wolf123 [May 30th, 2008 5:06 pm] there are more than a few holes in your assertions, and here are just a few of them:

You wrote: "One must not forget that Russia also supplied Saddam with weapons and unconfirmed reports from Iran (it's hard to get confirmed reports from there) indicate the weapons grade anthrax dumped on the Iranian soldiers besieging Basra came from a Russian lab in the Ukraine."

Russia may have supplied Saddam with small arms like AK-47s, but it's no surprise those reports that the USSR provided anthrax to Hussein are 'unconfirmed'; that's because we were the principal supplier of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons.

You wrote: "Unquestionably and with out a doubt Saddam had NO links to 9/11, why the left continuously brings this red herring up is only to perpetuate their myth."

I wonder, Wolf, did you listen to any of Bush's speeches in the ramp up to the invasion of Iraq? He constantly mentioned 'Saddam,' '9/11,' 'terrorists' and 'Al Qaeda' in the same sentence. So did Cheney and other administration stooges, and Cheney insisted there was definite proof of a link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, and the Neocon Media ran with it. (Today Deadeye Dick denies he ever said that, but it's on videotape.) This red herring was started by the right-wing Republicans to 'catapult the propaganda' for invading Iraq, not by anyone on the left. It always amazes me that right-wingers, when confronted by an 'inconvenient truth,' instantly try to accuse liberals of doing exactly what they had been doing.

You wrote: "AS far as this myth some of you are propagating that Saddam would never hurt Americans because he was afraid of us is absurd. He was a megalomaniac, he saw what we did when Iran invaded our embassy and held our diplomats hostage for 444 days. He was definitely NOT afraid of us even after the beating he got after the first gulf war."

Okay, Wolf, so why didn't Saddam throw everything he had at us when we invaded? Why didn't he go down fighting in a blaze of glory, surrounded by what was left of his fanatical Revolutionary Guard? He may have been a megalomaniac, but he wasn't stupid and he wasn't that crazy, and he didn't seize our embassy or hold American hostages when it became clear that Little Bush was going to start a war with him. In fact, he offered through a back channel to leave the country and let America take it over before the invasion, but Junior turned him down. BTW, Saddam only invaded Kuwait in 1991 after April Glaspie, our ambassador to Iraq under Bush Senior, assured him the US would not get involved in any Arab-to-Arab conflicts. (She testified to this before Congress.) In other words, in a sense, Saddam had our tacit permission to invade Kuwait. I bet you didn't know that, did you?

You wrote: "Saddam was according to the terms of the treaty ending the first gulf war was to use his helicopters for humanitarian reasons, as Gen. Schwarzkopf states in his book, Saddam double crossed us and we did not have the UN authority to shoot the helicopters down and assist the Shia and Kurds."

Your trust in every word Gen. Schwarzkopf put in his self-serving book is endearing, but hardly accurate. Saddam was not supposed to use his choppers at all outside of the No-Fly Zone we had established following the end of the first Gulf War and he asked the US for permission to go in and quell the Kurd uprising. If you recall, Poppy Bush had encouraged the Kurds to rebel, and promised them their freedom and national autonomy after the end of the war. He reneged on that promise, and then went on to give his blessing to the massacre of the Kurds at the hands of Saddam. The real double-cross here was on the part of Bush the Elder.

You wrote: "As far as your analogy to Northern Ireland, get real, the English were facing a small shadowy band of extremist not a nation with the ability to due us some great harm, unless you have forgotten WMDs are the poor mans nuclear bomb. It is estimated that only 50 liters of weapons grade anthrax dumped in our postal system will destroy our economy, THINK about it."

If you qualify the majority of the population of Southern Ireland as a 'small shadowy band of extremists,' then you're right. But the Irish nationalists did do great harm to England during 'the troubles.'

On your second point, when, except in the case of our former ally Saddam we've been talking about, has any poor nation used WMD against anyone? Iran, North Korea -- none of the poor nations on Bush's 'Axis of Evil' list have used biological or chemical weapons on their enemies. BTW, I did think about it and I remembered those letters tainted with anthrax that were mailed to a few Dem politicians and some reporters just after 9/11 -- one of the reporters died. The anthrax was traced to a US government lab in Maryland, but no one has been prosecuted or convicted of the crime yet. Seems we should be more worried about our own anthrax going missing than some foreigner using it.

staying_sane_in_an_insane_world May 30th, 2008 10:54 am

I am well aware that the US sold weapons to Saddam. Actually the US put Saddam in power. At the time the current leader of Iraq was decidedly pro Russian. If you are old enough to remember there was this thing called the cold war going on, the west (free) against Russia and China (communist dictatorships), now you might have liked to live in a communist dictatorship but hundreds of millions of other people did not. Saddam and the Shah of Iran were at the time good bulwarks against communist influence in the Persian Gulf (Yes we wanted to protect the flow of oil). The shah was overthrown by religious fundamentalists (with the help of Jimmy Carter), they were anti US and anti western but we didn't know at the time how they felt about the Russians. Saddam was leaning toward the Russians and it appeared Russia might gain control of the Persian Gulf. Then Saddam started the war with Iran. We armed Iraq hoping Saddam would be more friendly to the west, we even armed the Iranians, it was at the time in our national interests to keep the war going as long as possible. Why? Because it was felt the population of either or both would get tired of the war and have a popular uprising against Saddam (who at this time was undoubtedly a homicidal megalomaniac) and against the religious dictators in Iran. Anyone it was thought would be better than those currently in power. One must not forget that Russia also supplied Saddam with weapons and unconfirmed reports from Iran (it's hard to get confirmed reports from there) indicate the weapons grade anthrax dumped on the Iranian soldiers besieging Basra came from a Russian lab in the Ukraine. Anthrax can be traced back to a specific lab. The russians also helped "chemical Ali" build Iraqi WMD labs.
Unquestionably and with out a doubt Saddam had NO links to 9/11, why the left continuously brings this red herring up is only to perpetuate their myth. The only Al Qaida links Saddam had was a small group in northern Iraq (with dubious ties to Al Qaida) that Saddam used to give the Iranians a hard time. AS far as this myth some of you are propagating that Saddam would never hurt Americans because he was afraid of us is absurd. He was a megalomaniac, he saw what we did when Iran invaded our embassy and held our diplomats hostage for 444 days. He was definitely NOT afraid of us even after the beating he got after the first gulf war. Saddam was according to the terms of the treaty ending the first gulf war was to use his helicopters for humanitarian reasons, as Gen. Schwarzkopf states in his book, Saddam double crossed us and we did not have the UN authority to shoot the helicopters down and assist the Shia and Kurds. WE in noway shape or form gave Saddam the OK to put down the Shia or Kurd uprising, the CIA, State Department and the White House hoped the uprisings would topple Saddam.
As far as your analogy to Northern Ireland, get real, the English were facing a small shadowy band of extremist not a nation with the ability to due us some great harm, unless you have forgotten WMDs are the poor mans nuclear bomb. It is estimated that only 50 liters of weapons grade anthrax dumped in our postal system will destroy our economy, THINK about it.

