Date:

02/01/03

Time:

05:13 AM

Comments

These are things our American media are not telling us. They have either not taken the time and trouble to find out, or they are lying and hiding the facts. These are FACTS you should know about. http://whodies.com/gulf_war.html

Date:

02/01/03

Time:

06:04 AM

Comments

Thank goodness there are SOME people in this country who understand that war involves tens or hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, and that happy dreams of being welcomed with open arms and flowers are myths spun by the warmongers to keep the people behind them. I suppose only if we have a major war on US soil will the American people understand what war is really all about.

Lisa Thomas

Date:

02/01/03

Time:

06:07 AM

Comments

The article from which the previous sentence was quoted can be read in its entirety at: http://liberalslant.com/LS5.htm

Date:

02/01/03

Time:

10:05 AM

Comments

Iraq has bothered no one for twelve years, so why the sudden rush to war before weapons inspectors even complete their work? The only explanation appears to be so that the furious, temporary momentum of American public opinion generated by September 11 can be harnessed for a war that would not be supported otherwise.

You can (and must) read the entire article at: www.yellowtimes.com

Date:

02/01/03

Time:

10:10 AM

Comments

It's not as though a good deal of the world does not understand what is happening. Voices of reason are heard from France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Egypt, South Africa, Russia, China, and other lands, but Bush announces he is willing "to go it alone" if necessary, meaning the entire planet, willy-nilly, must be dragged into a great vortex of destruction.

I urge you to read John Chuckman's entire article at http://www.yellowtimes.com

Date:

02/01/03

Time:

10:34 AM

Comments

ost of the world is against any U.S. invasion of Iraq. To the world, an invasion of Iraq is similar to the marching of the Roman imperial army; no nation wants the United States to be able to invade any country it chooses against the world's objections. The idea of a government taking unilateral military action is what the rest of the world considers a "rogue state."

Read the full article at: http://yt.org/article.php?sid=1035

Date:

02/01/03

Time:

01:54 PM

Comments

Yellow Times.org and Liberal Slant.com. What a joke using them as unbiased truths.

I can't wait for the liberal slant on the space shuttle explosion.

Is George Bush behind it to drum up the support of the American people? Was there secret military experiments on board that spread some horrible disease over Texas that will harm the poor illegal aliens?

Can't wait to see what you nuts post.

Date:

02/01/03

Time:

05:14 PM

Comments

-------------------------------------------------------------- >From the Washington national Cathedral: On Friday, Jan. 10, in an interview with Religion News Service, the top bishop of the Episcopal Church, Frank T. Griswold 3rd, said,

"`I'd like to be able to go somewhere in the world and not have to apologize for being from the United States.'" He "said the United States is rightly `hated and loathed' around the world for its `reprehensible' rhetoric and blind eye toward poverty and suffering." He "blasted the Bush administration for its wartime rhetoric, especially [for] labeling Iran, Iraq and North Korea an `axis of evil.'" "`Quite apart from the bombs we drop, words are weapons and we have used our language so unwisely, so intemperately, so thoughtlessly...that I'm not surprised we are hated and loathed everywhere I go,' he said."

Date:

02/02/03

Time:

06:30 AM

Comments

Here are some excellent thoughts for us to ponder:
******************************************* 

It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded (who are the ones that) cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell. "--William Tecumseh Sherman ***********************************************

" War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."-- John F. Kennedy 
***********************************************

" Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder.... the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish their corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace... They are continually talking about their patriotic duty. It is not their duty but your patriotic duty that they are concerned about. There is a decided difference. Their patriotic duty never takes them to the firing line or chucks them into the trenches."-- Eugene V. Debs 
************************************************* 

"Conceit, arrogance and egotism are the essentials of patriotism... Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all others."-- Emma Goldman

Date:

02/02/03

Time:

07:48 AM

Comments

After listening to a day of stupid comments on CSPAN by people calling in and saying it was "God's Will", inevitably, this will prove to be another in a long line of human error. Leave God in your church, please. Write your Congressman and tell them that safety is of first concern in spaceflight and that we should do it right, or not do it at all. No human life is worth the argument over money.

Stephanie Donald

Date:

02/02/03

Time:

08:56 AM

Comments

Yellowtimes.com - What an appropiate name. A few other sites you will love to read: Chickenlittle.com, redsquare.com, ilovemao.com, and best of all, americasucks.com

Date:

02/02/03

Time:

09:40 AM

Comments

"O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolate land in rags and hunger and thirst."

(Mark Twain, The War Prayer. Quoted, Howard Zinn, Terrorism and War, Seven Stories Press, 2002, p.101)

Date:

02/02/03

Time:

03:36 PM

Comments

Blix Calls Bush a LIAR - Why Did the NY Times Bury the Story?

<On Tuesday, Bush cited the findings of Hans Blix as justification for W-ar. But according to Blix, Bush is LYING about Blix's findings. Inspectors have NOT "found that iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials... to prevent their discovery." There is NO evidence "Iraq was sending weapons scientists [abroad] to prevent them from being interviewed." There is NO evidence "Iraqi agents were posing as scientists." UNMOVIC has NOT "been penetrated by Iraqi agents." NO "sensitive information might have been leaked to Baghdad, compromising the inspections." Blix is calling Bush a LIAR - so why is this front-page news BURIED on page A10?> E-mail letters@nytimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/international/middleeast/31BLIX.html

Date:

02/02/03

Time:

03:41 PM

Comments

Bush can't wait to insert religion into government - but apparently only when it pushes his own views. He's refusing to meet with mainstream religious leaders who oppose the war. Is anyone surprised?

More than 40 bishops and pastors of Protestant and Orthodox churches will issue an open letter today imploring Bush to meet with antiwar religious leaders, according to Bob Edgar, a former Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania who heads the 38-denomination National Council of Churches.

"We're asking him to at least listen to us before he makes the final decision to go to war," Edgar said.

Date:

02/02/03

Time:

04:31 PM

Comments

I think the bishops and clergy are used to dealing with rational people with morals - that's why they are opposed to war. President Bush realizes that Saddam and Al Queda are animals with no regard for human life.

There is no point talking with them, they don't have the same morals the rest of us do. They will continue to torture, so must be put down like a mad dog.

