Iraqis resort to selling children
|
|
Thread rating:  |
kippaherring@hotmail.com - 07 Jan 2008 16:09 GMT http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/081021CA-CEE2-4D75-8868-CC4B9E59016D.htm
Iraqis resort to selling children By Afif Sarhan in Baghdad
Unicef says an estimated two million children in Iraq continue to face threats, including poor nutrition, disease and interrupted education [GALLO/ GETTY]
Abu Muhammad, a Baghdad resident, found it difficult to let go of his daughter's hand but he had already convinced himself that selling her to a family outside Iraq would provide her with a better future.
"The war disgraced my family. I lost relatives including my wife among thousands of victims of sectarian violence and was forced to sell my daughter to give my other children something to eat," he told Al Jazeera.
In 2006, Abu Muhammad and his family were forced to leave their home in Adhamiya, a district of Baghdad, after militia fighting claimed the streets in his once tranquil neighbourhood.
They began living in a makeshift refugee camp on the outskirts of Baghdad, but he soon lost his job and the children, unable to make the daily trek, quit school.
"There wasn't enough money to spend on books, clothes and transport," he said. His daughter, Fatima, the youngest of four children, began to show signs of malnourishment and a local medic said she had become anaemic.
Desperation
By mid-2007, conditions for his family had become desperate and his children, once healthy and bubbling with life, had become gaunt and lethargic.
It was then that a translator and a Swedish couple claiming to be part of an international NGO arrived in the makeshift refugee camp.
"They heard about my situation and the woman, who said she could not have babies, offered some money to give her my youngest daughter of two years old," he said.
"I refused in the beginning but the Iraqi translator was constantly coming at the camp and insisting with the same question. One day I found that my children would die without food and a clean environment and the next time he came to my tent, I told him that I agreed."
He gave the translator all personal documents and after a week the couple came with new documents for Abu Muhammad to sign, authorising the adoption and to pick up his daughter.
Abu Muhammad, who received $10,000, believes he is now damned by God, but he says his inner turmoil is allayed somewhat by his belief that Fatima will have a better life than many in Iraq.
"I could see her love in the first time she looked at her," he said of the adoptive mother.
Alarming disappearances
Local officials and aid workers have expressed concern over the alarming rate at which children are disappearing countrywide in Iraq's current unstable environment.
Omar Khalif, vice-president of the Iraqi Families Association, (IFA), a NGO established in 2004 to register cases of those missing and trafficked, said that at least two children are sold by their parents every week.
Another four are reported missing every week.
He said: "[The] Numbers are alarming. There is an increase of 20 per cent in the reported cases of missing children compared to last year."
"In previous years, children were reported missing on their way home from schools or after playing with friends outside their homes. However, police investigations, police have revealed that many have been sold by their parents to foreign couples or specialised gangs."
According to police investigations and an independent IFA study, Iraqi children are being sold to families in many European countries - particularly the Netherlands and Sweden - Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.
"Taking advantage of the desperate situation of many families living under poverty conditions in Iraq, foreigners offer a good amount of money in exchange of children as young as one month old and up to five years of age," Khalif said.
He said there are fears children are being trafficked for the sex trade and the organ transplant black market.
Children drugged
Hassan Alaa, a senior interior ministry official, said that while it has been difficult to precisely trace where the missing children are taken, government forces have captured 15 human trafficking gangs operating in Iraq in the past nine months.
"Many were carrying false documents prepared to take some children out from the country."
"During their confessions, they said many children are sold for as little as $3000 and for very young babies, the price could reach $30,000," Alaa said.
The interior ministry has stepped up its security at checkpoints and border posts throughout Iraq.
He says that the child traffickers resort to drugging children with powerful sedatives during the trip out of Iraq. When they drive up to a checkpoint, the police are told the children are merely sleeping.
"All children leaving Iraq now have to be woken up and interviewed by the police and border patrols, except those who are infants and unable to speak," Alaa said.