Just read RSJ's comment in response to Wolf123. No time to review the whole debate, but it looks like Wolf123 thinks America did not arm Saddam, is innocent in the whole affair.

RSJ is right, he was armed by the White House, using covert methods. America even sold Saddam Russian weapons, obviously in order that America would not be blamed when or if they were subsequently used.

I recommend you read: "Spider's Web (The secret history of how the White House illegally armed Iraq") by Alan Friedman - at the time, a London Financial Times correspondent. The London Financial Times is a world-renowned Financial newspaper.

It covers a court case involving a US branch of an Italian bank, BNL, which the CIA knew was being used to funnel money to Saddam to help build his war machine. US companies, with assistance from the CIA and BNL loans, sold Saddam high-tech equipment, including missile technology. Iraq was not precedent setting. In the 1970s, testing equipment for missile systems had been sold illegally to another country, South Africa. From the book: "As one customs agent put it, the CIA 'let all that shit go and did nothing to stop it'" (page 63).

The White House also used Carlos Cardoen, a Chilean manufacturer of cluster bombs, as a middleman to supply Saddam with weapons.

Read the book, there's a lot more in it. BNL court case documents and declassified government documents are published at the back.

The book was published in 1993, so check Amazon for a second hand copy, or, failing that, try www.abebooks.com

Also enter "Alan Friedman" in the search box on www.democracynow.org

The only "terrorists" Saddam had any links to were those tied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Saddam had no reason to be involved in 9/11, no reason to attack America, and there is plenty of direct and circumstantial evidence to show that he was not involved.

Groups like Al Qaida are untrustworthy, and Saddam was secular, and was not that stupid to put his own regime at risk for the likes a few individuals with their own agendas.

It shows the morality of some people in America when they think it's acceptable to destroy another country and kill hundreds of thousands just because someone in another country might, someday, don't know when, maybe never, not quite sure, attack Americans.

The British were regularly subjected to IRA bombings, many were killed, but no one ever suggested bombing the hell out of Northern Ireland.

Some Americans are sadly extremist.

A generation of Iraqi kids, for the first time, hate Americans.

wolf123 [May 29th, 2008 11:27 pm], first of all, Saddam received permission from Bush's White House to use his helicopters to keep down the Kurd uprising in the north.

Secondly, this Van Anraat character was just a middle man -- are you naive enough to think that the US would ship chemical weapons to Saddam's Iraq directly, in violation of international law? (Not in those days.) As in Reagan's Iran/Contra deal, where the Israelis actually shipped arms and spare parts to the Iranians, Saddam's WMD was shipped through a series of buffers. This sentence in your story gives it away:

"Prosecutors said Van Anraat shipped at least 1,100 tons of chemicals to Iraq, using a roundabout route that was meant to conceal the destination."

That roundabout route was also meant to conceal the origination. How many countries in the world do you think make this stuff? It's indisputable that the US provided Saddam with chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq conflict, when he was still our 'friend.'

Your answeer to my question was insufficient and illogical: Why would Saddam Hussein want to kill Americans? He knew if he did our reprisal would be devastating and he would be committing suicide. Since he showed no tendencies toward hari kiri before, what reason would he have had to do it then? He certainly wouldn't be preventing sanctions if he were dead. Also, Saddam destroyed the WMD himself after the first Gulf War. Read "The Defector's Secrets" in my post of May 29th, 2008 7:12 pm.

RSJ May 29th, 2008 7:12 pm

"BTW, the massacre of the Kurds was done with the blessing of Bush the Elder's White House, and we provided the poison."

Joseph Goebbels would be proud of you, repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

Actually HERE is the truth:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article782298.ece

"A Dutch merchant was today imprisoned for 15 years for selling Saddam Hussein's regime the materials used in the lethal gas attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja in the 1980s.
Frans van Anraat, 63, was not in the courtroom when the judges found him guilty of war crimes, in the first court case anywhere concerning the killing of thousands of Iraqi Kurds with chemical weapons."
"Prosecutors said Van Anraat shipped at least 1,100 tons of chemicals to Iraq, using a roundabout route that was meant to conceal the destination."

I am quite sure Frans van Anraat in order to stay out of jail for 15 years (at 63, that's probably life in prison) if true would have had NO problem at all pointing the finger at the U.S. and Bush the Elder.

Saddam had more than a few good reasons to kill Americans, we were in the lead to impose sanctions on him and keep them there because of his WMD program. After the first gulf war UN inspectors found tons of chemical and biological weapons, much of which they destroyed before Saddam tossed them out of his country.

Ephraim [May 28th, 2008 7:01 pm], I agree, but I'd go with Lenny Bruce's hot lead enema. You might call it 'Hotterboarding.'