Date:

02/03/03

Time:

11:28 AM

Comments

The real State of the Union:

In some states the public school week is being curtailed. In some, prisoners are being furloughed. These are telling indications of the real state of the union.

As the most powerful nation on earth, and the world's only superpower, the United States has a particular obligation to use its might wisely abroad and to distribute its benefits fairly at home.

http://nytimes.abuzz.com/interaction/s.314203/discussion/

Date:

02/03/03

Time:

11:40 AM

Comments

The Pentagon has declared that their battle plan will begin with two days of raining Cruise Missiles down on Baghdad, for a total of 600 - 800 missiles. And all that to get ONE MAN. That, dear readers, is known as GENOCIDE!!!!

Please open your hearts and minds and think about this. This is what we did in Afghanistan, and we never did get Bin Laden...either dead OR alive. But we managed to kill a lot of poor, innocent people.

I'm sure you do not want this done in your name.

Matilda

Date:

02/03/03

Time:

11:53 AM

Comments

Dear readers,

Let me urge you to read a splendid article about the REAL STATE OF THE UNION. Mr. Bush's speech was not a report on the state of our union. It was really a campaign speech. There were no "Look at what we've accomplished"...only "Here's what we're promising." Read this article and see what Bush did NOT say.

http://www.counterpunch.org/casa01292003.html

Date:

02/03/03

Time:

09:02 PM

Comments

Oh but President Bush did address the issue of the rising health insurance premiums resulting in millions of people becoming uninsured medically - the liberal, democratic party supporting trial lawyers with their frivolous lawsuits. their creed is to "sue everyone until we hit the jackpot and are rich like Democratic presidential hopeful Kerry".

I know you liberals won't respond to this. You all seem to ignore every valid conservative point on this page.

Date:

02/03/03

Time:

09:25 PM

Comments

The above poster is right. To see what the liberal lawyers are doing check out:

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/68003.htm

Notice the physicians in NY are planning to walk out. The liberals will be singing a different tune soon.

Date:

02/04/03

Time:

11:45 AM

Comments

Bush's SOTU - a Point-by-Point Critique

The Institute for Public Accuracy invited several policy experts to analyze every sentence in Bush's SOTU. If you suspected Bush was lying through his teeth, here's your proof. http://www.accuracy.org/2003/

Date:

02/04/03

Time:

01:48 PM

Comments

The above link takes President Bush's speech apart point by point (using the same tired old democratic logic and propaganda), but never implies or states he is lying.

I also noticed that no one has still ever reponded to any of the conservative points made on this page in the last couple of weeks. Just trying to ignore them and see if they go away?

Date:

02/04/03

Time:

04:11 PM

Comments

Dear readers,

Today I recieved an email containing a link that I found extremely interesting, and so will you. When you click on it, it will lead you to an article with a number of very informative sites. Don't try to read them all at once, but save the link and read them when you have time. You won't regret it. http://www.tmtmetropolis.ru/stories/2002/09/20/120.html Matilda

Date:

02/04/03

Time:

04:34 PM

Comments

"Today's budget ($2.23 TRILLION) confirms that President Bush is leading the most fiscally irresponsible Administration in history," said Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (S.D.) in a statement today. "President Bush inherited a $5.6 TRILLION projected surplus. When the cost of the President's latest proposals is added to his already failed fiscal framework, the entire surplus disappears and we will be forced to borrow $1.7 TRILLION. That's a downturn of $7.3 TRILLION in just two years -- the worst fiscal collapse in our history."

Terry Neal of the Washington Post

Date:

02/04/03

Time:

05:10 PM

Comments

Bear this in mind when you realize that Saddam Hussein has been in office since 1979 and has never, not once, made an aggressive move against the United States. Bear this in mind when you understand that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, two very viable foes who have actually attacked us, want nothing to do with Hussein because he is a secular dictator who has been crushing Islamic fundamentalism for thirty years. If we attack, those forces will move against us in the name of Iraq. They are, in fact, just waiting for us to move.

William Rivers Pitt

Date:

02/04/03

Time:

08:39 PM

Comments

Let's see, Matilda quotes the Moscow papers and someone else quotes whiney Dachle's "theory" as fact". Others quote the Yellow times.

Seems to be a very un American webpage. Is this page run by someone outside the United States? If so, it shows.

I agree, the liberals don't address the valid conservative points brought up here, they just use the same tired rhetoric.

Sorry for the longish post, but this is from a subscription only website (sorry it USA based), but shows what the liberal legal profession is doing to the medical system in the US. I'm sure more to follow. I cut out some of the fluff, so not to waste space here:

NJ doctors threaten statewide malpractice strike

Last Updated: 2003-02-03 17:04:54 -0400 (Reuters Health)

By Carl Winter

TRENTON, NJ (Reuters) - Doctors from across New Jersey walked off the job on Monday in the first statewide physicians' strike over rising medical malpractice insurance premiums, organizers said.

The work stoppage, likely to be one of the largest ever by US doctors, was intended to disrupt non-emergency medical care for patients who could be forced to visit hospital emergency rooms for treatment of routine medical complaints.

"The conservative estimates are that probably about half of the physicians in the state are participating in one form or another," said John Shaffer, spokesman for the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The grass-roots action, which physicians referred to as a "work slowdown," was aimed at pressuring Democratic Gov. Jim McGreevey and the state legislature into capping so-called pain and suffering damages from malpractice lawsuits at $250,000.

Doctors complain that a growing number of malpractice cases have ended with damages exceeding $1 million, forcing insurance premiums to double overnight at a time when physicians face higher overhead and labor costs in operating their practices.

New Jersey doctors are not alone in protesting insurance costs. In early January, two dozen surgeons at four West Virginia hospitals refused to operate. Last July, 50 doctors shut down the only trauma center in Las Vegas for 10 days.

The issue also has captured the attention of President Bush, who has spoken out in favor of a bill that would place a $250,000 cap on pain and suffering awards and limit punitive damages intended to punish egregious behavior.

He suggested that state lawmakers and medical licensing boards pursue policies that would reduce medical errors by aggressively removing bad doctors from practice.

The Democratic McGreevey administration also has proposed cutting drug assistance for the elderly and healthcare coverage for the poor as part of a plan to close the state's $5 billion budget deficit, consumer advocates said.