Extreme poverty
Mahmoud Saeed, a senior official at the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, says extreme poverty and nationwide unemployment have pushed parents to the edge, forcing them to make decisions once believed unthinkable. Roger Wright, Unicef's Special Representative for Iraq recently told the media that "Iraqi children are paying far too high a price."
"While we have been providing as much assistance as possible, a new window of opportunity is opening, which should enable us to reach the most vulnerable with expanded, consistent support. We must act now."
Unicef says:
- An estimated 2 million children in Iraq continue to face threats including poor nutrition, disease and interrupted education.
- Many of the 220,000 displaced children of primary school age had their education interrupted.
- An estimated 760,000 children (17 per cent) did not go to primary schools in 2006.
- An average 25,000 children per month were displaced by violence or intimidation, with their families seeking shelter in other parts of Iraq.
- In 2007, approximately 75,000 children had resorted to living in camps or temporary shelters.
- Hundreds of children lost their lives or were injured by violence and many more had their main family wage-earner kidnapped or killed.
"Desperate seeing their families without food and hygiene, parents prefer to give their children for adoption, to save their lives," he said.
Saeed said the ministry was making employment a national crisis issue in 2008, hoping to find immediate work for the poor.
He is hoping international aid agencies and NGOs will increase their participation and investments in projects geared towards helping children.
But for many parents, help will inevitably come too late.
Anguish
Khalid Jabboury, 38, a father of seven and displaced on the outskirts of Baghdad, says giving his daughter up for adoption to a Jordanian family has given him nothing but torment.
He said: "After one year I heard from some relatives that they had seen my seven-year-old daughter working as a servant for the supposed new family and she was being beaten as well."
He says he was paid $20,000 for but wants to give the money back if a local NGO can assist in her repatriation.
The IFA's Khalif says there is nothing the NGOs can do once children have been taken out of Iraq.
Ruwaida Saleh, 31, a mother of three, is also praying for her eight- year-old daughter Hala's safety.
Saleh says her daughter disappeared in July 2007 and has not been heard from since.
"The police told us to give up, but I cannot. I have nightmares she is being raped," she said.
"I will hold God's hands and beg Him to have Hala in my arms again one day. It is a pain without explanation that I will carry to my coffin if I never find her."
J. - 09 Jan 2008 02:00 GMT On Jan 7, 10:09�am, kippaherr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/081021CA-CEE2-4D75-8868-CC4B9E... > [quoted text clipped - 190 lines] > day. It is a pain without explanation that I will carry to my coffin > if I never find her." One more unintended consequence of the "liberation" of Iraq.
I can't help but wonder how many Iraqi deaths would have occurred and what conditions in Iraq would be today had Saddam remained in power. Some estimate civilian deaths at 80-87,000 since the invasion. Others estimate substantially higher numbers. Still others estimate that the annual death toll post-invasion is double what it was under Saddam.
Btw, anyone else see "The Kingdom"? Death begets death, war begets war, all in a good cause.
J.
Steve White - 21 Jan 2008 05:18 GMT In article <122d3dd3-ea8e-403d-9e8c-a32fb258af8b@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> One more unintended consequence of the "liberation" of Iraq. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > estimate substantially higher numbers. Still others estimate that the > annual death toll post-invasion is double what it was under Saddam. Boy howdy, it's just too bad for the Iraqis Saddam killed. And tortured. Real torture, not just waterboarding, mind you.
And the two pointless wars.
And the gassing of the Kurds.
Saddam killed about 1.5 million people in his 25 years in power. That includes the pointless wars. Genocidal thugs generally kill more, not less, as times goes by, so the toll would only have gotten larger.
steve
helicon@eircom.net - 08 Feb 2008 15:08 GMT > In article > <122d3dd3-ea8e-403d-9e8c-a32fb258a...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > includes the pointless wars. Genocidal thugs generally kill more, not > less, as times goes by, so the toll would only have gotten larger. Still at it Steve? Still justifying the unjustifiable, as always. Do you not keep up? Do you just swallow the propaganda willy-nilly, without so much as a grain of salt? I can hardly believe that you are still so gung-ho in the face of the enormity of the criminal behaviour sanctioned by Bush's administration, both at home and abroad.
