Mary wrote: > I'm not sure the specific dealings of the ambassador, whoever it may have > been, would be in the Congressional Record. I can tell you, as one with some > experience in negotiations, albeit on a much smaller scale, that the most > salient and interesting points of such pre-agreement discussions often do not > find their way into the official record of an event.
That's true, but discussions about actions to be taken and debate is in there. For what it's worth (not much, I'm sure) here is an excerpt from the CR from 1992 where John McCain rants on at length about some of the same allegations that are being recycled now. McCain was so beside himself over the false rhetoric going on, he asked that several items of proof be put into the CR to clarify the US's actions to moderate Iraq, sanctions against them and the ban of the sale of materials to Iraq that could make weapons going back to the early 1980s. If you can bear to read through his blasts against then Senator Gore in particular, you may find some interesting information. http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/s921001-iraq.htm > RE: "revisionist history": are you saying that that can only be practiced > after the fact, and by those you regard as being on "the other side"? No. I try to find the facts and I base some of my positions on personal experience working with the government, defense contractors and in legal cases involving same for almost 20 years. Take for example my assertion that the missile shield technology works. Several people refused to believe me even though I provided proof of successful tests as reported by mainstream media. I also had some involvement with the development of this and other technology and know that it is nearly impossible to fake tests and get away with it. Every defense contractor has government and military auditors on site checking everything on a daily basis. What about all the links some have provided which show links reporting years of Iraq having weapons they are hiding and support of other terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda. Links from the IAEA, the Clinton State Dept., news reports regarding intelligence agency whistleblowers, congressional hearings. Maybe no one reads these links or doesn't believe what anyone involved in the issue, like Hans Blix, says. They rather, steadfastly maintain their position and say it's all about oil cartels or enriching the "defense profiteers." That is almost assuming that everyone in congress and in several other countries who want to take action regarding Iraq are either completely stupid or are somehow in on the Bush oil conspiracy. This is all what I find just incredible. Literally millions of people with a different opinion are all either in on the conspiracy or are unable to think for themselves? > I'd argue broadly that "revisionist history" can indeed be practiced as events are actually > unfolding, if people are not told the complete truth by a government about > what is happening for reasons other than those of pressing national security. > And that may have been done during "Iraq I" by the very government you appear > to so revere. But to really believe they could do this, especially when there was and is in both instances a broad international consensus by the decisionmakers who are privy to the classified information and history of events, is hard to conceive. That would mean there is some huge international conspiracy with millions of enablers pulling it all off. And I don't revere my government, but in this instance, what they are telling me conforms with what I've read and personally known as true for many years. That's why I find them credible. >"The other side" sees nothing but nefarious motives in their country and some of its leaders, > while the writer, by contrast, is able to look at the "facts" and correctly > discern that there is "no connection." I'll address this partial quote of mine. I only care that fellow people in my country are being led by nihilists with an agenda. I am a bit of a Pollyanna in that I don't want others to feel that everything and everyone in their government is so evil. I don't want them consumed with such negativity every day. Yes, there are bad people everywhere, but to say it is all corrupt and evil and bad is not true and it is extremely unfair and contemptuous of millions of honorable Americans who work hard and dilligently for their country and its defense. > But do me a favor (and Kakki, know that this is not so much directed at you as > to others on the list who have posted on this topic recently). Be honest > about the motivation. If it's about the U.S. throwing its might around (or, > alternately, "wielding its moral authority") to bring stability to the region, > then say so. I think I have been honest with my opinion on this subject all along. Wary of involvement in Iraq, wondering why Iraq is an issue connected with the terrorists attacks against the U.S. wanting to see more evidence, following the news, searching out information. I have never formed a complete stance right off the bat on this. But as I have watched and listened and learned I have seen the bigger picture unfold. You have to remember that this all started when Bush was only in office about 8 months and still transitioning in. I sometimes wonder at my lib friends who seem to go from ranting about Nixon to Reagan to Bush as if there were no other people in the presidential office or controlling the congress during that time span. To me it is all a continuum, and you can't stop and start up pointing the finger (if that is what one is inclined to do) selectively blaming all the ills of the world on the opposing political party. On a broader scale, the U.S. is not all omniscient and powerful and able to always control every micro event that happens in the world. A lot of events have been out of its power and it has had to be reactive the best it can. Kakki
