VENEZUELA: Fake CIA protests don't count!

[Joanne98]

President Hugo Chavez is shutting down a RW CIA operation mistakenly called a "TV" station and not only does he have a perfect right to do that, it's his patriotic DUTY to do so. For six years this RW nest of snakes has been trying to overthrow a DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader. This so-called TV station helped the coup in 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%... and they have never stopped aiding covert US forces since then. He gave them plenty of warnings but they just kept up their SHIT! It is time for the FASCIST media to get it thru there head that everybody is getting sick and tired of their FAKE NEWS CHANNELS which are being used to overthrow governments by creating FAKE CIA protests. This tactic which started in 1953 when it was used against Iran, http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/152... has caused nothing but trouble for US credibility. In other words IT'S NOT WORKING ANYMORE! Hugo Chavez was legally elected and he has duty to protect his people from covert attacks by other countries. RCTV is a threat to Venezuela's national security. Personally I think just shutting it down was being WAY TO NICE! The "reporters" cough cough, should be THROWN IN PRISON FOR TREASON! This should be a message to all in the FAKE MEDIA and their counterpart organizations...http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reporters_Wi... http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_End... http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Internationa...
YOU ARE CRIMINALS and you are not getting away with this crap anymore.
If any "REAL" people are upset with the shutting down of the CIA front TV station it's only because they will miss their soaps. That can be fixed and I'm sure Chavez plans to do that. Hugo Chavez is doing a bang up job for his people. He's paid off their debt.http://venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2270 and for that alone he needs to be supported by all good people. All you SELFISH GREEDY RW CRIMINALS can go right to HELL! GOD BLESS HUGO CHAVEZ!

[Louis Cipher]

1. Viva Chavez!!!

[papau]

184. Viva Chavez back at you :-) - it is funny to watch the children of the rich protest along with the

employees of the rich protest - Fox is going nuts - I am enjoying today more than I expected to.

[gorbal]

266. Oh god yeah!

I saw this fox reporter freaking out, trying to make things seem much worse than they really were. And do they once mention how much larger the pro-Chavez demonstration is?

[Flatulo]

2. Chavez has the power to bypass the Legislature and has eliminated...

... limits on how many terms he can serve, effectively giving him unbridled dictatorial powers.

Would you be comfortable if Bush had taken these steps?

Are leftist dictatorships OK?

Do you trust ANYONE with unlimited power?

[Buzz Clik]

4. It's his patriotic duty to assume all the power and suppress opposition.

Can't you read?

[Flatulo]

7. Oh yeah, I missed that part...

I am simply AMAZED at the level of hypocrisy some people here exhibit. Amazed.

[Joanne98]

12. I didn't say that. I said the "opposition" is being funded by the US!

RCTV brought this on theirselves and they deserve everything they get.

[Buzz Clik]

15. And we disagree.

[pork medley]

198. and public property is theft

isnt that right

[Buzz Clik]

204. That doesn't even make sense.

[pork medley]

220. then why did you argue in another thread that chavez bringing

the venezuelan OIL INDUSTRY under state ownership was tantamount to "stealing" all that OIL

[Buzz Clik]

226. You're just trying to suck me into a meaningless argument.

I won't bite. "Public property" is a very broad term, and includes places like parks and the Capitol Building.

Purchasing or building property with public funds is not even similar to simply taking a fully developed industry. Not even similar.

Run along now.

[Name removed]

228. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Buzz Clik]

231. Lovely. Quick with the insults, I see.

I have found that to be the refuge of those with no argument.

[pork medley]

233. since when was "libertarian" an insult?

[Buzz Clik]

263. Ron Paul would think so.

I seriously doubt he'd like to think he's keeping company with me.

[NoPasaran]

34. Just like the "opposition" in the US

Is controlled by the terrorists?

[The Doctor.]

293. No, but if it were controlled by China or Iran, then that would be a foreign

entity working against the Administration on US soil.

For as much as I despise the BA, I'd be against this on principle.

[papau]

122. You are correct -RCTV attempted to overthrow an elected gov by force - they should be in prison

but on DU we get the CIA's protect big business propaganda and misinformation. Thank God for a free press in Europe.