There will probably be more calls for Bush/Cheney to be indicted (bushindictment@gmail.com - contact Kurt Daims) like the one in Brattleboro, Vermont. Ordinary Decent Americans - democrats, liberals and conservatives - will be outraged when they discover the true extent of the war crimes perpetrated in their name.
Here's part of a Human Rights Watch article which I doubt that you have read - it is relentless, this endless, pointless killing of innocent people by Americans, the fracturing of families, and the making of orphans - for what purpose?
Khalaf recounted the events of that day to a hushed room of lawyers with laptops. He watched, he said, as the Blackwater convoy made the U- turn toward the street where he stood directing traffic. As the convoy stopped, Khalaf watched as a large man with a mustache standing atop the third car fired several shots in the air. Khalaf turned back toward the Yarmouk road to see what might have spurred the shooting and heard a woman yell, "My son! My son!" He ran three cars back to a white sedan to find a woman holding a young man slumped over and covered with blood.
The man was Ahmed, a 20-year-old medical student at the top of his class, and the woman his mother, Mohasin, a successful dermatologist and mother of three.
"I tried to help the young man, but his mother was holding him so tight," said Khalaf. "I raised my left arm high in the air to try to signal to the convoy to stop the shooting," he said, thinking that it would respond to such a gesture by a police officer. He described how he crouched by the car, his right arm reaching inside, his head out and left arm up in the air, signaling to the convoy, his gun secure in its holster. Then the mother was shot dead before his eyes.
The shooting then turned heavier, Khalaf said, his eyes red-brimmed and serious. He hid behind the police traffic booth, but shots came directly at him, hitting the adjacent traffic light and booth's door, and he fled back across Yarmouk road to safety behind a hill. Along with a few hundred others, he stayed there as the chaos unfolded, watching as the helicopters circling above the street started shooting at those below.
For the complete article:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/12/14/usint17554.htm
Helen
> steve Steve White - 12 Feb 2008 04:01 GMT In article <2a463e55-7470-490d-bd74-6df5d4ace099@v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
> > In article > > <122d3dd3-ea8e-403d-9e8c-a32fb258a...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Still at it Steve? Still justifying the unjustifiable, as always. Do > you not keep up? Do you?
80% of the Iraqis want the Ba'athists to lay down their guns.
And close to 90% want al-Qaeda out of their country.
It's strange: you socialists bray about us being foreigners in Iraq, yet you don't seem to mind all the Libyan, Yemeni, Saudi and Egyptian jihadis who are there murdering the Iraqi people. They aren't fighting 'for' the Iraqis, that much is clear.
> Do you just swallow the propaganda willy-nilly, without so much as a > grain of salt? I can hardly believe that you are still so gung-ho in > the face of the enormity of the criminal behaviour sanctioned by > Bush's administration, both at home and abroad. That's just socialist pap. For a supposedly intelligent person you sure do swallow a lot of nonsense.
> There will probably be more calls for Bush/Cheney to be indicted > (bushindictment@gmail.com - contact Kurt Daims) like the one in > Brattleboro, Vermont. Most Americans understand that the folks in Vermont are a little .. strange. And that the hippy types there are stranger.
> Ordinary Decent Americans - democrats, liberals and conservatives - > will be outraged when they discover the true extent of the war crimes > perpetrated in their name. When will you socialists start to be outraged at what Saddam did to his people?
> Here's part of a Human Rights Watch article which I doubt that you > have read - Remind me when HRW gets outraged at what Saddam did. Their view of human rights violations is a bit .. selective.
As is their memory.
