per se. However, Bush uses the quota word to scare people and pander to the right wing.

I hope his participation in the race raises the level of discourse.

CITT, you must realize Bush is a base liar on many fronts. His intellectually dishonest comments about the Iraq war remaking the Middle East into a democratic haven were sickening. Why not push for real democracy right now in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, AND Egypt, which would have a far more dramatic effect on the Palestinian issue than leveling Iraq?

Because Iraq is what's been drawn up and plotted out for years, and all the diplomatic shadowplay was just that: Bush is going to have his war, whatever its consequences.

Bush's OWN FATHER, George Herbert Walker Bush, our 41st President who defeated Saddam in 1991, challenged the son's assertions just the other night! Even HE realizes that this is not the best plan. It's reckless, inhumane, financially catastrophic, and will only serve to further alienate not only the millions of Muslims throughout the world, but also many of our non-Muslim allies.

Also, we're trying to force Turkey's democracy to accept our war plans, but both the main party and the opposition, like 90% of that nation's people, are against the war. If we care about democracy--and the people throughout Europe have made their voices clear--why are we so disdainful when other countries exercise it?

This diplomat deserves praise for speaking out. There are a few Congressional Democrats--and Republicans--who have also been as brave, but the inertia on the left and the juggernaut on the right make it hard for any of these folks to rise above the fray. And since we have only a weak media to address the true issues behind this "war," its costs, and so on, most Americans are being kept in the dark, yet a majority are not totally convinced of Bush's dangerous plan.

[ March 02, 2003, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Lord, I never thought I'd actually think of this man fondly, but it's happening now.

President George H. W. Bush's remarks at Tufts University: \"Choose Hope over Hate\"

I was impressed by the very personal example he gave of what he calls affirmative action in his own past. When hiring staffers he requested specifically that he be given a pool of candidates that included a minimal percentage of qualified women. Then using objective criteria staff seclections were made. This eventually resulted in all women on the staff.

There are a number of possible explanations for this but I wont speculate yet. He eventually decided to seek male staffers.

I think what is most important is not affirmative action perse but the willingness of one individual to see and address an inequity in society using his own initiative. An example that if followed throughout society, with good intentions would eventually eliminate inequities.

Interestingly he strongly supports legislation to eliminate discrimination as a way of achieving equality for gays. Applied to all oppressed groups this technique would IMO be preferable to government-imposed preferences. If you can't be discriminated against in housing, employment security, family rights, etc. because of sexual preference then you should not be discriminated against becuse of race, sex, etc. (and there is considerable documentation that these still occur).

Affirmative Action is, like war, a solution of last resort and should only be used defensively (against racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. that cannot be combatted by other means) and not offensively (arbitrarily applied quotas to achieve a fixed percentage without adequately considering merit).

CITT posted:
Why single out Islamofascist terrorism? Would terrorism by non-Islamofascists be less of a threat. This comes very close to confirming the worst fears of many, especially Muslims in the Middle East, who oppose this possible attack on Iraq: that this is a holy war between Islam and non-Islam, instigated by the USA.

[ March 02, 2003, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

Just out of curiousity: are you arguing tht because we can't do EVERYTHING we should do NOTHING? Not very logical, if it is.

The main threat to global peace right now is Islamofascism. Yes. The first two syllables of that is "Islam." Just like when we fought Nazism, we fought Germany, we are now fighting Muslims in this War on Terror. So cut out the P.C. crap. We're not fighting all Muslims, mind you, but on the other hand, I'm not familiar with any Lutherans or Presbyterians or Hindu being involved in the 9-11 attacks.

And exactly how did the U.S. "instigate" this? Did the U.S. attack ourselves on 9-11? Did the U.S. use poison gas on the Kurds in northern Iraq? Did the U.S. engage in eco-terrorism against Shiite Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq? Did the U.S. instigate Iraq's attack on Kuwait that precipitated the first Gulf War? Is the U.S. instigating the inhumane use of suicide bombers on innocent Israeli civlians? And if you want to go back to the root cause of everything: did the U.S. "instigate" the Crusades in the 1200's, or the Moorish invasion of Spain, or whatever else goes back a thousand years plus?