AD [May 28th, 2008 7:09 pm], ironically, that's probably what a President Obama may have to do to restore the primacy of the Constitution, depending on how many Republicans and Dixiecrat Dems are left in Congress after the next election. (That whirring sound you hear is Thomas Jefferson spinning in his grave.)

tobiasaurusrex [May 28th, 2008 7:25 pm], you're right and it's a shame that the legal 'privileges' extended to Bush and his cronies don't hold water for us lesser mortals. People who have been arrested for legally growing medical marijuana in California -- they even had licenses from the state -- tried to use the "my attorneys and the state of California informed me that this was legal" defense in federal court, only to be told by the judges that it didn't matter-- they were still in violation of federal statutes that superseded state law. BushCo is in violation of international treaties passed by Congress and signed into law by the president -- it doesn't matter what David Addington and John Yoo think, or how Michael Mukasey interprets the law, the treaties and their interpretation by established international bodies overrule their opinions. (BTW, most of the CA medical marijuana folks eventually got off or paid a small fine, but they were put out of business.)

scott0535 [May 28th, 2008 9:09 pm], thank you for your service in the classroom which, at the moment, is of more future importance to the country than the military. From my perspective out here in Fly-Over Country, things are rapidly changing -- I was just at a social function in a very Red Republican county and the people there who had voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 are now disgusted with him and lividly angry at the current version of the GOP. McCain also wasn't ringing any bells with most of them. These are the white 'Security Mom' types the GOP needs to get elected in 2008 -- while I heard a few nice things about Obama, I heard nothing good about any GOP candidate. On any important issue you can name, they perceive the Republicans to have failed them miserably, from the economy to national security to the Iraq occupation -- in a county where Bush won by something like 65 percent in 2004. Although you won't catch these middle-aged, middle-class Baby Boomers demonstrating in the streets, they are plenty angry and they'll show it next November. As John Dryden said, "Beware the fury of the patient man (and woman)." These people have been patient with the Republicans and got burned, and I don't see any way for McCain to win without white suburbanites.

La Boca [May 28th, 2008 10:37 pm], I don't have a better idea, but I'm working that day. Good luck.

Turce [May 29th, 2008 2:15 am ], good for you and VFP -- we need more of that kind of activsim. I feel sure that once BushCo is out of office, it will be harder for them to avoid warrants. The times they are a-changin' and the Bush neocons are going to be hated and hunted in the future. It will be interesting to see if Bush issues a blanket pardon for himself and Cheney, et al, on his last day in office, and if a new Congress let's him get away with it.

scroller [May 29th, 2008 5:26 am], thanks for that revealing info. Yep, Bolton always loathed the UN, but he obviously doesn't feel the same about rank hypocrisy.

Har Davids [May 29th, 2008 5:55 am], former weapons inspector and US Marine Scott Ritter and others said there were no WMD in Iraq -- Saddam had destroyed them after the first Gulf War to prevent Poppy Bush from using that as a pretext to depose him. In fact, this information appeared in an article by John Barry in Newsweek, March of 2003, confirmed by the Iraqi general, Hussein Kamel, who was in charge of Saddam's WMD program. Kamel defected from Iraq and turned himself over to the CIA where he revealed the destruction of Iraq's entire supply of WMD in 1992. Kamel was sent back to Iraq where Saddam executed him. Bush and Cheney knew very well -- from the CIA itself -- that Saddam had no WMD when they invaded, as the later declassified 2002 NIE stated. Here's a quote from the Newsweek piece:

"Hussein Kamel, the highest-ranking Iraqi official ever to defect from Saddam Hussein's inner circle, told CIA and British intelligence officers and U.N. inspectors in the summer of 1995 that after the gulf war, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them."
-- Read the rest of "The Defector's Secrets" here:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0226-01.htm

wolf123 [May 29th, 2008 3:49 pm], you failed to provide a single reason why Saddam Hussein would want to kill Americans -- he knew if he did that our reprisal would be fatal to him and his regime and Hussein was nothing if not a powermonger who desired to stay in power. He slyly wanted to intimidate his enemies, such as Iran, from attacking him, so floating the story that he had or could develop WMD helped keep them at bay. BTW, the massacre of the Kurds was done with the blessing of Bush the Elder's White House, and we provided the poison.

I suggest we all join the Sharpie Revolution. Get the newest dollar or 5 dollar bill you can find, and write "LIAR BUSH MURDERS FOR OIL" on it, with a Sharpie magic marker. Then slip 3 to 5 of these into circulation EVERY DAY. Only by publicly acknowledging that we are aware or Bush and Cheny's murderous treachery will any change happen. It is a small but powerful act. I have had the pleasure of seeing several of these marked bills show up in circulation.

I notice that absolutely no one posting here remembered that Saddam gassed and killed over 5,000 Kurds. Used gas and biological weapons on the Iranians trying to take Basra, tens of thousands died and now over 30,000 are still trying to recuperate in Iranian hospitals. The war with Iran cost both sides (military and civilian) millions of casualties and billions of dollars in damage. I personally was not in-favor of the war but unquestionably if the US did not invade 6 to 9 months later France and Russia would have had the sanctions against Saddam lifted. No WMDs have been found but the UN inspectors that toured Iraq after the invasion stated Saddam had his labs and scientists ready to start up once the sanctions were lifted. Being hard up for some fast hard cash to make his people happy I would not put it past Saddam to sell weapons grade anthrax to a terrorist organization. The fact that Saddam was not a religious fundamentalist and the terrorist are religious fundamentalist and the idea that they would not work together is pure B.S. It would be a hoot if the US did not invade and 2 or 3 years later you all got a letter in the mail and when you opened it a single sheet of paper said " allah akbar, you have just been poisoned to death with weapons grade anthrax infidel."