And yours.
steve
Steve White - 21 Jan 2008 05:14 GMT In article <bbd5d3e7-81aa-43b8-8bd5-773d332e9fd6@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/081021CA-CEE2-4D75-8868-CC4B9E59016D.ht > m > > Iraqis resort to selling children > By Afif Sarhan in Baghdad This is from al-Jiz, folks. I'd take this with a LOT of salt.
steve
kippaherring@hotmail.com - 21 Jan 2008 15:02 GMT > In article > <bbd5d3e7-81aa-43b8-8bd5-773d332e9...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > This is from al-Jiz, folks. I'd take this with a LOT of salt. And that's from Steve, folks. He takes salt with anything and everything that runs counter to his POV. You really ought to cut back, Steve. It can't be good for your blood pressure.
http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/Iraq.htm "Iraq is a source and destination country for men and women trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation and involuntary servitude. Children are trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation; criminal gangs may have targeted young boys and staff of private orphanages and may have trafficked young girls for forced prostitution within Iraq and abroad. Iraqi women are trafficked to Syria, Jordan, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Iran for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation. Iraq is also a destination country for men and women trafficked from South and Southeast Asia for involuntary servitude as construction workers, cleaners, and domestic servants. Some of these workers are offered fraudulent jobs in safe environments in Kuwait or Jordan, but are then forced into involuntary servitude in Iraq instead; others go to Iraq voluntarily, but are subjected to conditions of involuntary servitude after arrival. Although the governments of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Philippines have official bans prohibiting their nationals from working in Iraq, workers from these countries are increasingly coerced into positions in Iraq with threats of abandonment in Kuwait or Jordan, starvation, or force. - U.S. State Dept Trafficking in Persons Report, June, 2007"
Given prostitution's a choice more and more Iraqi women feel obliged to make for their families to survive http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/15/iraq.prostitution/index.html the Al-Jaz report is hardly suprising.
Steve White - 22 Jan 2008 02:27 GMT In article <d69f0590-264e-4643-8bf8-ca6c64d442d3@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > In article > > <bbd5d3e7-81aa-43b8-8bd5-773d332e9...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > And that's from Steve, folks. He takes salt with anything and > everything that runs counter to his POV. I look at a lot of things. Al-Jiz is notorious in its anti-American bias. Of course, if you're anti-American yourself then you won't mind.
Al-Jiz also (like other MSM outlets) likes the sensational. Veracity comes later if they ever get around to it.
As far as the 'gv.net' report goes, that's from the U.S. State Dept trafficking report. It notes (you missed this) that human trafficking is endemic to the region and indeed, from the listed countries, to the entire continent.
> Given prostitution's a choice more and more Iraqi women feel obliged > to make for their families to survive > http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/15/iraq.prostitution/index.html > the Al-Jaz report is hardly suprising. Prostitution is a problem in every poor country around the world. And in some rich ones.
steve
kippaherring@hotmail.com - 22 Jan 2008 05:17 GMT > In article > <d69f0590-264e-4643-8bf8-ca6c64d44...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I look at a lot of things. Al-Jiz is notorious in its anti-American > bias. Of course, if you're anti-American yourself then you won't mind. And if you're jingoistic you won't even consider that there might possibly be a shred of truth to anything that smacks to you of 'anti- Americanism'.
> Al-Jiz also (like other MSM outlets) likes the sensational. Veracity > comes later if they ever get around to it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > endemic to the region and indeed, from the listed countries, to the > entire continent. Presumably you don't accept there's any reason to suppose that present conditions have exacerbated the problem.
> > Given prostitution's a choice more and more Iraqi women feel obliged > > to make for their families to survive [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Prostitution is a problem in every poor country around the world. And in > some rich ones. The forces that drive prostitution in poor countries are different from those in rich ones. Poverty limits options.
Steve White - 26 Jan 2008 05:17 GMT In article <50f286d0-b2e6-4b70-beb3-a01847d77113@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > In article > > <d69f0590-264e-4643-8bf8-ca6c64d44...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > possibly be a shred of truth to anything that smacks to you of 'anti- > Americanism'. You'll be amazed but we Americans can be mighty critical of our own country. But we know the difference between being critical ourselves and listening to others screeching about how loathsome we are.