We may be launching an attack on Iraq, but we didn't "instigate" this war. The war's on whether or not we open up an Iraqi front. The U.S. is playing defense. It's a shame some people are too P.C. to look at the situation for what it is.

[ March 02, 2003, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

Charlie, some people simply refuse to realize that THIS ISN'T THE SAME WORLD THAT EXISTED SEPTEMBER 10, 2001.

Never before in our nation's history have we ever had a policy of pre-emptive action. Understandably, it was mainly because the world was a different place. All that changed September 11, 2001.

Who among us would have thought a little country like Afghanistan and a bunch of idiots like the Taliban would produce people who would kill over 3000 civilians--on our own soil, no less?!? These same people who rail against pre-emptive action are the same people who would have complained had we acted pre-emptively against Afghani-based terrorists. Nope. They'll never publicly admit it, but they're content with the needless deaths of Americans (probably because we "need" to understand why it happened--who knows) rather than our country taking pre-emptive military action to eliminate those who would cause such needless deaths in the first place.

This way, these same people could then complain about pre-emptive action and war-mongering, etc. To this I say: Wake up! We are now a country that is faced with wackos who want to destroy us in any and every way they can. Do we sit on our hands and take it, or do we go after every damn one of them--one person or one country at a time? I say the latter option is the best way to do it.

It's time we take our gloves off and wipe out those who want to wipe us out--before they're successful.

BRILLIANT!!! We'll just be in a perpetual war, good thinking!!!

Well, if you're naive enough to think going after terrorists is a two-month process, I can't help that.

Yes, this is going to be a long, challenging task--to root out the terrorists wherever they may hide.

Welcome to the new post-9/11 world, my friend.

Of course, we can just decide not to pursue this task and let more and more Americans DIE. I'm sure that would be more preferable, wouldn't it?

[ March 02, 2003, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Thanks, and I welcome you to the post-1/20/01 world.

Not me. The hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Saudi Arabia remains one of our very best friends of all time, for ever and ever.

Help prevent truth decay.

Good point, Twin. Qatar even helped the recently captured Mohammad get away once, and has also helped out other Islamic terrorists.

Saudi Arabia funds fanatical schools all over the world, as has Iran, and also has provided money to Palestinian suicide bombers. In fact the wife of the Prince Bandar was sending money to these people not so long ago. Kuwait is filled with anti-American types who have attacked our troops and installations several times recently. Yemen is Osama's homeland, and the site of a major attack against our military.

Indonesia supposedly is seething with nascent Islamic fanatics, as is Malaysia and the southern Philippines. Then there is Chechnya, which is Russia's problem.

Anti-American hatred is especially strong in Pakistan, a powderkeg, where tens of thousands of men demonstrated against our pending war with Iraq and called for violent attacks against America. In fact, several gun men wounded and killed fellow Pakistanis just the other day in an attempt to harm the American consulate and the Americans in it.

Syria and Lebanon have given material support and provided a home for the Palestinian extremists. Egypt, as you noted, provided several of the hijackers. Tanzania and Somalia are now thought to be hotspots of anti-American Islamic hatred, while Moroccans and Algerians have been implicated in anti-European Islamic attacks. In Tunisia a fanatic linked to Al Qaeda tried to destroy the oldest Jewish synagogue in that country.

Let's just hope that Nigeria, which has the largest Muslim population in Africa AFTER Egypt, doesn't become a hotspot.

Iraq is only one among many....

And, fantomas, we joined up with Stalin and the Soviets to fight Hitler and the Nazis. What's your point?

Sometimes you do what you gotta do. And sometimes, to fight a greater evil, you need to team up with folks who are something far less than perfect themselves. It would be nice if we could fight Islamofascist terrorism, and bring North Korea into the community of nations, armed only with our wit, charm and personality, and allied only with saints and assorted do-gooders, but when last I checked, we live in the real world.

Personally, I think we should remove all presence in Saudi Arabia, including our bases. While we're at it, let's remove the 30,000 or so troops from South Korea, and the many troops and bases from Germany, to name but a few places.

Let these places fend for themselves for a change.