Glad the attempt was made to make a citizens arrest of Bolton. Many of us . . . probably several million or more - wish a member of Congress would be so courageous of doing the same to those at the top before they cause another death and destroy another country ILLEGALLY . . .
even if it is only symbolic!

Yeah, you are seeing fewer and fewer public appearances (in public places) by many in the bush regime. I'm sure this is because they can't keep protestors away, even with an army of tasers. Imagine cheney or rice giving a speech on a Seattle street corner. Hold on a second, I'm trying to imagine that...

Things like this - although sometimes seemingly meaningless - need to continue en masse in order for anything to ever even begin to change.

http://www.ryanhartman.wordpress.com

"Mr Monbiot had asked Mr Bolton what difference there was between him and a Nazi war criminal."

"Mr Bolton said the war was legal..."

-

The Nazis not only invaded; they also LOOTED other countries. It's not merely about the invasion! It's also about the looting. Under Paul Bremer (whose 100 orders still stand), unions were banned in the state sector in Iraq, and remain banned. Iraqi oil unions have had their assets frozen, and are being denied any say or influence over the exploitation of Iraq's oil resources. In 2003/2004 oil workers threatened to join the insurgency if their paltry wages weren't increased. America capitulated, increasing their salaries from $40 a MONTH to $60 a MONTH.

Paul Bremer tried to privatize and sell off - at fire sale prices! - many of Iraq's state enterprises and assets. He removed all tariffs and quotas, flooding the country with cheap imports, putting many Iraqi businesses out of business. US firms refuse to hire Iraqis and, where possible, buy from Iraqi companies, and have no obligation to do so. Instead, they are bringing in cheap labor from "Third World" and "developing" countries, and sourcing everything from abroad. Iraqis are deliberately being denied work.

Paul Bremer also imposed a flat rate tax of just 15% on corporations and the wealthy in Iraq, and foreign corporations have no obligation to re-invest any of their profits in Iraq.

Poverty destroys lives, it's as destructive as any war. There are now many Iraqi children selling their bodies to survive, both within Iraq, and those forced to flee to neighboring countries.

I won't go on, but this is not merely Nazism vis-a-vis aggression, it's Nazism vis-a-vis ransacking another nation.

I look forward to the day when not one of the Bush administration criminals can go anywhere in the world without threat of arrest and prosecution for war crimes -- unless they are prosecuted here in the U.S. first, which I will not hold my breath for. I believe Vermont just voted in-State to arrest Dick Cheney if he ever (unlikely) sets foot in Vermont. Way to go Vermont!!

It's no use trying to make sense of an administration that, by the admission of one its own minions, creates its own reality.

Don't we have special places for people who create their own reality?

I know a little about the whys and wherefores of citizen's arrest in the U.S. The law varies from state to state. Some states do not provide for citizen's arrest at all, and those that do allow a citizen's arrest require that it be made with the culprit in the act of committing the crime; the arrest is not to be made months or years afterward.

That is American law. As for the provisions of the English law referenced in this article, I am persuaded by the statement of festival director Peter Florence that legal advice was sought and that the citizen's arrest would be inapplicable.

I agree with a few others that this attempt to arrest Bolton can only be regarded as a stunt, and a rather stupid one too. I find it a little troublesome, however, that Monbiot seems to take his attempted arrest of Bolton seriously. This was an ill thought out plan that only makes progressives look like idiots.

Some of the comments here in defense of the attempted arrest also make progressives look like idiots. Do you really think that you are experts on English law? Do you even know that the Hay Festival is held in Wales, or do you think Monbiot is a farmer in Kansas? Idiots!

I'm sure that the Hitler administration of the 30's, just like the Bush administration of this day, thought itself legal; after all, they said so themselves. And mr. Bolton lied again, the Iraqis were trying to comply, the UN-teams were trying to do their job, but the Americans didn't want it that way and told Hans Blix and his people to get out of the way. The rest is history, until mr. Bolton and his ilk have rewritten it.

As to the citizen's arrest; that shouldn't even be necessarry in a civilized world. If it were, the whole Bush kabal would have been arrested by now by Americans, or they would have been arrested the moment they set foot on foreign soil.

John "there is no United Nations" Bolton's newfound respect for the sanctity of UN resolutions is commendable. In this particular case however, Bolton is contradicting Bolton, who in 2002 urged the US to go to war with Iraq WHETHER OR NOT Iraq complied with 1992 UN resolutions. Kofi Annan, secretery-general of the United Nations, said the war was illegal, but what would he know? But back to Bolton. From "The Observer", Sunday Aug. 4, 2002:

---- START EXCERPT -----

President George W. Bush will announce within weeks that he intends to depose Iraq's ruler, Saddam Hussein, by force, setting the stage for a war in the Gulf this winter.
Amid signs of active preparations for a war within six months, senior officials on both sides of the Atlantic have said that war against Iraq is now inevitable.

'The expectation is that President Bush will make a final decision on the timing of a war over the course of August. That would be followed by British-led efforts to get a mandate for action at the UN, either under existing resolutions or a new UN resolution,' said one senior source.

The disclosure came as US Secretary of State Colin Powell dismissed an offer by Iraq to talk to the chief weapons inspector of the United Nations. 'Inspection is not the issue, disarmament is, making sure that the Iraqis have no weapons of mass destruction,' said Powell during a visit to Manila, capital of the Philippines.

'We have seen the Iraqis try to fiddle with the inspection system before,' said Powell. 'You can tell that they are trying to get out of the clear requirement that they have. The goal is not inspections for inspection's sake.'

The escalation of US military efforts comes amid signs of the first serious split between the White House and Britain over the relentless march to war.

That split emerged yesterday after John Bolton, US Under Secretary for Arms Control, admitted that the aim in Washington was to topple Saddam regardless of whether or not he allowed UN inspectors back in to complete the disarmament process.

'Let there be no mistake - while we also insist on the reintroduction of the weapons inspectors, our policy at the same time insists on regime change in Baghdad and that policy will not be altered, whether inspectors go in or not,' Bolton told Radio 4's Today programme. He said he 'certainly hoped' Saddam would be deposed within the year.