> > Al-Jiz also (like other MSM outlets) likes the sensational. Veracity > > comes later if they ever get around to it. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Presumably you don't accept there's any reason to suppose that present > conditions have exacerbated the problem. No doubt. After all al-Qaeda has been murdering the people of Iraq with car bombs and splodydopes for several years.
That's what you meant, right?
> > > Given prostitution's a choice more and more Iraqi women feel obliged > > > to make for their families to survive [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > from those in rich ones. > Poverty limits options. Spoken like a good Tranzi.
steve
kippaherring@hotmail.com - 27 Jan 2008 21:43 GMT > In article > <50f286d0-b2e6-4b70-beb3-a01847d77...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > country. But we know the difference between being critical ourselves and > listening to others screeching about how loathsome we are. If you want to think I hate America and Americans, that's not my problem. Personally, I don't think Americans are "loathsome" at all. Some Of My Best Friends Are Americans.
> > > Al-Jiz also (like other MSM outlets) likes the sensational. Veracity > > > comes later if they ever get around to it. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > No doubt. After all al-Qaeda has been murdering the people of Iraq with > car bombs and splodydopes for several years. Though not prior to the invasion (which caused the present conditions).
> That's what you meant, right? Wrong. See above.
> > > > Given prostitution's a choice more and more Iraqi women feel obliged > > > > to make for their families to survive [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Spoken like a good Tranzi. Phooey.
Kippa
> steve Steve White - 30 Jan 2008 03:28 GMT In article <efbd80b8-51d5-4574-bd56-e979a10643d7@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Some Of My Best Friends Are Americans. "Some of my best friends are ..." is not a winning argument.
> > > > As far as the 'gv.net' report goes, that's from the U.S. State > > > > Dept trafficking report. It notes (you missed this) that human [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Though not prior to the invasion (which caused the present > conditions). Prior to the invasion al-Qaeda was not killing Iraqis. True.
Saddam was. About 10 to 12 thousand a month, plus war casualties, from the mid-'70s to March, 2003.
The folks who lament the 'excess deaths' that have come after the invasion never seem to get too worked up about the excess deaths prior to the invasion. Wonder why.
steve
NotMe - 30 Jan 2008 14:24 GMT "Steve White"
| Prior to the invasion al-Qaeda was not killing Iraqis. True. | | Saddam was. About 10 to 12 thousand a month, plus war casualties, from | the mid-'70s to March, 2003. Me thinks your numbers are a bit off. Hitler killed 6M people over the course of 5 years, that's an average of less than 9000 people, not just kids, a month.
Based on the estimated population of Egypt in the time of Moses there were not that many first born males dying on the day of the first Pass Over.
Marley - 15 Feb 2008 21:42 GMT > "Steve White" > | [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Based on the estimated population of Egypt in the time of Moses there were > not that many first born males dying on the day of the first Pass Over. Hitler was a piker. Stalin was responsible for the deaths of 10 times that many, and nobody in the US considered invading the SU or trying their good friend and ally for crimes against humanity. Churchill, Roosevelt were brothers at heart. They loved state power, especially if they could control it. BTW, Hitler considered Stalin "a beast."
Marley
Steve White - 19 Feb 2008 04:07 GMT In article <956dade7-a7ab-4682-91c9-d043ea2abf90@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Hitler was a piker. Stalin was responsible for the deaths of 10 times > that many, and nobody in the US considered invading the SU or trying > their good friend and ally for crimes against humanity. Yes, and it's to our shame.
steve
kippaherring@hotmail.com - 31 Jan 2008 00:43 GMT > In article > <efbd80b8-51d5-4574-bd56-e979a1064...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "Some of my best friends are ..." is not a winning argument. It wasn't intended to be. It was a joke (see capital letters). Though true anyways :)
> > > > > As far as the 'gv.net' report goes, that's from the U.S. State > > > > > Dept trafficking report. It notes (you missed this) that human [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > invasion never seem to get too worked up about the excess deaths prior > to the invasion. Wonder why. Nobody is saying Saddam didn't operate an odious regime. But that's not why the Americans went in.