[vincent_vega_lives]

299. "RCTV attempted to overthrow an elected gov by force"

People keep stating this. I am curious to see the source for this. What was actualy said and by whom?

[cherokeeprogressive]

168. I don't guess it matters that RCTV has been around 53 years.

I'm sure they've been subverting Venezuelan liberty for all that time too.

[Cleita]

248. So has CBS, ABC and NBC here in the USA and look what

has happened to their news departments. That means nothing.

[papau]

116. "suppress opposition"? - a law was passed the opposition did not like allowing the government to

undo what years of right wing dictatorship by our CIA financed/GOP approved/oil company controlled proxies had done to the country.

A freely elected legislature passed a law - somehow that part is always forgotten as we are fed the bullshit that with all 5 media operations against Chavez he brainwashed the people into voting for him and besides those international observers of the election and the subsequent audits of the votes that showed the election cleaner than any in the US was all irrelevant because we are to believe Chavez stole the election if our CIA responsive US media tells us this is true.

The power is temporary - unlike Bushes power under the Patriot Act and FEMA and his new Executive Order on government continuity.

[Flatulo]

119. I don't think anyone here has contested the legitimacy of the Venezuelan elections.

I think many of us are somewhat put off by the apparent cheerleading of actions that would be considered reprehensible if they were to occur here.

[papau]

131. There is nothing reprehensible going on - compensation is being paid as in any US government

taking of property.

Unlike the US's FEMA and Patriot act and now the Executive Order on Government Continuation powers given to Bush, this is a law that has a short duration.

Indeed we need some of that Venezuelan Democracy in the US - heck I'd be happy if we could just get their voting machines and used their auditing system.

[Buzz Clik]

173. Well, I see no hypocrisy in that.

[papau]

180. Public Domain takings with compensation is quite legal in the US - what is your point? n/t

n/t

[Buzz Clik]

203. Are you endorsing that behavior?

Are you suggesting that when Shrub's baseball team needed a new stadium (to increase its value) that taking private homes for the parking plot was okay?

My point is simple -- I hate it when it's done here, and I sure as hell don't endorse some big-mouthed thirdworld clown doing it.

[papau]

277. Yes - I am endorsing that behavior - takings for the public are very American - the Court in Texas

ruled for those home owners because that particular one was a screwing in terms of the compensation offered - The Court awarded $11 million more.

Should the state have invented the state agency that did the takings - I would have not done so as the economic development payoff I thought was not there.

but as a concept, the public taking with compensation is needed unless you want a few to be able to screw the many -

but then again that is indeed what the rich want, isn't.

[papau]

89. unbridled dictatorial powers? LOL - same logic applied to US from 1776 to 1952 - our Presidents

could be elected as many times as they could win an election (1776 to Washington it was President of the Congress - but same idea).

You are posting CIA/right wing - they are the same thing - framing meant to discredit an elected government - elected in an internationally supervised and approved election -that is taking away by not renewing a UHF TV license from a company that is allowed to stay in the media business with its cable and Sat operations despite it blatant attempts to destroy a Democracy by broadcasting lies and actually calling for people to rebel against the elected government so as to install a government of the rich that would sell the country out to our oil companies.

Just where is the "leftist dictatorship" - Venezuela actually uses a voting system that can be audited - and was audited - the auditing disproving the CIA bullshit about a stolen election.

If you are worried about Dictatorship, perhaps the election thefts of 00, 02, 04, and nearly 06 might concern you. A congress where the GOP will fight the Election Reform Bill - a country where a fake reformer - Bev Harris - can be purchased to demand the real election reform bill HR 811 be shelved and a substitute that doesn't protect us H.R. 2360 passed instead because the replacement bill gives local officials more power while still requiring a "trail with audit ability" - not mentioning her replacement bill does not require audits and also prevents the computer code from being reviewed by the States - read about our election thefts if you want to learn about the rich and their "dictatorship of the GOP" attempts that are sadly all too successful in the US.

[Enrique]

135. suppose Bush had been kidnapped by his political opposition

imagine what his reaction would be after regaining power a couple of days later. Would any of the coup plotters be alive today?

Suppose the "liberal media" played an outrageous, blatant role in the coup. Would Bush allow that media to continue?