BTW, Razor, 1-20-1 saw the inauguration of a new president, for obvious constitutional reasons. Whether that person would have been Gore or our current president, 9/11 would still have happened. For you to think otherwise is sheer stupidity. Years in the making, this event forced our country into a new world. I don't like it, but I accept it. How I wish things were quite different. Sadly, they are not.

Battling terrorists has been taken to a whole, new level. I am sorry you refuse to realize this, but just as all those right-wing idiots who let their anti-Clinton bias cloud everything, your anti-Bush bias prevents you from facing reality.

Put aside your intense partisanship and realize the world's not the same anymore, until we can rid it of those who have changed it via this terror.

And what if, in this post-9/11 world, our NEW policies have the effect of creating NEW terrorists with NEW grudges?

Personally, Joe, I don't know if any more terrorist groups could be created. Aren't there enough?

Seriously, though, I think the consequences of not doing something far outweigh those of upsetting a few wackos who decide to become the new terrorist group on the block.

Perhaps if terrorists worldwide know we mean business, they'd think twice about ever attacking us. Add to that the fact that I really do believe we ought to remove our presence from these Arab countries, and I think we'd see a huge decline in terrorism against the U.S.

First of all please dont assume to know what "I think" because so far you are 100% wrong. Even though I usually disagree with you I respect your opinions, but dont presume to speak for me or my thoughts, I can do that quite well by myself.

Just for the record I think everyone knows "its a different world since 9/11", thats not a newsflash for anyone and you mention it ad nauseum - almost every single post.

There are those of us however that dont hide behind 9/11 as an excuse to "wipe out" those countries that we think may want to do us harm. Just wondering MIB - when should we start bombing North Korea?

I think the point of the diplomat's resignation, and the millions of people protesting throughout the world, is to remind the current administration that the goal should be to fight TERRORISM and not to launch pre-emptive wars not supported by the UN.

The points being made here are all valid. The world has changed and we do need to focus on preventing terrorists from prospering. However, the approach of attacking Iraq will do little to nothing for this noble cause. Almost every analyst I listen to out there admits there is little connection between Iraq and terrorists.

If we truly want to make this a continuation of our effort to eliminate terror, then we should be focused on something more realistic. Like the fact the North Koreans are literally weeks away from having weapons-grade plutonium that they will sell on the black market. Or perhaps something so radical as focusing on domestic issues like the economy, which would help foster an internal security to help prevent further acts of aggression on our own soil.

The point has and continues to be that the whole Iraq effort has very little to do with the stated purposes, and a whole lot to do with averting attention from issues that are not being addressed in Washington. If we spent the time, energy, and money being designated for this whole Iraq debacle on something truly meaningful, then we would have real progress.

Unfortunately, nobody in the current administration seems progressive or wise enough to recognize this fact. It makes you wish that you were one of the big oil companies or some other special interest group that this administration is interested in helping.

A week from Tuesday sounds good to me.

What are you talking about? "You gotta do what you gotta do?" Come on, CITT, that's about as empty a truism as I've ever heard.

Yes, we make alliances with rogue nations, as Reagan and Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney did with IRAQ. But the fixation on Iraq to the exclusion of other serious "Islamofascist" (whatever that is supposed to mean) terrorist targets right now strikes me as wrong. THAT was my point. Saudi Arabia and Egypt provided the MAJORITY of hijackers. NONE--not one, not a single one of these wackos--came from Iraq. Nor did a SINGLE one of the 1993 bombers come from Iraq. Nor did a single Cole bomber, or U.S. Embassy in Kenya bomber, etc COME FROM IRAQ. We know that much. Saddam is one of many bad elements, but he is being contained. Bush is using the pretext of 9/11 for other reasons. If this is okay with you, then say that. But he's not after the "islamofascists" there.

The Islamofascists who attacked us or are believed to be plotting against us come from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, U.A.R., Qatar, Tanzania, Morocco, Malaysia, and Pakistan. IRAN has sponsored terrorism against us and Israel for years, as has Saudi Arabia. Pakistan gave the nuclear technology to North Korea. So why are we attacking Saddam and the Iraqis?