Steve White - 31 Jan 2008 03:56 GMT In article <70eba3b2-503b-4435-b7c5-673fecb5cde4@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > In article > > <efbd80b8-51d5-4574-bd56-e979a1064...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Nobody is saying Saddam didn't operate an odious regime. But that's > not why the Americans went in. It was one of the six reasons we went in. You might want to review George Bush's speech to the Congress on that.
steve
Kathy - 31 Jan 2008 20:27 GMT > In article > <70eba3b2-503b-4435-b7c5-673fecb5c...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yours is only one opinion, Steve.
I no longer believe a word Bush says or said regarding the reasons we went in, and I gave him my vote in 2004. I also believe that a lot of members of congress who backed him at that time felt like I dit too, but no longer believe in him.
Kathy
kippaherring@hotmail.com - 02 Feb 2008 15:16 GMT > In article > <70eba3b2-503b-4435-b7c5-673fecb5c...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > It was one of the six reasons we went in. A justifying prop, not a substantive reason. Among other things, it helped placate the nation's conscience. The U.S hasn't moved in on other equally odious regimes - such as N.Korea. But then they DO have nuclear weapons.
> You might want to review George Bush's speech to the Congress on that.
> steve Steve White - 02 Feb 2008 23:43 GMT In article <19e4cba3-d35b-4951-b586-9327ab26d9b9@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Nobody is saying Saddam didn't operate an odious regime. But > > > that's not why the Americans went in. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > other equally odious regimes - such as N.Korea. But then they DO have > nuclear weapons. When the President stands before the Congress and gives his reasons, that's what they are. It wasn't 'placating' our conscience (as if we need that), it was making clear what we were doing and why.
As to North Korea, give us time, grasshopper.
steve
Kathy - 08 Feb 2008 20:35 GMT > In article > <19e4cba3-d35b-4951-b586-9327ab26d...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > steve I no longer believe Bush told the truth then nor do I believe he is telling the truth now.
Do you believe everything Bush says, Steve?
Kathy
Steve White - 12 Feb 2008 03:56 GMT In article <7f8168a9-48eb-4829-a67a-444aa80bd152@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> > In article > > <19e4cba3-d35b-4951-b586-9327ab26d...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Do you believe everything Bush says, Steve? Depends. I do think he told the truth on Iraq. The WMD issue was a mistake, not a lie. Unfortunate that we have a CIA that can't find it's hind-end with either hand.
As to the suffering of the Iraqi people under Saddam, I don't have to take GWB's word. Used to be that Democrats saw what was going on there too.
steve
kippaherring@hotmail.com - 12 Feb 2008 13:36 GMT > Depends. I do think he told the truth on Iraq. The WMD issue was a > mistake, not a lie. Depends? On what? A lie by any other name would smell as rank. I accept that some of the administration might have persuaded themselves of the existence of WMDs in the absence of contrary evidence, but they went too far by intentionally focusing on the issue in order to create a politically convenient justification for the invasion.
Steve White - 15 Feb 2008 02:12 GMT In article <81ddba80-9d7e-4f91-8434-4cfb00320e55@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > Depends. I do think he told the truth on Iraq. The WMD issue was a > > mistake, not a lie. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > issue in order to create a politically convenient justification for > the invasion. Finally, some agreement, but not for the reasons you think.
According to the sources I've read, GWB didn't want to focus on WMD. He felt it was enough to emphasize that Saddam was a genocidal monster (true), that he'd broken his word to the U.N. (true) and that he'd violated the Gulf War ceasefire (true).
As far as Bush was concerned, he had enough to go to war without WMD.
But Colin Powell was concerned that the British wouldn't see this as enough, and so pushed to include WMD. And the idiot CIA chief, George Tenet, told Bush that WMD in Iraq was a 'slam dunk' (remember that one?).
So Bush went ahead and emphasized WMD, much to our dismay when we couldn't find them.
steve
Marley Greiner - 15 Feb 2008 06:02 GMT > In article > <81ddba80-9d7e-4f91-8434-4cfb00320e55@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > steve Speaking of genocidal monsters....