His words set alarm bells ringing in London, since the legality of any attack on Iraq - already questioned by the Government's own lawyers - depends on claiming to be acting against infringements of the post-Gulf War disarmament pact rather than simply overthrowing a dictator. Foreign Office sources were quick to dissociate the Foreign Secretary from Bolton's comments.

--- END EXCERPT ----

And in something that might be subtitled "From the Twilight Zone", Bolton's claim that the "entire legal apparatus of the US government" (is that like Nixon's lawyers in the White House who ended up in prison?) thought the Iraq war was legal (incidentally, what, exactly, is the reference on that?) was not the view of the influential Richard Perle, who was until 2003 chair of the Defense Policy Board advising Defense Secretery Rumsfeld. From the Guardian, Nov 20, 2003:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1

--- START EXCERPT ---

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

---- END EXCERPT ---

On Jan. 9, 2003 Bolton gave a press briefing and was asked what would justify america starting a war with iraq. Bolton cited a UN resolution requiring Iraq to disclose its WMD. The only problem with that is Iraq did not have any, so Iraq could not disclose what it did not have. As Bolton's answer to Monbiot makes clear, Bolton continues to claim Iraq's failure to disclose WMD was just cause for war, irrespective of whether any WMD existed to be disclosed. Makes perfect sense!
http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/16631.htm

--- START EXCERPT ---

QUESTION: On Iraq. The arms inspectors have not found any specific weapons of mass destruction that you've been outlining so far. What would be the justification for the U.S. Government to go to war with Korea, if indeed it does.

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: To go to war?

QUESTION: To go to a military action against Iraq.

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: Iraq's obligation under the Security Council resolutions is to demonstrate that it no longer has weapons of mass destruction. In other words, the burden is on Iraq. And the requirement is on Iraq to be free of weapons of mass destruction. It was obligated under Resolution 1441 to make a declaration of the weapons of mass destruction, the production facilities, the dual-use items that it has and it failed to do so . . .

---- END EXCERPT ----

Here's a little story from 2005:

"Former Green Beret Commander Bo Gritz is trying to conduct a citizen's arrest of Terri Schiavo's husband and the judge who ordered the brain-damaged Florida woman's feeding tube removed so she can be legally starved."

It's fun when Monbiot tries to arrest Bolton, but how much fun will it be when Bo Gritz arrests Obama because he plans to "negotiate with terrorists?"

It's also worth noticing that the left-wing vigilante is a poofy old parliamentarian, and the right-wing vigilante is a former Green Beret.

The left-wing is very likely to lose, if we all start playing the game of "citizen's arrest."

I'm with purvis ames.
An invasion of Israel is long overdue.

Actually in April VFP served arrest warrants for bush/cheney but a SWAT team kept us at bay.

how do you handcuff an asshole?

What an asinine story! Bolton is a war criminal like the rest of the Bush regime - but the idea of a brave little goof-ball in a "mask" chasing after some public official, popular or hated, to make a "citizens arrest" is just stupid. It's so stupid that anyone with any common sense would arrest him instead of Bolton. But they just detained him - how kind. No person of authority will arrest Bolton or any of the others until the US Government takes some kind of action. When the biggest bully on the planet is still the VP of the most powerful nation, who's going to start making arrests? You can't arrest presidents, vice presidents, cabinet secretaries and members of congress. If you attempt to do so, the secret service will arrest you. Demand impeachment starting with Dick.

Chaps, let's try this at home! Citizens' arrests are possible here in the land of the formerly free too.

Anyone paying big bucks for entry into the next Bush fund-raiser for McCain can arrest these clowns. Come to think of it, why doesn't the FBI or Secret Service arrest these war criminals that they protect (from us)?

Al Qaeda never killed as many people as George Bush and his cronies - a numerical fact. Bush attacked a country without provocation, murdering tens of thousands, an international war crime.

If the Congress and police authorities here in the United States won't carry out the law, won't protect the Constitution, it jolly well becomes our civic duty. Doesn't it? Is there anybody wiretapping this message? If so, you need to heed it.

If George Monbiot had chosen to follow the example of the US government, he would have just walked straight up to Bolton and shot the bastard while chanting. "W M D W M D".
Perhaps that was what Bolton was actually expecting?

That is interesting.

"Why is Bolton still living in the UK and what in the hell is he doing there?"

Thats where his bosses live.

From Cecil Rhodes' will of 1877. His aims, he wrote, were:

"The extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom and of colonization by British subjects of all lands wherein the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour, and enterprise,the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of a British Empire, the consolidation of the whole Empire, ...."

The British Empire lives on, operating within the shadows, controlling finance, oil and our military machine . The elite's allegiance is to the Queen. America is a crypto British Commonwealth nation, and has been to an increasing degree since 1913 when we allowed the British controlled financiers to control our money via the Fed. FDR thought America should be the leader of the World Empire, and so his death may not have been as innocent as it looks. Truman of course was a British puppet, and our atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, partly as punishment for their destruction of British colonialism in Asia. Our British masters were likely pleased.

Our perceived leaders today, agents of the worlds empire, get knighted by the Queen when they do well, this is no secret. We no longer have a government loyal to American sovereignty. Advancing Globalization is their core mission, even if it is not in Americas interests.

Today we may be seeing among the Anglo-American elite, a battle between the Rothschild/Shultz neocon psychopathic neo-malthusian Straussian Fascists and the Windsor/Gore-Monbiot mother earth malthusian worshipping psychopathic Communists. Both believers in One World Government and Totalitarian rule with a different roadmap and timeline to get there. Obama represents one side, McCain the other.

Maybe we will get lucky and they will destroy themselves fighting each other, which is doubtful. We are of course caught in the middle of the battle which began in 2000 with the theft of the election that gave us 9/11 and the next 7 years of disaster.