Answer that, and then we'll discuss Chavez vs. Bush.

[Flatulo]

142. I'll answer your question if you answer mine...

If Bush was kidnapped by his political opposition, they would be arrested, tried and jailed.

> Suppose the "liberal media" played an outrageous, blatant role in the coup. Would Bush allow that media to > continue?

I honesly can't answer that, although I do not think that any media outlet would ever be shut down by executive decree.

'Outrageous' and 'blatant' are pretty subjective terms. There is so much disagreement (not necessarily here on DU) as to what constitutes factual news, mainly because there is so much disagreement as to what constitutes 'facts'. Many here accept it as 'fact' that Bush is not a legitimate president. Many others here accept 9/11 conspiracies as fact.

I am surprised and somewhat disturbed by the barrage of calls here to shut down FNC because they are not a legitimate news outlet. I can't imagine any justification for these calls, except a general feeling that they have a strong RW bias. I personally agree that they have such a bias, but isn't this a judgement call
that others would disagree with? I am sure that may RWers would love to see CNN or MSNBC shut down.

Whatever.

I am not aware of any instance in where a US media outlet was forced to close by government decree. If there is precedent, I'm sure someone will cite it. If it did happen, I would be outraged, even if I happened to disagree strongly with their content.

Now, my question is, would you feel comfortable with the US government shutting down FNC? If so, why? What safeguards would you insist were in place to ensure that such an act were not politically motivated? Who would make such a judgement call?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

152. He didn't "shut them down"

He did not renew their license to broadcast over the public airways. They still have every right to broadcast on their Cable and Satellite systems.

[Flatulo]

158. That's a pretty subtle distinction...

... and apparently thousands of CIA employees and US stooges agree, as they are clashing wiht riot police right now.

[Enrique]

163. how do you feel about the opposition to Chavez?

are you aware what they attempted to do during their breif reign?

[Flatulo]

165. As Rummy used to say "I don't know what I don't know..."

It would be presumptuous of me to respond that I know what you're going to say, so I won't.

My understanding of the issue is limited to the current events, not things that transpired 5 years ago.

I do think that if crimes were committed under Venezuelan law, they ought to be punished in accordance with said law.

However I am always against using force to silence the views of those who disagee with us. We should be able to pursuade people with our ideas, not our guns.

[Enrique]

182. you can't discuss this without discussing the coup

come on. The coup is central to the whole thing.

You can learn about the coup, or you can continue to wallow in your uninformed opinions. No offense meant, believe it or not.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=583239054568980...

[fishwax]

205. their license expired and was not renewed

That happens here in the states too--for all kinds of reasons--and even to broadcasters who haven't aided an attempt to violently overthrow the government. I don't think the distinction is very subtle at all.

[Enrique]

162. my answer is no

i would not be comfortable with the govt. shutting down Fox.

But if what happened to Chavez happened to Bush, I doubt there would be any trials. I think not only would the offending media outlet and political opposition be destroyed, legally or more likely extralegally, but there would be a wave of "preemptive" strikes against other potential enemies.

[The Doctor.]

292. If Bush shut down an English Speaking Anti-Bush station run by the Chinese

Government, would you argue for 'free speech'?

[SOUTHERN_BOY]

308. You are kidding me

Jesus. I had no idea.

[NoPasaran]

3. Unitary dictatorship

Maybe we should try that in this country!

[Buzz Clik]

6. Indeed. Chavez is beginning to leave a residue of brimstone wherever he goes.

[Toots]

Compare how the Venezuelan people fare under Chavez with American under Bush*

While I am not much one for a single element of control it really is not much different than what we have here. Only thing about us here is the control is hidden from view and we live under the impression the people really have a voice. What needs to be done is a comparrison. How the people of Venezuela lived before Chavez and how thelive now with the same thing in America. The gap between rich and poor in America is growing by leaps and bounds while the exact opposite is true in Venezuela. The people can not remember a time they have fared so well. Do you believe Bush* would win the vote of almost 70% of the people? Until you can tell me how we are so much better then I don't find your disgust with Chavez credible. Chavez paid off the country's debt and used the money that used to be spent on Interest for schools and hositals. Bush* has almost doubled the US's debt in the same time frame. Imagine if we had four hundred billion dollars for our schools and hospitals? We were headed in that direction under Clinton but then came the "War Profiteers" How many wars has Chavez gotten his people involved in?