Date:

02/05/03

Time:

03:50 PM

Comments

Bush's ego seems to be growing much faster than the economy. Notice that he more and more uses the personal pronoun — "I" am sick and tired, he says, and "I" have no desire to watch the rerun of an old movie. This is an emperor talking, not the president of a republic. The relationship between two sovereign nations is not a matter of personalities. Bush's personal feelings and prejudices are not the basis on which U.S. government policy should be formulated.

Charley Reese

Date:

02/05/03

Time:

03:56 PM

Comments

War is barbaric. It is evil. Declaring war is the most serious act that can possibly be undertaken. It is an announcement that we are morally obligated to kill people, and an acknowledgment that many innocents will die in the process. When done in good faith, a declaration of war is made only after all other options have failed, and then with the greatest reluctance and lack of enthusiasm. This is the way moral leaders approach war, because they understand that war means doing something that is totally depraved until you consider the extenuating circumstances, and even then…

That is why war cannot be justified except in the most extreme situations. The difference between war and murder is the element of self-defense; absent that factor, there is no distinction. When the need to conduct a war cannot be easily explained, and the evidence to warrant a war is nowhere to be found, and the war happens anyway, then something is horribly wrong…

David Podvin

Date:

02/05/03

Time:

06:08 PM

Comments

Yeah we can wait to declare war after there is a smoking gun. Maybe like when Germany invaded Poland.

Maybe the smoking gun will be a terrorist attack on France. Then we should stand back and refuse to help them AGAIN.

Heck, we should stop paying the billions of dollars of foreign aid we shell out each year. That would balance the budget nicely.

I also noticed no responses are ever made to the conservative points on this page.

Date:

02/05/03

Time:

06:16 PM

Comments

Ah, the French:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030204-031831-1626r

Date:

02/06/03

Time:

06:09 AM

Comments

Regarding Colin Powell's speech:

Finally, the "even if" rule applies. "Even if" everything Powell said was true, there is simply not enough evidence for war. There is no evidence of Iraq posing an imminent threat, no evidence of containment not working. Powell is asking us to go to war--risking the lives of 100,000 Iraqis in the first weeks, hundreds or thousands of U.S. and other troops, and political and economic chaos--because he thinks MAYBE in the future Iraq might rebuild its weapons systems and MIGHT decide to deploy weapons or MIGHT give those weapons to someone else who MIGHT use them against someone we like or give them to someone else who we don't like, and other such speculation. Nothing that Powell said should alter the position that we should reject a war on spec.> Read the entire article at: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0302powell.html

Date:

02/06/03

Time:

06:22 AM

Comments

Regarding our contribution to foreign aid: I would urge you to check your figures. You can do this very easily by going to www.google.com There you will learn that the US spends less than 1% on this,(much lower percentage than many less rich nations). We spend around 50% of our national budget on defense. Maybe if we reversed these figures, we would decrease the number of people who hate us...and who have the potential to become terrorists. That would be a considerably better defense than missiles and arms.

Matilda

Date:

02/06/03

Time:

06:33 AM

Comments

IF -- and I say, "if" -- the Bush administration REALLY knows where some incriminating things are in Iraq, WHY didn't they tell Hans Blix, who has been beseeching them to share their information with him to save him from having to ferret out everything from scratch? If the information could be shared with the UN and the world, today, what has prevented the USA from giving this SAME information to Hans Blix last week, for instance? National security? Ha-ha-ha-ha. In other words, Powell could tell the whole world today what he could not tell Hans Blix a week ago. M

Date:

02/06/03

Time:

06:47 AM

Comments

Traditionally, war has helped the economy. But since most of what we consume today is not made in the United States, war will not change much. Most of what we manufacture here at home are smart bombs and missiles, and since we have all the tanks and planes we need, war won't make much of an impact on the economy. Unless, of course, we plan to wage war for the next three generations!!! NR

Date:

02/06/03

Time:

06:59 AM

Comments

Typical Democrat Matilda. Give more of my money away. That's always been the Democrats game plan. Grow government and have everyone on the dole so that they won't be voted out of office.

I also think it's dangerous not to attack Iraq now. We will possibly be looking at millions of people dead (maybe our own) if Iraq continues to develop weapons of mass destruction.

It would be much harder if he has those weapons to blackmail the region and the world.

Date:

02/06/03

Time:

09:58 AM

Comments

OK friends.....Let's really talk some sense!!

In the upside-down world of George W. Bush and company: black is white, ignorance is strength, a greater police state is freedom, rising unemployment signifies economic recovery, lack of evidence is proof of guilt, war is peace, and a loving God guides and blesses the violent aggression of leaders and their armies to resolve disputes. In short, George Bush's idea of heaven is hell. Doreen Miller http://www.liberalslant.com

Date:

02/06/03

Time:

02:29 PM

Comments

It is easy enough for Americans to ridicule the French, the nation whose intelligence services alerted the Bush government to the potential threats of Al Qaeda before anyone else and before—not after—September 11. While the FBI and CIA were asleep at the switch, French intelligence provided early reports about Al Quaeda operations. French journalists reported the shocking news that major oil companies connived with Saudi Arabia to quash FBI efforts to get at Al Qaeda, beheading prisoners before we could talk to them. Where did these journalists get their information? From a former top FBI official. The crazy Frenchies reported what our own government and our own press never told us, and what did we do? Ignore them. Full article at: http://villagevoice.com/alertrd.php3?article=41774

Date:

02/06/03

Time:

09:49 PM

Comments

Keep quoting liberal slant and the village voice, you already don't have any credibility.

As far as the French, the Americans even bailed them out by saving their precious wine from phylloxera. It was responsible for killing over three million acres of vines in Europe in the 1800s. Grafting to resistant AMERICAN rootstock was the only known way to combat this pest.

Without their wine France would be useless - and now some California wines are better than the best French wines.

Date:

02/07/03

Time:

01:40 PM

Comments

But then again, America might still be a British colony if it had not been for the French. Didn't you know that?

Date:

02/07/03

Time:

06:17 PM

Comments

Big maybe. Probably not.

Date:

02/08/03

Time:

04:15 PM

Comments

On The Verge of Amageddon: World War III May Just be Around the Corner

By Stephen V. Kane

Few have said it yet. Somebody needs to. We are on the verge of WWIII. See complete article at: http://buzzflash.com/buzzscripts/buzz.dll/content

Date:

02/08/03

Time:

04:36 PM

Comments

Did you stockpile food and change all your money for gold for Y2K?