On the war's legality, he added: "This is not my personal opinion, this is the opinion of the entire legal apparatus of the US government."

Exactly.

And the entire legal apparatus of the German government had the opinion that invading it's neighbors was a necessary and legal defense against the spread of Communism and anti-German empires.

If you are going to make a citizen's arrest on a war criminal or other government dork, you quietly check to see what the procedure is, and get whatever paperwork is required. Then, you quietly lay for the guy and as he walks past, you serve him and arrest him. End of story.

You do not go to the papers and television and announce your intention a day or so previously, then stand in a conspicuous place so you can be detained.

Either Mr. Benoit's IQ is smaller than his hat size, or this was just a publicity stunt.

What is needed to get any of these clowns is a reenactment of the scene where the villagers storm Frankenstein's castle to get the monster. Fat chance.

Bush, Cheney, Bolton, Rumsfeld, Gates, Rice, Powell, Blair, and others of their ilk all deserve to rot in a prison cell.

Handcuffs I say ! As many as are necessary to bring us back from the point of no return and put these criminals into the basement (I heard there is a room down under the House or the Senate). Pack them in there, bring them to trial. Don't do unto them as they would do unto others exactly(we're better than that) but gees lets get ourselves back on track. Don't ask me what track exactly because I've been studying our history. let's say back a ways when we had some hope of being considered the good guys.

The UN did not authorize the US invasion of Iraq. Bolton and the gang are war criminals.

Ok, here's the deal.

On the FOURTH OF JULY the first million go to the ranch in Texas, the second million go to D.C. as close to the steps as can be. We will serve the "citizen's arrest" warrent at noon. BE THERE.

That is all. Thank you.

P.S. Got a better idea?

......way to step-up Mr. Monbiot....quite impressive, indeed!!....ha ha...how classic is that...Bolton narrowly escapes being brought to justice by an ordinary, everyday citizen at some obscure, outdoor festival...that's great! Hopefully the news of today's events will permeate around the Bushite-circles and put all the other present day Neo-con criminals on notice that if they even dare think about venturing out into the 'real-world' (outside their comfy, insulated power-elite enclaves)....that they, too might be served by a true patriot and be brought to justice for any and all of their evil, maniacal misdeeds executed in the name of their greedy, power-mongering ambitions and selfish interests. But of course, these power-brokers probably aren't too scared in this regard when they see the likes of Kissenger and James Baker still held unaccountable for all their enacted illegal crimes and atrocities.....but still, one can only hope that one day, one of these goons will be held to account by the very everyday citizens they have betrayed....Praises to Monbiot!!!

AD writes "An independent judiciary would be our safeguard, but we haven't had one to any real degree in the last few years, and it's not likely we will in the next 20 years."

I can appreciate the thought, but the fact is that, in the US (if thats the place you are referring to), the judiciary has
NEVER stood up to the executive on foreign policy. The Supreme Court has had various opportunities to consider cases in which the President might be found guilty of waging an illegal war, e.g., this happened in the case of Vietnam. They choose not to look at those cases.

Frankly I would be surprised if there is any case in the history of the world where the judiciary declared the executive's foreign policy to be criminal.

Of course, the fact that something has never happened before does not mean it can't happen in the future, or that we should stop trying to make it happen. It just sounds like a long shot, even under the best of circumstances. Suppose Cheney makes an accidental stop in Spain, or Vermont, and is detained and charged. The US would simply threaten Spain (or Vermont) with nuclear annihilation and that would be the end of it.

I hope someday all of BushCo will have to hang within a small Neocon "safe zone" near Crawford Ranch, or risk arrest by the people's actual police departments, and prosecution according to law in the people's courts.

Yeah, that's the ticket, not House Arrest, Ranch Arrest!

decrepittex May 28th, 2008 7:42 pm..... I go along with your second explanation. One cannot change the nature of a populace that has been conditioned and de-educated for over two hundred years...at least not over night. As far as the first one goes, if you are worried about your job and how expensive gas is as opposed to fighting for the few freedoms we have left, an end to this war that is slaughtering men, women and children and an end to the Federal Reserve System that through a debt based currency system has been stealing your money and your descendents future earnings....well, THEIR STRATEGY has worked superbly!

ultimately 'our' (humanity's) safeguard could rest in the hands of the ICC in the hague. if the dissolution of yugoslavia entailed ethnic cleansing and 'crimes' against humanity, then what exactly has been occurring in iraq?

crimes against humanity are not nullified as time goes by. in the near future, after the neo cons have lost power (and credibility - assuming mccain isn't the next pres), the international community will pronounce judgment upon the guilty.. it's just a matter of time...

curmudgeon99 May 28th, 2008 5:06 pm - exactly.

'Bolton bolts - and I hope this becomes 'must do' behavior for him abroad. .
It's just a matter of time!'

bolten and others - just a matter of time...
---------------------------------------------

very encouraging news, thank you mr monboit.

"A citizen's arrest can be carried out under certain circumstances by a member of the public, if they believe a person had carried out a crime, under the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005."

these thugs (bushco) are going to have a problem traveling abroad. when a leftist coalition comes to power in any of a handful of european countries, the police will no longer be intervening (perhaps w/ a legislative mandate that identifies the criminals and their staffs) on behalf of globalcorp. and it will be too irresistible for MSM in america, one detention (rumsfeld, cheney, gonzalez, powell, Wolfie, pearl) could snowball quickly and persuade american citizens to try the bastards here in USA.

war criminals deserve Nuremberg trials..

...peace...

More on Bolton:

On April 9, 2008, during a phone call to Mordechai Vanunu, I asked him if he it were true [as reported to me by reliable sources] that just prior to his release from 18 years in an Israeli jail in 2004, John Bolton then Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security for the George W. Bush Administration traveled to Israel to demand they not allow Vanunu to leave Israel because it would embarrass this Administration that was hunting for WMD's in Iraq while ignoring them in Israel.