[ March 03, 2003, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Why Iraq? Because, unlike Eqypt, or Saudi Arabia, or Yemen, or Chechnya, or wherever ... Iraq is one of two Islamofascist* nations actively seeking to produce weapons of mass destruction AND that has a demonstrable willingness to turn those weapons over to terrorists. You want an example? The ricin (chemical weapon) recently turning up in Europe was most definitely supplied to al Qaeda by Iraq.

The other Islamofascist* nation that meets the two criteria: Iran. However, there is strong evidence that the ayatollahs of Iran are about to fall of their own accord, from within. That, we can definitely agree, is infinitely preferable to a U.S.-led invasion.

So you ask, why attack Iraq when it is being, as the French repeatedly claim, "contained"? Because you cannot "contain" a country that has ... and is willing to use ... weapons of mass destruction. That's what makes nuclear, biological and chemical weapons "weapons of mass destruction." Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons on his own people. He's willing to use them. Smallpox or anthrax released cannot be contained like a conventional army. That is why the governments of the U.S., Australia, the Persian Gulf States and most of Europe have rejected the doctrine of containment.

Besides, Saddam's not "contained." He's bankrolling the suicide bombers who are murdering innocent Israeli citizens. These suicide attacks specifically target civilians. Given the extreme anti-Semitism infecting France and Germany, the international community is not properly upset about this. It's still wrong, even if we couldn't get a U.N. security council vote to that effect.

PLUS ... Saddam's been killing and torturing his own people. It used to be that the "left" wanted to stop such things. I mean, the Rwandan genocide was "contained"; it stayed within Rwanda. Does that mean it was the proper thing to stand idly by and let it happen? Saddam should not be permitted to kill mass numbers simply because the murder is contained within his own borders.

You might point out: other countries have a high body count. Sierra Leone, for example. We didn't go in there? In Iraq, it's the harmonic convergence of mass destruction, genocide (Kurds, Marsh Arabs), and support of terrorism. No dictator on earth is as bad as Saddam Hussein when you look at all three factors in combination.

And that's why I support the War on Saddam Hussein and the liberation of Iraq.
_____________
* Islamofascism, as CITT-defined, is a political/religious belief system, the tenets of which are drawn from interpretation of the Koran (or Qu'ran, if we're being multi-culti), bent on imposing, by force or by terrorism, a radical dictatorial, repressive form of Islamic law on others, including non-Moslems. Saddam Hussein, while clearly Fascist, may not technically qualify as "Islamofascist," although he has been known to use the facade of religious devotion to impose his agenda (e.g., he has had a copy of the Koran printed with his own blood as the ink.)

[ March 03, 2003, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

No I'm arguing that we should choose our battles based on the harm done to us. Iraq has not been sufficiently connected to 9/11 IMO.

I've never heard the term "christianfascist" or "christiannazi", so why do we all of a sudden need a "islamofascist"? Are they a special case?

And we are instigating this war in the sense that we are taking it across national borders. In the first war against Iraq, we stopped agression after they were forced back into their own territory.

There is another key piece of information we are forgetting - Bush's preemption policy states we can attack soverign nations that we believe are a threat to our security, without any provocation, just our assessment of the threat. By definition terrorists function outside normal national and governmental boundaries - we were justified in attacking Afghanistan because the rulers had not only given shelter to the terrorist group (with is coterie of adherents from across the Middle East), but actively worked with them.

The US has always been justified in going after rogue groups that are not part of any specific national government - think of the drug wars (okay, not successful, but no one doubts our right to interdiction). The US is justified in fighting Al Queda, and any government that supports them, because they have attacked us. This is war, and we will fight with our enemies and their supporters, but that does not give us carte blanche to march into Iraq and demand new leadership. They have not been tied to Al Queda, do not appear to be supporting Al Queda, and did not help Al Queda with the 9/11 attacks. If any of the above criteria are met, than I say go after Iraq, but we can't do it just because Papa Bush says so.

The way Duct tape George is handling North Korea, you may get your wish.

I wonder if razorback gets a woodie everytime someone says Clinton... clinton.... clinton...

N Korea is provoking a war with the US, not the other way around. If they loved clinton so much how come de-got-dem-sum-nukes now (ark talk)

I didn't want to get on this particular discussion as this very subject is what I am dealing with in a professional setting everyday. But there are some points I have to address.