Date:

02/08/03

Time:

04:59 PM

Comments

While Powell seems to have the trust of people world-wide, this genial, soft-spoken man isn't at all what he appears. For those not acquainted with Powell's history, there's no better time than now to become acquainted with it. Read this article: http://www.disinfo.com/pages/dossier/id803/pg1/

Date:

02/09/03

Time:

09:32 AM

Comments

Where was the peaceful indignation when Bill Clinton began unilateral bombing of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

Saddam Hussein is, has been, and will be in violation of U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution.

World leaders opposed to Bush doctrine are willing to gamble with the lives of their people that they won't be the next one singled out for attack.

Bush's course is unpopular, but moral and courageous.

That still means a lot to those of us who don't wish to have yet another generation live under the threat of violence by thugs like Saddam

Date:

02/09/03

Time:

11:58 AM

Comments

Food For Thought. A couple of sticking points in negotiations between The White House and The 9-11 Special Committee is, who will be called to testify and whether they will be required to testify under oath. The Bush administration wants to put a limit on which Administration officials will be called to testify and vehemently opposes their being required to testify under oath. I wonder why!!!! Maybe some reader can explain???? Peace Tom

Date:

02/09/03

Time:

02:10 PM

Comments

People attacing Colin Powell? They must be racists. Isn't that what liberals do when a conservative questions Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton?

I see they are ignoring the conservative post about Bosnia-Herzegovina, as usual.

Date:

02/09/03

Time:

02:49 PM

Comments

Great article you liberals should read.

Affirmative action or racism II:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams1.asp

Date:

02/09/03

Time:

03:53 PM

Comments

Wow, Great article. Keep them coming. This quote from the article says a lot:

"Calls for racial preferences in law schools, medical schools and graduate education in general highlight something else: namely, that the effects of 12 years of fraudulent education cannot be wiped away by four years or so of college."

Date:

02/11/03

Time:

11:41 AM

Comments

As long as the press is giving so much time for US actors to voice their opposition to the War with Iraq, here equal time with a quote from Dennis Miller:

“The French are always reticent to surrender to the wishes of their friends and always more than willing to surrender to the wishes of their enemies.”

Date:

02/11/03

Time:

04:34 PM

Comments

Christian Leaders Prominent in Anti-War Movement --Christian church leaders and lay people are taking an usually prominent role in the U.S. anti-war movement, arguing that an attack against Iraq would not fit the theological definition of a "just war." Frank Griswold, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, said, "We are loathed and I think the world has every right to loath us ... I'd like to be able to go somewhere in the world and not have to apologize for being from the United States."

Date:

02/11/03

Time:

06:05 PM

Comments

More two faced liberals!

Liberals are always so quick to separate Church and State, unless they are speaking out against war in Iraq.

Since I'm conservative, I'll say the Church leaders have an obligation to point out possible moral conflict. (Funny liberals conviently left out the fact that Church leaders are against abortion).

After giving their thoughts, let the foreign policy be left to the White House and Senate.

Date:

02/12/03

Time:

05:37 AM

Comments

Things were going well with Clinton at the helm.

Now, we are the duct tape society.

The lowered bar, which has given us the most moronic regime on the face of the Earth....has reduced us to duct tape and fear.

Fear....of the next attack staged by our own phonies...to boost ratings of a regime from hell that cheated its way into the halls of power....

They're falling ... but, they are taking all of us with them...after taking care of their friends...at the expense of the US treasury..

JM

Date:

02/12/03

Time:

06:45 AM

Comments

Profile of Mr Fisher, the German man of peace:

Mr. Fischer, who are you?

You are the foreign minister of Germany. You have been that since 1998, when Germany's left-wing Greens Party, of which you are a leader, won enough in the polls to force the Social Democratic Party into the so-called Red-Greens coalition government.

But for the formative years of your political life, you were no man in a blue government suit. You were a man in a black motorcycle helmet. That is what you were wearing on that day in April 1973 when you were photographed, to quote the New Left historian Paul Berman, ``as a young bully in a street battle in Frankfurt.''

In 2001, Stern magazine published five photographs of you in action that day. What these pictures depicted was described by Berman, in a deeply informed 25,000-word article, ``The Passion of Joschka Fischer'' (The New Republic, Sept. 3, 2001). The photos showed you, Mr. Fischer, inflicting a ``gruesome beating'' on a young policeman named Rainer Marx: ``Fischer and other people on the attack, the white-helmeted cop going into a crouch; Fischer's black-gloved fist raised as if to punch the crouching cop on the back; Fischer's comrades crowding around; the cop huddled on the ground, Fischer and his comrades appearing to kick him ...''

As Berman reported, Mr. Fischer, you rose in public life as an important figure in the anti-American, anti-liberal, neo-Marxist, revolution-minded German radical left of the generation of 1968. This was the left that produced and supported the Baader-Meinhof Gang (or Red Army Faction), which, as Berman wrote, ``refrained from nothing,'' including ``kidnappings, bank holdups, murders.'' You were not a terrorist yourself, but you were a good and active friend to terrorists, weren't you, Mr. Fischer?

In 1976, to protest the death in prison of Baader-Meinhof founder Ulrike Meinhof, you planned and participated in a Frankfurt demonstration in which, Berman wrote, ``somebody tossed a Molotov cocktail at a policeman and burned him nearly to death.'' You were arrested, but not charged. In 2001, Meinhof's daughter, Bettina Rohl (who gave those damning photos to Stern) told the press that you were responsible for the throwing of that firebomb. Other contemporary witnesses, Berman reported, said that you ``had never ruled out the use of Molotovs and may even have favored it.'' You denied it, for the record.

Date:

02/12/03

Time:

04:56 PM

Comments

Call for peace comes from all walks of life If the peace movement conjures up thoughts of patchouli-scented co-ops and picketing college students, think again. The ranks of antiwar activists are growing to include grandparents, religious leaders, labor activists, artists, teachers, veterans and others whose presence hasn't typically been associated with peacenik priorities.

Date:

02/12/03

Time:

05:22 PM

Comments

For now there are greater numbers of that same type of people in favor of war with Iraq. Last I heard 57% of Americans are in favor.