[Flatulo]

49. Would you sell your freedoms for a meal?

[Toots]

91. Did the Venezuela people do that?

Empty rhetoric...They are a free and Democratic people that vote for their leaders. You do know that there are other leaders in Venezuela besides Chavez. Every town has it's "elected" officials. The people have complete freedom to move about anywhere anytime. Exactly what freedoms do you think were sold for what meals?

[Flatulo]

97. The freedom to have their elected legislature represent their interests.

That's a pretty important rigiht in a Democracy, wouldn't you agree?

[Toots]

104. What you are describing is not a Democracy but a Republic

Representative governement is a Republic and not a Democracy. A Democracy can very well have a "benevolent leader" elected by the people. I never claimed they lived under a Republic although in many ways they do.

[dansolo]

138. We don't even have that here

When is the last time our representatives represented our interests?

[originalpckelly]

60. Does Chavez make the trains run on time?

[Buzz Clik]

145. You want me to compare a wannabe North American dictator to a bonafide dictator from South America?

No doubt, a Freeper might accept the challenge with glee, but I'll pass.

[Flatulo]

147. Hahaha, that was a good one!

[originalpckelly]

9. Personally, I think Bush sent away to Chavez's Banana Republic Dictator School...

He's learning thirty steps to make Executive Orders more like Chavez's decrees.

His first assignment was that stuff that RWer Corsi was worried about, I guess that shows he completed the assignment appropriately.

[jefferson_dem]

58. Hugo's perpetual power grabs and seamy demagogic flourishes should make Chimpy proud.

ack!

[originalpckelly]

5. Is Human Rights Watch a fake CIA organization?

Are they opposed to shutting down RCTV?

[Joanne98]

10. Who knows. It doesn't matter anyway. RCTV was involved in the coup. nuff said

[Flatulo]

11. Um, didn't Chavez instigate his own coup? Oh yeah, that's different...

[1932]

33. It was against a government that murdered thousands of people because they protested Chicago School

neoliberal policies designed to shift power and wealth to the powerful.

[Flatulo]

38. So I guess coups that you approve of are OK. I see,

[1932]

46. Caring enough to fight fascism -- how can you be upset. It's even better when

they do it democratically, which is what Chavez did after serving jail time and being pardoned by the president who beat the fascist Chavez tried to overthrow.

And judging from what Chavez has done since becoming president, it's pretty obvious that he is committed to giving working people tremendous devolved economic, political and cultural power.

[Flatulo]

55. I'm not upset. I just see a real problem here with a strong double standard.

Certain behaviors that would be considered criminal if Bush did them are waved away for the sake of the good that Chavez has done.

As Chavez consolidates his complete dictatorship, I think people will see that they have made a deal with the devil.

[EFerrari]

72. What crap. Chavez was trying to overthrow a criminal. The CIA

was trying to overthow a duly elected, progressive government. There is no comparison.

[Flatulo]

80. OK, so now that Venezuela has a democratically elected government

with a functional legislature and court, do you still support Chavez' moves to suspend term limits and bypass the legislature?

Why, if this activity is viewed as criminal when done by Bush, is it applauded when Chavez tries it?

It makes no sense.

[EFerrari]

84. You are comparing apples and oranges, that's why it makes

no sense to you.

[Flatulo]

93. I am not comparing apples and oranges. I am comparing

two democratically elected leaders of two nations. Both leaders are attempting to, or have succeeded in, vastly expandign the power of the executive branch.

One leader is villified, the other is lauded.

What am I missing here?

[EFerrari]

99. First, Bush has never been elected once. Second,

while he issues secret signing statements to scoff at Congress while the Venezuelan legislature gave Chavez specific powers for a specific and a specific period of time.

Oh -- and Chavez never tried to take over our government. lol

There is no comparison.

[Flatulo]

102. Now, with all due respect, you are changing the subject. If you want

to cover whether Bush is a legitimate president, fine, lets do it in another thread.

Let's stay on track, please.

If the US Congress granted Bush the right to override their every vote, would you be supportative of such a move?