Charlie in the trees makes some assertions that have no basis in fact. his assertions of said "beliefs" as truth are (to be honest) astonishing. to wit;

There is no demonstrated proof that Ricin used by Al-Qaeda was supplied by Iraq. To say so is patently untrue. If such a strong link were to exist, the ongoing battle between the republicans ourselves about the Al-Qaeda-Iraq liaison would not exist. The whole reason many nations and many many republicans (including the "realists" of Bush 1's administration) do not support attacking Iraq at this juncture is precisely because the link between the two has not been proven.

secondly, his assertion that Hussein "technically" falls under the definition of "islamofascist"....... Using his own definition, Hussein would have to be a proponent of implementing a radical form of islamic law (such as ... oh I don't know... the wahabi regime in Saudi Arabia?)

However, Hussein can be characterized as many things EXCEPT as a radical fascist muslim. anyone knowing the least bit of iraqi history knows that the Baath party is a secular one and not a religious party. Hussein invoking the Quran has as much ecclesiastical weight as Clinton invoking Jesus Christ.
If he were so hell bent on instituting radical islamism, why did Ben-Laden condemn him as an "infidel" (meaning: non-religious)? and why is Tariq Aziz, arguably his most important lieutenant, a christian?

lastly, you state that "unlike Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Tchechenya, Iran and Iraq has proven their willingness to corroborate with terrorists"

the terroristic activity in any of those nations you dismiss offhand, Egypt.... Saudi Arabia.... yemen.... and Tchechnya far exceed what we have proven so far from Baghdad.

the radical muslim clerics in Egypt (remember the original World trade center bombing? orchestrated by an egyptian cleric) saudi Arabia (many saudis among the 9/11 hijackers) Yemen (Ben-Laden and many others are yemeni, the USS cole bombing in Yemen etc) and Tchechenya (ask Russia about the corroboration and collaboration between Tchechens and Al-qaeda) all the above make me simply stand mouth agape how you can dismiss those countries while calling Saddam an islamic fundamentalist.

[ March 04, 2003, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

and to Men in Black (MIB),

your flip remark about starting to bomb North Korea

as a korean with relatives in North Korea, I deeply resent your remark. I know you meant it in jest. But would you be laughing if anyone on this board suggested nuking Chicago?

Interesting to see all of the great points and twists/turns in these discussion threads. And I appreciate that everyone is being quite civil, and doing a nice job of supporting their views.

I did want to chime in once more and respond to the whole North Korea thing. While North Korea is making a lot of noise and threats, it is imperative that we not let the White House confuse us yet again on the root causes. It has been very clearly demonstrated that this whole issue is boiling over right now because of steps the Bush White House took to alter the diplomatic relationship with North Korea.

Prior to W taking office, North Korea was headed for full diplomatic recognition, trade agreements, and other policies that would welcome them back to the rest of the world. Once W was in office, these steps were discontinued, Bush embarrassed the leader of South Korea by changing the US position on that theatre of the world, and he then called NK one of the axis of evil. If these are not provocations, then I am not sure what else to call them.

North Korea is using one of the few tactics it has available to make it clear that it is unhappy with this change in course. The situation would most likely be resolved with some one-on-one diplomacy and a thawing of the sudden frigid views in Washington. It is a pretty simple thing to fix (in the grand scheme of foreign affairs). However, the White House refuses to address the situation, the North Koreans continue to escalate their antics, and suddenly we are faced with yet another potential war of pre-emption in our near future.

Anyone who has stayed up on the whole white paper put out by the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz group knows that a potential conflict with Korea fits right into the overall scheme of the paper and the policies it recommends. Perhaps the White House is reluctant to resolve the problem because a solution would inhibit the next steps in its overall plan? Something to at least consider.

you know what Charlie, those are all good points.

again speaking as a republican, it is not an understatement to say that Paul Wolfowitz, the UNDERsecretary of defense is surprisingly influential in shaping american foreign policy.

the Bush Doctrine (the doctrine of preemptive strikes against those determined to be potential enemies of the state) combined with the naming of Iran, Iraq and N.Korea as "the axis of evil" surely set in motion much of what is going on.

no nation sits idly by and disregards it as another state declares war on them. That is basically what happened last year. do you think N.Korea is the only one getting ready to defend against a seemingly imminent attack by the US? Do you think that Iran is not making preparations?