Here's something else someone said about the french I found very true:

-- “The only way the French are going in is if we tell them we found truffles in Iraq.”

Date:

02/13/03

Time:

06:10 AM

Comments

Ron Ziegler died recently. Ziegler was President Richard Nixon's press secretary, and it fell to him to explain away Watergate's ongoing presidential lies prior to the resignation. After Watergate, the political community's public judgment was that Nixon fell because "a president cannot lie to the American people." In Ziegler's New York Times' obituary, the paper noted that while he was press secretary "a study team from American University and the National Press Club" reproved him for having "misled the public and affronted the professional standards of the Washington press corps."

After George Stephanopoulos did the same, ABC made him heir to the Sunday morning talk show of Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts, scene of some of George's most implausible deceits. The next time you tune in to "This Week," see if you can envision Ron Ziegler seated in George's place.

Date:

02/13/03

Time:

06:33 AM

Comments

I'm sure terrorist groups, Islamo-fascists, and dictators across the world now feel "invigorate(d)" too since they've learned how many "useful idiots" there are in the United States. It must be nice to know that even if you fly planes into the WTC, bomb a disco, storm a theater, destroy a pizza parlor, or gas your own people, there will always be leftist dupes in the US doing everything in their power to impede the people trying to stop you. Most of clowns at these anti-war rallies would have been out protesting on behalf of Japan and the Nazis if they were around back in WW2. I can just hear them now: "I'm not saying Hitler is a great guy, but America is like an imperialist nation you know? Roosevelt just wants to extend our global hegemony across the whole world. This isn't about Pearl Harbor either man! It's all about getting cheap labor in Japan and quality German cars. America has to break the cycle of violence by negotiating with Hitler instead of listening to Roosevelt's business cronies who want war. Hey FDR, we don't want your filthy war! Give peace a chance!"

Murdering innocent women and children is grim and desperate work especially when the American military machine is trying to stop you. But a few words from Susan Sarandon, Gore Vidal, Jesse Jackson, or even some random protestor waving an Iraqi flag may very well give the terrorists and the regimes that support them that "extra" motivation they need to blow themselves up or a plant a bomb on a bus. Thanks a lot you antiwar protestors, thanks a lot.

"Time is in our favor, and we have to buy more time hoping that the U.S.-British alliance might disintegrate because of ... the pressure of public opinion" in the United States and Britain" - Saddam Hussein.

Date:

02/13/03

Time:

11:03 AM

Comments

Depressing as it is to acknowledge, it now seems clear we are witnessing the tantrum of a woefully untutored and inexperienced president whose willfulness rises in direct proportion to his inability to comprehend a world too complex for his grasp.

Robert Sheer

Date:

02/13/03

Time:

12:09 PM

Comments

"I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is 'in the highest moral traditions of our country'. " --Sen. Byrd "This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal. In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders. In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come. ." 02.13.03 Senator Robert Byrd

Date:

02/14/03

Time:

01:26 PM

Comments

Hi Matilda. Did you get my e-mails today? Please feel free to use anything I post. 81. Ha! Youngster. My Bush Waffles number 35 and will be posted next week.

Date:

02/14/03

Time:

07:45 PM

Comments

Regarding Byrd's comments, it is easy for democrats to talk about what should be happening with the administration. They are not the ones making the hard decisions. And Bush is no longer responsible for the decline in the economy than Clinton was responsible for the boom. Do you really believe that our President would needlessly put our children in harm's way if it wasn't needed? You are naive. In general, I think that US citizens against the war don't have the backbone to do what must be done. The people who built this nation would be appalled at our inability to act when it is clear what must be done. Not clear? Oh yet it is. The UN resolution has been breached. Items have not been accounted for. There is no one contesting this. War is difficult, but sometimes must happen. Would we, as a country, be here today if War didn't take place? no. Many people today forget this and choose to live in la, la land. Wake up Americans. Have a backbone to stand up to world opinion. Unlike the US, they have shown little backbone in the last 200 years. Why do you think anything will change now? And don't give me the argument of... you wouldn't want your children to die for this cause. Your wrong, I am willing to sacrifice for my nation and the world, like my grandfather did. -Laura, independent, mother of 1

Date:

02/15/03

Time:

05:52 PM

Comments

• Few people are raising questions about the obviously false statements we have been told about 9/11? Why did it take 28 minutes for flight controllers to notify NORAD two planes had been hijacked when the average time to do so in such a case is 3 minutes? Why were fighters scrambled from a base 180 miles away when seven other bases had fighter jets ready that could have done the job in a fraction of the time? Why was FEMA in New York the night before the crashes? Why did those fires at the base of the towers burn for 100 days? Why did Bush read a book for a half hour when he knew two planes had hit and two more were hijacked? Why was the binLadin family flown out of the country when all flights were grounded? Why did the FBI chief say we had no warning this was coming and everybody else in the FBI say we had plenty of warning? Who did make the billions of dollars from all those put options on two airlines the day before the attacks? These are only a fraction of the question the government continues to cover up, as several billions of people know.

John Kaminski

Date:

02/16/03

Time:

09:50 AM

Comments

C'mpon John- BILLIONS of people know what? President Bush and his administration staged 911? Get real. Next thing you conspiracy nuts will be saying is that they staged the space shuttle disater!

Bet you built bunkers of food for Y2K and that your house is wrapped in plastic and duct tape.

Date:

02/16/03

Time:

07:51 PM

Comments

Democrats should be ashamed of what they are doing to President Bush's judicial nomination. Let's compare his qualifications to Darth Vader Ginsburg's, whom Clinton appointed to the SUPREME COURT:

Estrada:

After leaving law school, Miguel Estrada, President Bush's nominee for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, clerked for a federal appeals court judge. He then clerked for Anthony Kennedy at the U.S. Supreme Court. He was then a federal prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office in New York, and was appointed to serve the solicitor general of the U.S. in the Department of Justice - under both Bush 41 and Clinton. He was an assistant solicitor general under Clinton. Miguel Estrada has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court - and won two-thirds of them.

Ginsburg:

After law school she clerked for a district court judge, which is below an appeals court judge. She then became a professor at Rutgers law school and began litigating for the ACLU. She then joined Columbia law school's staff, continued to litigate for the ACLU and argued six Supreme Court cases. She was then appointed to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit by Carter in 1980.