Vanunu replied that he had heard the very same thing but couldn't prove it.

Vanunu has offered much more in his video messages taped in 2005, 2006 and 2008 which are freely streaming on WAWA under VANUNU ARCHIVES:

http://www.wearewideawake.org/

"decrepittex May 28th, 2008 7:42 pm
willybill, mostly because we're working two jobs so we can
pay for gas to go to the jobs. Also because most Americans
don't give a shit unless it effects them personally."

That's what I tell my students. I'm an American History teacher and I compare public opinion now compared to the Vietnam War. Why aren't people protesting this war like they did in Vietnam? Polls show it's equally unpopular. Because unless we American's are uncomfortable in our lives, no one cares...unfortunately. However, eventually, with our corporate candidates to pick from, I feel it will get to that point eventually...

'Mr Bolton said the war was legal, partly because Iraq had failed to comply with a key and binding UN resolution after the end of the Gulf War in 1991.'

The invasion of Iraq NEVER had UN sanction,and so was illegal. Or have people forgotten the efforts made by the patsy Colin Powell? These failed to win UN support. But lying is what Bolton is accustomed to doing.

Hey decrepittex,

It took you about two sentences to write a total contradiction!!!

"willybill, mostly because we're working two jobs so we can
pay for gas to go to the jobs. Also because most Americans
don't give a shit unless it (sic) effects them personally."

Doesn't the fact that you're forced to work two jobs so that you can pay for gas to go to the jobs affect you personally?

PM

It was the opinion of the entire legal apparatus of Nazi Germany that gassing Jews was lawful and necessary. Bolton must be taken into custody , the security guards at the Hay festival must be prosecuted as war criminal accessories after the fact. Don't let these scumbags slide.

It's just a huge Israeli organized crime syndicate. Study how crime bosses Meyer Lansky and Hyman Lerner ran their U.S. operations in the 1950s and you'll understand how it's now international and being run out of Israel. There are no nation-states anymore. There are only geographical areas with specific conditions and bodies of laws to be subverted in the interests of criminal enterprise. Who are the major stockholders of the largest multinational corporations? These same criminals. Henry Kissinger should have had his testicles stuffed down his throat years ago. Instead, he's attending lavish private parties and "consulting."

come on, your eyes light up when you hear that someone in england attempts what you have sworn to do to the obvious war criminals that live in your country and can be approached on a daily basis, tough talk no action by americans, maybe i should put my faith in pelosie, you are destroying the world and you are relying on a guy at a book festival in south west england to bring people to justice. sounds very proactive!!!!!

Hey, guys and gals, how come a British journalist has to show you what to do? It's a bit humiliating, isn't it?

300 million Yanks making citizens arrests of all the Bushamorons would surely slow George down, wouldn't it? Once they're all put away, 300 million Yanks could then sit down and, after fixing their political system, turn their country into a real symbol of peace, a real beacon on the hill.

Now that would be a Manifest Destiny worth having!

www.dangerouscreation.com

willybill, mostly because we're working two jobs so we can
pay for gas to go to the jobs. Also because most Americans
don't give a shit unless it effects them personally.

argus t, you absolutely got that right!

tobiasaurusrex May 28th, 2008 7:25 pm ...91,000 is the actual body count according to this.....http://www.iraqbodycount.org/, but the more likely figure is over 1,000,000 acccording to this......http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78. ...and it's all on the head of this murdering, genocidal administration! Why are we all not in the streets?

We must never forget the Golden Rule.

"Those that have the gold make the rules"

It's not the opinion of the entire US legal system that the war is legal, just the cronies put in place by Bush, to obfuscate and block the efforts for hearings under oath. You know, the ones who say we don't "torture". By legal, Bolton means only that they've gotten away with high crimes agains humanity, so far.

A big, warm thank you for the efforts of Congressman Wexler, Ralph Nader, and Mr. Vincent Bugliosi, (a quick list, there are many others, globally, who speak with reason, too) for publicly demanding accountability, through US law, for the acts of TREASON committed to bring this war about.

If Bolton were under oath, he'd have perjured himself with his Hay response. As Monbiot addresses, Bolton is a PNAC-NWO Nazi, a liar (no surprise there), and an accessory to murder: even leaving out 9/11, there are the rough minimum of 100,000 Iraqis and 4,000 US servicemen killed for private interest profits, and the enslavement of other sovereignties.

Some even say an independent judiciary was a hope in Germany until the Nazis turned it into an organ for carrying its warped agenda by allowing to stand laws that were clearly against even Germany's legal tradition.

An independent judiciary would be our safeguard, but we haven't had one to any real degree in the last few years, and it's not likely we will in the next 20 years. We progressives will therefore have to use the "lovely" doctrine of a unitary executive if Barak Obama gets to the White House to get some justice. Maybe we should just have him rule by decree until we can impeach most of the phonies currently pretending to be real judges on the federal judiciary.

Those who live by the unitary executive doctrine should be allowed to perish by it.

Bolton needs a red hot poker up his fascist ass. Too bad Monbiot wasn't toting one.

Israel has rarely paid any attention at all to numerous U.N. resolutions. Perhaps Bolton thinks we should invade.

John Bolton's threadbare legal cover unfortunately implicates the lawyers rather than protects him. The arrests could start with all the government lawyers. No wonder there has been no impeachment. There is no shocking legal opinion of the US government that has not been paid for by large amounts of money. Those legal opinions of the US government were all hired and paid for by the GOP Nazi party. If they did not agree they were fired. Anyone slightly to the left of Genghis Khan in the higher legal echelons is purged or blocked. American Law is always equivalent to bought opinion, although maybe expressed in completely unintelligible language, bereft of context, reason and sense, apart from the money concerns behind it. The Law and Judiciary are no longer an independent power and bulwark for the US constitution, as if they ever were. United by class and money concerns John Bolton and his government lawyers stand loyally together in being a law unto themselves. An American lawyer and his thirty pieces of silver are not easily parted.