GWBush is a man who everyone acknowledges had very little foreign policy experience before taking office. since inauguration, he has worn his diplomatic inexperience like a badge of honour. The only problem is, the other states of the world are refusing to play by his rules.

one more point of import. The Bush Doctrine as it is now known was rejected by the First President Bush as being untenable.

many people keep saying "since 9/11 things have changed" what does that mean exactly?
Does it mean that since 9/11 we now have a license to be paranoid and bomb any and all countries preemptively (meaning without sufficient provocation)?

Ask Donald Rumsfeld.

http://66.241.201.96/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cg...c;f=18;t=000518

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.htm...105&sid=1648385

>>
Rumsfeld was on ABB board during nuclear deal with North Korea

Donald Rumsfeld, the US secretary of defense, was on the board of technology giant ABB when it won a deal to supply North Korea with two nuclear power plants.

Weapons experts say waste material from the two reactors could be used for so-called “dirty bombs”.

The Swiss-based ABB on Friday told swissinfo that Rumsfeld was involved with the company in early 2000, when it netted a $200 million (SFr270million) contract with Pyongyang.

The ABB contract was to deliver equipment and services for two nuclear power stations at Kumho, on North Korea’s east coast.

Rumsfeld – who is one of the Bush administration’s most strident “hardliners” on North Korea – was a member of ABB’s board between 1990 and February 2001, when he left to take up his current post.

Wolfram Eberhardt, a spokesman for ABB, told swissinfo that Rumsfeld “was at nearly all the board meetings” during his decade-long involvement with the company.
....
Rumsfeld’s position at ABB could prove embarrassing for the Bush administration since while he was a director he was also active on issues of weapons proliferation, chairing the 1998 congressional Ballistic Missile Threat commission.

The commission suggested the Clinton-era deal with Pyongyang gave too much away because “North Korea maintains an active weapons of mass destruction programme, including a nuclear weapons programme”.
....
A Pentagon spokeswoman, Victoria Clark, recently told “Newsweek” magazine that “Secretary Rumsfeld does not recall it being brought before the board at any time”.
....
<<

If you're going to try to refute something I said, then refute something I said. What I said was this:
I don't even know what "corroborating" with terrorists" means? Verifying the accuracy of their stories? The standard I identified -- actively seeking to produce WMD's and being willing to share them with terrorists -- is more than mere "collaboration," which I believe is the over-simplification you intended to apply. Egypt and Saudi Arabia may have been the home base for the 9-11 murderer/hijackers, but those countries are not actively seeking to produce WMD. Yemen has been a terrorist haven - the Cole was bombed in Aden harbor - but, again, it's not a country that is actively seeking to produce WMD's. And it apparently has turned the corner on supporting the War on Terrorism.

As for the ricin, glad to know you got the answers. The fact that Saddam's useful idiots in France are unwilling to turn over proof-positive that Paris ricin came from Iraq is unpersuasive. Intelligence sources are certain that Iraq was the source based on process of elimination.

One final point: the fact that you may have relatives imprisoned behind the North Korean border (that entire country is a prison), is IRRELEVANT as to whether the U.S. should bomb North Korea ... I would say "back to the Stone Age," but you can't travel to where you already are. If you had relatives in Nazi Germany in 1944, I'd support bombing that country. If you had relatives in Iraq 2003, I'd support bombing that country.

Personally, I'd prefer that we withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea, let Japan go nuclear to defend itself, then let the U.N. "defend" South Korea from the inevitable attack from the million-man army of the North (and we all know how rapid France and friends will be in getting over there, which all means: let the South Koreans stew in their own hubris).

Yes, at least it would have warmed us up, especially this week. 10" of snow in March could have used a big blast.

If my suggestion of starting against N. Korea next Tuesday, offended you, I'll retract it. This Saturday sounds better.

God Almighty the sensitivity police are out in force!