Feel free to ignore this post as you do when stumped.

Date:

02/16/03

Time:

08:05 PM

Comments

Told you. From one of your liberal wackos:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=28326

Date:

02/17/03

Time:

05:58 AM

Comments

So much of the world is now against the U.S. for its planned war against Iraq. The enormous sympathy sparked by Sept. 11 has vanished. People all over the world now despise the Bush tough-guy stance in foreign affairs, and its cowboy vulgarity. (A recent British poll listed Bush as a greater threat to world peace than Saddam or Bin Laden). All had other ideas about how to deal with Iraq without killing thousands of human beings and then enduring an occupation that could last decades. NY Daily Mirror

Date:

02/17/03

Time:

09:12 AM

Comments

NEWSWEEK: How effective is the government’s color-coded alert system in preparing for—or helping to prevent—another terrorist attack? Gavin de Becker: The alert system is political in nature. It is viewed by virtually all serious professionals in the field of security and threat assessment with disdain.

Why is that? Americans have never once been told what to do with that information. It’s like your doctor saying, “Something’s wrong, but I’m not going to tell you what—or what to do about it—only that you are in big trouble.” The administration needed a way to appear to be providing information without actually providing any information.

Date:

02/17/03

Time:

05:08 PM

Comments

From an American living in France:

Today's message is this, and I believe I speak for most of us Americans living in France among the French: The French are our comrades, our friends, our admirers. They are not in any way anti-American. Personally, I have never known them to be. I have never felt antagonism because of my nationality or my religion. In all the years of living here, I have always felt welcomed.

It is clear, however, that they are frightened and concerned by the threat of war. They never want to live through another war like World War II and there is no question that a World War III is entirely possible. This doesn't make them anti-American. Only anti-war.

On Saturday, ten million people across the globe showed their agreement with them.

Date:

02/17/03

Time:

10:44 PM

Comments

10 million out of 6 Billion.

Doesn't make me want to continue to play stupid games with Iraq or Korea. All they know and will respond to is someone physically beating them.

Oh, I agree that that color warning system is a bunch of crap. The media is doing enough of the terrorist's job of spreading panic. Just like they did for Y2K - and no one called them on it.

Date:

02/17/03

Time:

10:47 PM

Comments

Are you liberals ignoring my statment about the un-American attempts by liberals at stopping President Bush's appontment of Estrada?

Truth hurts.

Date:

02/18/03

Time:

04:54 AM

Comments

"WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 - The fracturing of the Western alliance over Iraq and the huge antiwar demonstrations around the world this weekend are reminders that there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion."

"...In his campaign to disarm Iraq, by war if necessary, President Bush appears to be eyeball to eyeball with a tenacious new adversary: millions of people who flooded the streets of New York and dozens of other world cities to say they are against war based on the evidence at hand."

"...an exceptional phenomenon has appeared on the streets of world cities.... politicians and leaders are unlikely to ignore it."

Patrick Tyler, NY Times

Date:

02/18/03

Time:

05:08 AM

Comments

"U.S. to Punish German Treachery" (see article below)

Can you believe? Those bozos in D.C. DARE to call honest disagreement "treachery"! What a bunch of fools! Dangerous fools! This is what tyranny looks like. Totally repression...of everyone on earth?!

This is downright embarrassing. Our government sounds like a bunch of first-graders, or constipated school marms from the "Little Rascals" era... The idiots in charge of our country should never have been graduated from playing with Legos... k

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,896573,00.html

Date:

02/18/03

Time:

07:30 AM

Comments

Why is that childish? They want our support, then the need to give us theirs.

As far as American's feelings towards the French - there is a movement here to boycott the use of French products. I'm with them.

Date:

02/18/03

Time:

01:37 PM

Comments

Date:

02/18/03

Time:

01:37 PM

Comments

Date:

02/18/03

Time:

01:44 PM

Comments

Oh..........so you're going to boycott French products? Why only French products? The US has practically the whole world against them in their plans to invade Iraq....remember Bush is a "uniter". He's managed to united the entire world against us!!!!! And almost everything we consume in the US comes from some foreign country now... except munitions and tanks and planes. Have fun with your boycott!!! Matilda

Date:

02/18/03

Time:

01:50 PM

Comments

What worries a lot of us about the present situation is that it seems such a setup for the INVADER (US) to use the wmd and blame it on Sadam and hence have the proof they lacked in the first place that Iraq needed to be invaded. If this happens, remember you read it here first. L.T.

Date:

02/18/03

Time:

04:06 PM

Comments

"The US has practically the whole world against them "? Last I heard there were 13 NATO counties FOR backing the USA and 3 against them (france, belgium and germany).

I guess you would include Iraq and Iran in your list of allies.

I also seem to remember protests worldwide when Reagan was for placing cruise missiles, etc in Europe. Turns out those protesters were wrong, just as these are.

Date:

02/18/03

Time:

05:59 PM

Comments

Matilda must be from France.

Date:

02/19/03

Time:

06:04 AM

Comments

A recent fishing magazine had a recent article titled "how to think like a fish". They should come here for proof that some people already have mastered the art.

Date:

02/19/03

Time:

07:27 AM

Comments

Quotes of the week - "All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time...I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." --President Dwight Eisenhower, 1953, upon being presented with plans to wage preventive war to disarm Stalin's Soviet Union...

Date:

02/19/03

Time:

08:32 AM

Comments

George Bush and his administration have made this world a much more dangerous place in which to live by their continual saber-rattling, name calling and treaty destroying ways.

In just over two short years, George Bush has failed to behave in a responsible manner that kept the population of this country secure in the knowledge that diplomats and level heads were occupying the highest offices of our nation. We were told that the "adults were in charge" and that a "seasoned team of experts" would comprise his cabinet. What we have been offered in actuality are Ronald Reagan Iran-Contra retreads and neo-conservative ideologues that lust for the end of the world.

If we do not wake up soon, my fellow citizens, we will have nothing. We will have no Constitutional rights, no safety behind our windows covered with duct tape and visqueen and no security in the knowledge of a planet on which to live. When Bush unleashes his terror upon the world, there will be no safe hiding place. The color coded terror alerts and the Department of Homeland Security will offer no refuge. There will be nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. If you want answers, ask the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki This is not a discussion about what political party you should be aligned with. This is a warning shot across the bow. If you do not understand death and destruction today, you will be understanding it very soon.