Hopefully, the actions of George Monbiot are the first of many directed at the lackeys from Dubya, Cheney, & Co.

Withdrawn Consent May 28th, 2008 5:05 pm

Everything Hitler did was legal.

True.

This brings to mind a meeting I was at a few nights ago to repeal the Real ID act here in Maine. At the beginning, one of the organizers spoke about watching similar things happen when she was a girl in Germany during the Nazi era. She pointed out the fact that everything the Nazis did was legal because the laws were there to back them up.

Little by little the Nazis here are writing the laws to enable them to do what the Nazis in Germany did.

Good on Mr. Monbiot. Hopefully his example will stir others to act.

Why is Bolton still living in the UK and what in the hell is he doing there?

Great effort, Monbiot! Keep vigilant, and keep writing the terrific articles and opinion pieces you do so well.

Would that not be obstruction of justice, by the guards blocking an arrest from taking place?

Guess it's ok though, because no matter how long it takes, or how it is carried out, Karma ALWAYS has the final say. And in extreme cases like the Bush criminals, she usually wields a rather large sledge!!

"Mr Bolton said the war was legal, partly because Iraq had failed to comply with a key and binding UN resolution after the end of the Gulf War in 1991."

Eh? Saddam fully complied with the U.N. but it was George W. Bush who purloined the documents on the way to the U.N. and, proclaiming them to be all lies, continued the obliteration of Iraq.
As I recall, it was the opinion of the U.N. Secretary General that Mr. Bush's war on Iraq was "illegal."
I'm sure that the ICC and the Hague will enjoy putting Mr. Bolton and the entire legal apparatus of the US government on trial for these war crimes of the New American Century.

"Mr Bolton said the war was legal, partly because Iraq had failed to comply with a key and binding UN resolution after the end of the Gulf War in 1991."

By golly, I betcha nations that have failed to abide by UN resolutions are now nervously awaiting the USA to turn its avenging power on them.

Just to make a correction here: Actually, the Bush Administration violated a UN resolution itself by invading Iraq without the approval of the UN Security Council, nor the majority of the nations represented in the UN, so Bolton, once again, is wrong.

And it's also true that lawyers for the Bush White House cannot justify this illegal incursion nor the torture of prisoners of war, no matter how they choose to define or spin it. After all, everything Hitler did was legal, according to German law as written by the Nazis.

jerflo13 [May 28th, 2008 5:44 pm], where were you stationed with the SS during WWII?

Nice attempt Monbiot, but why announce such action prior to carrying it out? They were ready and waiting. Would it not have been more effective to try to pull this off by surprise?

Yeah right, jerklo. Whadyado, suffer a head wound to make you so friggin' STUPID?

Unfortunatley Bolton was the only U N ambassadore with guts and one of the few True American Patriots left.
What has happened to the patriots of ww11 there are to few of us left

I suppose the odious Mr. Bolton has at least demonstrated the veracity of the adage "make Hay while the sun shines".

Definitely an "A" for effort. Anyone know where GWB is speaking next?

Way to go, Monbiot. Nice try.

Allan Nairn did something like this a while back. He served papers on some terrorist general we had supported in Central America, when the thug was speaking at Harvard.

More efforts like this are badly needed.

My friends, WE HAVE THE NUMBERS....IS IT FEAR THAT KEEPS US FROM ACTING?? Fear did not stop the Bolivians from regaining the right to rainwater. What's stopping us from regaining ALL of our rights? What's stopping US from ending this illegal war and this criminal administration? If it's FEAR, maybe we have no claim to those rights.

It was the legal opinion of the 'entire US government' (whatever the hell that means) that torture is legal too.

Good on ya Mr. Monbiot, it at least keeps these war criminals under pressure and possibly raises public awareness. But did we really expect agents of The State to allow the legal arrest of one of their own? The police are agents of oppression from the State, not looking out for 'we the people'.

"Mr. Bolton said the war [in Iraq] was legal, partly because Iraq had failed to comply with a key and binding UN resolution after the end of the Gulf War in 1991."

Well that is between the UN and Iraq Mr. Bolton, not the USA and Iraq. What business is it of the USA if ANY nation goes against any UN resolutions or policies? If the UN wanted to send forces into Iraq to enforce those resolutions that is fine. If the UN decided not to enforce those resolutions, that is fine too; but this decision by the UN one way or the other is none of the business of the USA Government.

What makes the Iraq fiasco perpetrated by the USA an international crime is the fact that the USA took the law into its own hands by invading Iraq when the USA was not authorized to do so by the UN. In fact, the UN told the USA to wait until the inspectors returned from Iraq to see what the reports were before acting like judge jury and executioner. The USA should have taken heed because this fiasco has cost the USA about 3 trillion dollars, not to mention a global headache. Of course, the USA will get away with this decision. The only punishment that I see for the USA invading Iraq is an economic recession. I guess that I will have to settle for this punishment, although I wish the punishment for the USA was more severe.

Thank the stars for true patriots like Mr. Benoit. We need to do just this enmasse so we can push the security guards out of the way & serve the people's warrants against ALL these criminals.

Bolton bolts - and I hope this becomes 'must do' behavior for him abroad. .

It's just a matter of time!

Everything Hitler did was legal.

"This is not my personal opinion, this is the opinion of the entire legal apparatus of the German government."

What was the difference again?

It figures!! The citizens arrest was about as successful as the war was. Besides, the little people are the ones that are always called to account for what they have done, while the guilty big shots get medals, promotions, and speeches.

It may be the opinion of the entire legal apparatus of the US government. That apparatus couldn't be further removed from the American People if it were on the moon.

Bolton is just one of the many criminals from the Bush Regime that must be brought to justice.

Keep it up Mr. Monbiot. Our apparatus is bigger that their apparatus.