[ March 04, 2003, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

and you accuse me of over simplification?

ok.........
even people like you admit that Yemen is "a terrorist haven" yet you hold onto the old chestnut that it's not "actively seeking to produce WMDs"

True. it is not capable of producing wmd. However, the recent discovery of a hidden shipment of missiles from North Korea to Yemen should have rung a bell with you. No? too bad.
and Yemen has "turned the corner"? when were those weapons seized? are you serious?

furthermore I meant exactly what I wrote. "corroboration" not "active collaboration" the regimes you mention as being non-threatening have been winking and nodding at the activities of the terrorists in the hope that their own regimes would not be the target of said activities. Perhaps not active partners. But denying said activities in the countries and corroborating the spin of their own terrorist citizenry (many in their own govt and/or military) is what I meant. please don't lump me in with the uneducated half-truth spouters.

funny, you don't refute what I said about Tchechnya nor what I wrote about your defining Saddam as islamofascist. so does that mean that I was in fact refuting what you did write? I'll go ahead and assume that.

as far as the ricin issue. I'm glad to know that you are privy to intelligence sources that other government agencies and news organizations do not have. you list your location as Nevada. is the defense secretary traveling in sin city this week?

as far as the veracity of "intelligence sources" are concerned, did you not notice the bungling of the purported "intelligence document" in the UK that turned out to be a plagiarized grad student paper? that would not pass muster by academic standards. much less war time policy making standards.

lastly to Nevada and MIB, you guys are right. the fact that I have my aunts and cousins in North Korea is irrelevant in deciding to bomb or not. what I wrote was, that on a personal level, I objected to such callous attitudes toward the act of waging war. soldiers hardened by battle know what I'm talking about. why don't you?

sensitivity police? hardly. just call me a humanitarian. a compassionate conservative, if you will.

[ March 05, 2003, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: ung ]

Yeah, just like you get one when everytime someone says Bush...Bush...Bush....
I wont keep you phillyfan, Im sure you have a beer bottle to throw at someone, or maybe put a battery in a snowball and toss that, whichever.

No beer bottles have been thrown... however i'm sure i can find a few people to help with the batteries. Do you prefer AA or AAA? yeeeee-haw, how bout dem cowboys...

You're asking the wrong guy, we dont do that here. Check with some off your fellow Eagle "fans", Im sure the bigger the battery the better.

How about we meet in philly for the annual game? Please be sure to wear your cowgirl garb... better yet, i'll round up the folks from the iggle bar here and we'll make the roadie to texass stadium, i hear there are plenty of tickets available for the games these days... We can grill some tuna and drink beer in the parking lot.. the real question is, when attending a ark football game, who do you take? mom, sister or cousin? bubba really never answered that when he was in office... Just friendly jabbing of the cowboy fan by the way, dont get too offended...

Ill pass on the offer to come to Philly, I dont have enough protective gear to go to a game there. As far as the "Ark" games, I sometimes go with your mom, who always makes alot of apologizes for you. Sometimes I go with your sister, she's sweet but really needs to have some work done on her teeth. Just friendly jabbing, dont get too offended.....

Well mom is not going to anymore games with you until you cut the grass and remove the car on blocks from infront of your trailer. Going out with my sis must have been the best, it's not often you see a gal in ark with actual teeth, work being needed or not. How bout dem cowboys... as our boy tony bruno would say...

Oh, the hyperbole, the hyperbole.

Where is the proof of this? Just because you say it doesn't make it so. NOT ONE intelligence report I've read in U.S. or foreign papers has shown ANY link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, CITT. Not one. Please provide a source for this claim. Also, ricin can be made ANYWHERE. The people possessing ricin in Britain are thought to have manufactured it themselves. In Britain. Iraq's name has not surfaced in any British report I've read.

The ayatollahs are in trouble, but they still have the support of the elite army troops and much of the regular military. They have continued to imprison dissidents and democratic agitators and clerics since Mohammad Khatami was elected, and there is no sign this is going to cease anytime soon. There will probably be a civil war before these folks accede power to the people. Religion and civil government should be kept COMPLETELY separate, in Iran, in the U.S., everywhere.