Bridgit Gibson

Date:

02/19/03

Time:

10:13 AM

Comments

We've been told we're going to war to eliminate weapons of mass destruction we haven't located yet; to retaliate for links to al Qaeda that are historically tenuous; to eliminate a man for actions he might take some day; to liberate an oppressed people we didn't care about before Sept. 11.

Which is it? It doesn't matter to the Bush administration, as long as you accept any of the above.

Robert Steinback

Date:

02/19/03

Time:

02:06 PM

Comments

Shrub says protestors world wide are irrelevant, and some dittoheads agree.

What none of that mindless group realizes is that .. the American protestors and most of the others are not trying to protect Saddam Hussein but are trying to protect the US Constitution, International Law, common sense and what's left of the world's decency.

JM

Date:

02/19/03

Time:

05:47 PM

Comments

From the Sean Hannity radio show today:

An Iraqi Scientist that defected today revealed that Iraq does indeed have WMD and are continuing to try and build a nuclear bomb.

Materieals and tecnology were sold to them by the French and Germans. Maybe one reason France and Germany want more inspections and not action is that the will have egg on their face when their materials are found. They want to give Iraq time to "shred evidence".

Weliberated France, can't we give them back to Germany?

Date:

02/19/03

Time:

10:56 PM

Comments

What is France nervous about? See:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77650,00.html

Date:

02/20/03

Time:

05:30 AM

Comments

"I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, blood dollar-soaked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own.... And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the "haves" refuse to share with the "have-nots" by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their throats by Americans."- General David Sharp, former US` Marine Commandant,1966

"Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder..." Thomas Jefferson

Date:

02/20/03

Time:

07:32 AM

Comments

"I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, blood dollar-soaked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own"

What noble words. What a moron. Note some of the countries that have found wonderful solutions of their own: Cambodia under Pol Pot, Russia under Stalin, Uganda under Idi Amin, Iraq under Hussein, Burundi, Zimbabwe, Rwanda..... http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocidetable.htm

You may want to read what Lenin had to say about the "useful idiots" who fill the liberal ranks.

Date:

02/20/03

Time:

08:21 AM

Comments

I hope you're sitting down for this one:

It is time for Congress to face the truth: In order to give Enron one last desperate chance to complete the Taliban pipeline and save itself from bankruptcy, senior levels of US intelligence were ordered to keep their eyes shut and their subordinates ignorant. The Enron cover-up confirms that 9/11 was not an intelligence failure or a law enforcement failure (at least not entirely). Instead, it was a foreign policy failure of the highest order. If Congress ever combines its Enron investigation with 9/11, Cheney’s whole house of cards will collapse. Read more... http://www.john-loftus.com/enron3.asp#congress

Date:

02/20/03

Time:

04:03 PM

Comments

This government, like in Vietnam, is lying us into a war. Like Vietnam, it's a reckless, unnecessary war, where the risks greatly outweigh any possible benefits. I'd make this argument to insiders: Don't do what I did. Don't keep your mouth shut when you know people are being lied to. Tell the truth before the bombs are falling, while there's still a chance to do something about it.

Daniel Ellsberg

Date:

02/20/03

Time:

04:27 PM

Comments

Concerning the conservatives whining because no one bothers to respond to their "points":

One reason is that they are not worth the time and effort it would take to respond. Another reason is that their minds are already made up and they will not listen to any kind of argument that contradicts their views.

One further point: If positions are stated in a friendly, kind manner, they are likely to earn responses. Most of us moderates and liberals simply flip the switch or turn the page at the first sign of aggression.

Date:

02/20/03

Time:

05:28 PM

Comments

Another reason is that it proves their points are wrong and they are stuck without a response.

Date:

02/20/03

Time:

09:19 PM

Comments

Come now, be nice. Would someone defend the democrats filibustering to keep the very qualified Estrada as well as all the other judical nominations that they have held hostage from being voted on?

Date:

02/20/03

Time:

09:33 PM

Comments

The Chirac-Hussein Connection Feb 19, 2003

Summary

French President Jacques Chirac is a pivotal figure on the international scene, whose views on Iraq are of vital concern. Those views are not driven simply by geopolitics, however. The factors that shape his thinking include a long, complex and sometimes mysterious relationship with Saddam Hussein. The relationship is not secret, but it is no longer as well known as it once was -- nor is it well known outside of France. It is not insignificant in understanding Chirac's view of Iraq.

Analysis

In attempting to understand France’s behavior over the issue of war with Iraq, there is little question but that strategic, economic and geopolitical considerations are dominant drivers. However, in order to understand the details of French behavior, it is also important to understand a not really unknown but oddly neglected aspect of French policy: the personal relationship between French President Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein.

The relationship dates back to late 1974, when then-French Premier Chirac traveled to Baghdad and met the No. 2 man in the Iraqi government, Vice President Saddam Hussein. During that visit, Chirac and Hussein conducted negotiations on a range of issues, the most important of these being Iraq’s purchase of nuclear reactors.

In September 1975, Hussein traveled to Paris, where Chirac personally gave him a tour of a French nuclear plant. During that visit, Chirac said, “Iraq is in the process of beginning a coherent nuclear program and France wants to associate herself with that effort in the field of reactors.” France sold two reactors to Iraq, with the agreement signed during Hussein’s visit. The Iraqis purchased a 70-megawatt reactor, along with six charges of 26 points of uranium enriched to 93 percent -- in other words, enough weapons-grade uranium to produce three to four nuclear devices. Baghdad also purchased a one-megawatt research reactor, and France agreed to train 600 Iraqi nuclear technicians and scientists -- the core of Iraq’s nuclear capability today.

Other dimensions of the relationship were decided on during this visit and implemented in the months afterward. France agreed to sell Iraq $1.5 billion worth of weapons -- including the integrated air defense system that was destroyed by the United States in 1991, about 60 Mirage F1 fighter planes, surface-to-air missiles and advanced electronics. The Iraqis, for their part, agreed to sell France $70 million worth of oil.