Oh well, it will be much worse with McCain in charge, though I do give him props for ICWA and his concern about adoption corruption. I'm so glad I hate them all.
Marley
Kat - 15 Feb 2008 16:12 GMT > > In article > > <81ddba80-9d7e-4f91-8434-4cfb00320e55@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Oh well, it will be much worse with McCain in charge, Let's hope that doesn't happen.
Kathy 1
Steve White - 19 Feb 2008 04:12 GMT > > Oh well, it will be much worse with McCain in charge, > > Let's hope that doesn't happen. Mac will peel Obama like a grape.
steve
PS: And yes, I think Obama will beat the Hildebeast.
Marley Greiner - 24 Feb 2008 18:38 GMT >> > Oh well, it will be much worse with McCain in charge, >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > PS: And yes, I think Obama will beat the Hildebeast. All these rightwing crackpots deserve each other.
Marley
kippaherring@hotmail.com - 15 Feb 2008 14:17 GMT > In article > <81ddba80-9d7e-4f91-8434-4cfb00320...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > felt it was enough to emphasize that Saddam was a genocidal monster > (true), that he'd broken his word to the U.N. (true) As if Bush administration itself ever gave a fig about the U.N.
> and that he'd > violated the Gulf War ceasefire (true). > > As far as Bush was concerned, he had enough to go to war without WMD. As far as he was concerned, I'm sure. He apparently did make that crucial decision without consulting Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, old Uncle Tom Cobbley et al, because "he knew what they thought". So much for procedure.
> But Colin Powell was concerned that the British wouldn't see this as > enough, and so pushed to include WMD. And the idiot CIA chief, George > Tenet, told Bush that WMD in Iraq was a 'slam dunk' (remember that one?). Don't we all? And George Bush took the ball and ran with it.
> So Bush went ahead and emphasized WMD, much to our dismay when we > couldn't find them. Hrrmph. Sounds like a proper old case of blaiming the secretary to me.
Kippa
> steve Steve White - 19 Feb 2008 04:10 GMT In article <7ddcddad-ece0-48d6-b632-b9c0ba169c37@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > In article > > <81ddba80-9d7e-4f91-8434-4cfb00320...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > As if Bush administration itself ever gave a fig about the U.N. And he's been right every time!
> > and that he'd violated the Gulf War ceasefire (true). > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Colin Powell, old Uncle Tom Cobbley et al, because "he knew what they > thought". So much for procedure. Procedure? The President doesn't need agreement from his advisors to commit military force. Our Constitution makes that pretty clear. It's his decision, not theirs. We don't have a parliamentary system.
> > So Bush went ahead and emphasized WMD, much to our dismay when we > > couldn't find them. > > Hrrmph. Sounds like a proper old case of blaiming the secretary to > me. Not from me. I'm pleased, WMD or no. A vicious, genocidal thug, a one-man WMD if ever there was one, now cavorts with Himmler. Suits me just fine.
steve
kippaherring@hotmail.com - 10 Feb 2008 02:48 GMT > As to North Korea, give us time, grasshopper. "Us"? Methinks you do presume too much, Steve. Far from everybody in the US is a neo-conservative ideologue.
Robin Harritt - 10 Feb 2008 14:17 GMT On 10/2/08 02:48, in article 1a2ff208-2422-4653-ae7d-ecffdfa13237@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
>> As to North Korea, give us time, grasshopper. > > "Us"? > Methinks you do presume too much, Steve. > Far from everybody in the US is a neo-conservative ideologue. Ah good, I was beginning to think...
Robin (English liberal ideologue)
Steve White - 12 Feb 2008 03:54 GMT In article <1a2ff208-2422-4653-ae7d-ecffdfa13237@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > As to North Korea, give us time, grasshopper. > > "Us"? > Methinks you do presume too much, Steve. > Far from everybody in the US is a neo-conservative ideologue. More's the pity ...
steve
|
|
|