This is NOT true. Most of Europe DOES agree with the concept of containment and the use of internatinal diplomatic means to pressure him to destroy his chemical and biological arsenals. There are more countries in Europe, and in the EU, that agree with this than don't. The U.S. has conducted biological, chemical and nuclear tests on American soldiers and citizens; should WE be bombed? I don't think so. We used uranium-tipped shells in Bosnia; should we be bombed for that? Saddam is in no state to declare war on any of the countries surrounding him. HIS country has been reduced by almost half since 1991. He has not been linked to our major, or even many of our minor, terrorist enemies. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, UAR, and Qatar sponsors far more suicide terrorism in Palestine than Iraq does. Qatar even helped Khalid Shaikh Muhammad get away from our clutches once before. Should we be bombing them and killing their people? Logic, man, logic!

This is absolutely an outrageous statement! France has the largest number of Jewish citizens west of Poland, and the French government and newspapers have repeatedly condemned the anti-Semitic attacks, which are largely the result of France's large Muslim population. Moreover, the recent waves of anti-Semitic violence have stretched from Britain to Russia, where millions of Jews have evacuated since the fall of Communism. I think the international community IS properly disgusted by this, however, criticism of Israel tends to be conflated with anti-Semitism, when the two can be separate issues. Finally, there was little condemnation of the suicide bombings in Sri Lanka, which went on for almost two decades; was that because of anti-Sinhalesism?

This is just outrageousness. Let's drop the sloganeering. Many progressives in the U.S. want to end the killing and torture of innocent people in Iraq, in Iran, EVERYWHERE on this earth. We also want mass arrest and tortures of dissidents, homosexuals, and religious minorities to end in Egypt, where such horrors are commonplace; Algeria (see above, though this is France's particularly baby); Liberia (see above, we created this monster and have funded its systematic growth, which has helped to destabilize whole sections of West Africa, and is now screwing up Ivory Coast, having played a role in the destabilization of Guinea and Sierra Leone); Syria (see above); Somalia (see above); Sudan (see above, where Black African Christians are being slaughtered at a steady rate or enslaved, with ZERO discussion from the White House); Colombia (see above); Haiti (see above); Burma (see above); North Korea (one of the most egregious examples, where children are being starved, foreign citizens have been kept imprisoned for decades, and anyone caught dissenting faces torture and possibly death); and our dear friend CHINA, which not only imprisons people for challenging Communism, but also for promoting AIDS prevention awareness, the freedom of Tibet, or indigenous cultures. So are we going to bomb all these countries off the face of the earth? I seriously say we consider Sudan first, since it is openly slaughtering and enslaving Black Nubian Christians. SLAUGHTERING AND ENSLAVING. Oh, and they got lots of money from us years ago to help build up their arsenal, which they are using on their own people. Sound familiar?

Hussein is a fascist, a dangerous character, and brutal dictator. We should help his people overthrow him. We don't need to be marching in there. He's a devout Muslim. Bush claims to be a devout Christian, though I doubt Jesus Christ would have engaged in the sorts of mass killings this man seems to dream about. At any rate, Saddam's political ideology is avowedly secular and tends towards socialistic fascism (akin to the early National Socialist agenda, less so the later one, which was avowedly anti-Lutheran and extremely anti-Catholic), as Osama bin Laden (of all people!) pointed out. Islamofascists exist in Iran, among the clerisy in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, etc., even here in the U.S. Saddam isn't one of them, though he is a horrorshow by m/any measures.

[ March 06, 2003, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

To his great credit, Republican Congressman Frank Wolf is speaking out against this.

http://www.house.gov/wolf/SudanPage.htm

>>
Press Releases

Wolf Implores Bush Administration to Focus on Africa
January 25, 2001 - Wolf Discusses trip to Central Africa and Sudan and gives suggestions to help the war-torn area. Full Story, Trip Report and Photos

Wolf Statement on Sudan and Gum Arabic
September 7, 2000 - Wolf calls on Congress to strike language that lifts the embargo on gum arabic, a major export of the corrupt Sudanese government and investment by international terrorist Osama bin Laden. Full Story

February 23, 1998 - Wolf Urges for 1998 to be the Year Peace is Achieved in Sudan Full Story
<<

He's been at it for at least five years. Please visit his website to click on the links he has provided.