During this period, Chirac and Hussein formed what Chirac called a close personal relationship. As the New York Times put it in a 1986 report about Chirac’s attempt to return to the premiership, the French official “has said many times that he is a personal friend of Saddam Hussein of Iraq.” In 1987, the Manchester Guardian Weekly quoted Chirac as saying that he was “truly fascinated by Saddam Hussein since 1974.” Whatever personal chemistry there might have been between the two leaders obviously remained in place a decade later, and clearly was not simply linked to the deals of 1974-75. Politicians and businessmen move on; they don’t linger the way Chirac did.

Partly because of the breadth of the relationship Chirac and Hussein had created in a relatively short period of time and the obvious warmth of their personal ties, there was intense speculation about the less visible aspects of the relationship. For example, one unsubstantiated rumor that still can be heard in places like Beirut was that Hussein helped to finance Chirac’s run for mayor of Paris in 1977, after he lost the French premiership. Another, equally unsubstantiated rumor was that Hussein had skimmed funds from the huge amounts of money that were being moved around, and that he did so with Chirac’s full knowledge. There are endless rumors, all unproven and perhaps all scurrilous, about the relationship. Some of these might have been moved by malice, but they also are powered by the unfathomability of the relationship and by Chirac’s willingness to publicly affirm it. It reached the point that Iranians referred to Chirac as “Shah-Iraq” and Israelis spoke of the Osirak reactor as “O-Chirac.”

Indeed, as recently as last week, a Stratfor source in Lebanon reasserted these claims as if they were incontestable. Innuendo has become reality.

Former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing, who held office at the time of the negotiations with Iraq, said in 1984 that the deal “came out of an agreement that was not negotiated in Paris and therefore did not originate with the president of the republic.” Under the odd French constitution, it is conceivable that the president of the republic wouldn’t know what the premier of France had negotiated -- but on a deal of this scale, this would be unlikely, unless the deal in fact had been negotiated between Chirac and Hussein in the dark and presented as a fait accompli.

There is some evidence for this notion. Earlier, when Giscard d’Estaing found out about the deal -- and particularly about the sale of 93 percent uranium -- he had ordered the French nuclear research facility at Saclay to develop an alternative that would take care of Iraq’s legitimate needs, but without supplying weapons-grade uranium. The product, called “caramel,” was only 3 percent enriched but entirely suitable to non-weapons needs. The French made the offer, which Iraq declined.

By 1986, Chirac clearly had decided to change his image. In preparation for the 1988 presidential elections, Chirac let it be known that he never had anything to do with the sale of the Osirak reactor. In an interview with an Israeli newspaper, he said, “It wasn’t me who negotiated the construction of Osirak with Baghdad. The negotiation was led by my minister of industry in very close collaboration with Giscard d’Estaing.” He went on to say, “I never took part in these negotiations. I never discussed the subject with Saddam Hussein. The fact is that I did not find out about the affair until very late.”

Obviously, Chirac was contradicting what he had said publicly in 1975. More to the point, he also was not making a great deal of sense in claiming that his minister of industry -- who at that time was Michel d’Ornano -- had negotiated a deal as large as this one. That is true even if one assumes the absurd, which was that the nuclear deal was a stand-alone and not linked to the arms and oil deals or to a broader strategic relationship. In fact, d’Ornano claimed that he didn’t even make the trip to Iraq with Chirac in 1974, let alone act as the prime negotiator. Everything he did was in conjunction with Chirac.

In 1981, the Israelis destroyed the Iraqi reactor in an air attack. There were rumors -- which were denied -- that the French government was offering to rebuild the reactor. In August 1987, French satirical and muckraking magazine, “Le Canard Enchaine” published excerpts of a letter from Chirac to Hussein -- dated June 24, 1987, and hand-delivered by Trade Minister Michel Noir -- which the magazine claimed indicated that he was negotiating to rebuild the Iraqi reactor. The letter says nothing about nuclear reactors, but it does say that Chirac hopes for an agreement “on the negotiation which you know about,” and it speaks of the “cooperation launched more than 12 years ago under our personal joint initiative, in this capital district for the sovereignty, independence and security of your country.” In the letter, Chirac also, once again, referred to Hussein as “my dear friend.”

Chirac and the government confirmed that the letter was genuine. They denied that it referred to rebuilding a nuclear reactor. The letter speaks merely of the agreements relating to “an essential chapter in Franco-Iraqi relations, both in the present circumstances and in the future.” Chirac claimed that any attempt to link the letter to the reconstruction of the nuclear facility was a “ridiculous invention.” Assuming Chirac’s sincerity, this leaves open the question of what the “essential chapter” refers to and why, instead of specifying the subject, Chirac resorted to a circumlocution like “negotiation which you know about.”

Only two possible conclusions can be drawn from this letter: Chirac either was trying, in the midst of the Iran-Iraq war and after his denial of involvement in the first place, to rebuild Iraq’s nuclear capability, or he wasn’t. And if he wasn’t, what was he doing that required such complex language, clearly intended for deniability if revealed? No ordinary state-to-state relationship would require a combination of affection, recollection of long history and promise for the future without mentioning the subject. If we concede to Chirac that it had nothing to do with nuclear reactors, then the mystery actually deepens.

It is unfair to tag Chirac with the rumors that have trailed him in his relations with Hussein. It is fair to say, however, that Chirac has created a circumstance for breeding rumors. The issues raised here were all well known at one time and place. When they are laid end-to-end, a mystery arises. What affair was being discussed in the letter delivered by Michel Noir? If not nuclear reactors, then what was referenced but never mentioned specifically in Chirac’s letter to his “dear friend” Hussein?

Whatever the answer, it is clear that the relationship between Chirac and Hussein is long and complex, and not altogether easy to understand. That relationship does not, by itself, explain all of France's policies toward Iraq or its stance toward a war between the United States and Iraq. But at the same time, it is inconceivable that this relationship has no effect on Chirac's personal decision-making process. There is an intensity to Chirac's Iraq policy that may simply signify the remnants of an old, warm friendship gone bad, or that may have a different origin. In any case, it is a reality that cannot be ignored and that must be taken into account in understanding the French leader’s behavior.

Date:

02/21/03

Time:

07:57 AM

Comments

Splendid article from the New York Times:

This administration doesn't worry about long-term consequences - just look at its fiscal policy. It wants its war; there's not the slightest indication that it's interested in the boring, expensive task of building a just and lasting peace.