[EFerrari]

106. I'm not changing the subject. I'm pointing out the problems

with your comparison.

Bush already ignores our laws via secret signing statements.

[papau]

136. the legislature voted him the power to bypass the legislature for a limited period - unlike

FEMA, Patriot Act and the new Executive Order on continuity which have no time limits, and in the case of the Exec. Order, was not passed by anyone - just claimed as an "inherent" power.

[Flatulo]

144. Does it concern you at all why they did this? Are they just lazy?

Isn't it their job to pass laws?

[papau]

178. Does not concern me in the least - a legal move approved by 80% of the population n/t

n/t

[EFerrari]

206. Lazy? Maybe dirty and infectious, too?

[Flatulo]

215. How you leapt from lazy to 'dirty and infectious' is beyond me.

I wonder what other word I could have used that would not have offended you?

What do you personaly use to describe people who refuse to the the job for which they are being paid?

How about "under-motivated"?

Hmmm, maybe "Over-unenthusiastic"?

[EFerrari]

218. Why do you feel so entitled to impose your values

on the people of Venezuela?

Oops! I forgot! Americans are special.

[Flatulo]

227. My comment was not judgemental, it was ironic. One has

to wonder why an elected legislature would give such broad powers to any leader. They seem to have made themselves irrelevant, just like we accuse our own legislature of doing.

Sounds to me, on the surface at least, that the legislature is packed with Chavez allies who are prepared to rubber-stamp anything. I wonder what they'll get in return for their loyalty?

[eridani]

255. What's wrong with getting rid of term limits?

I'd trade that in a New York minute for real campaign finance reform.

[1932]

82. If the US murdered its citizens to protect neoliberal policies that turned society

into economic slaves, what would you do?

[Flatulo]

87. Um, become very frightened, I guess. I don't really understand the analogy.

[1932]

92. You don't understand the analogy because you don't know the facts in Venezuela?

Read the book in my sig line. It's not even particularly sympathetic of Chavez, but it will be a start to you having an informed opinon.

[Flatulo]

101. This is really pretty simple... if it is wrong for Bush to use his "Signing Statements"

to bypass the legislature, then why is it not also wrong for Chavez to do the same? The Venezuelans have an expectation that their democratically elected representatives will be free to represent their interests.

This has absolutely nothing to do with oil, the CIA or the price of cheese. It is about one man's attempt to grab power.

If it is wrong here, why is it not also wrong there?

[1932]

107. I didn't say that part was wrong. Democracy is corrupted by money in the US

so Bush's "decree powers" granted by the legislature enable concentration of wealth and power.

In Venezuela, there is a real committment to devolving economic and political power, so Chavez's decree powers granted by legislature are narrowly designed to do just that.

Do you get it yet?

[Flatulo]

111. I sure do get it. I expect you, too will understand as time passes.

[1932]

207. A lot of time has passed since '99 and since Venezuela's terrible neoliberal presidents

and their policies have show what they do.

Chavez has proved in 8 years what he's all about, and it's quite impressive to anyone who worries about the extreme polarizations of wealth and power on this earth.

[Unvanguard]

118. Congress doesn't approve the "signing statements."

Chavez's rule by decree must be granted to him by the National Assembly. How is that "bypassing the legislature"?

Since the opposition boycotted the last legislative elections, the National Assembly is composed entirely of his supporters, anyway.

[Flatulo]

120. The legislature has abdicated its responsibility. It would be the same

thing if our congress gave Bush the power to rule by decree.

Their legislature has made themselves irrelevant by voting for dictatorial powers.

[EFerrari]

127. Your subjective and hyperbolic evaluation doesn't change the

Constitution of Venezuela.

[Flatulo]

133. So if the elected representatives of the Venezuelan people

voted to sell the country to Exxon, that would be OK?

The Venezuelan constitution is not the document I refer to when I make subjective judgements of what is right or wrong.

Too much power in the hands of any one individual always, always, always leads to unsuccessful outcomes.

Always.

[EFerrari]

134. Well, the counter example is that they have done this before

without a negative outcome.

[Gabi Hayes]

225. so you're a big fan of King George III, I take it? by your idiotic logic,

all 'coups' are bad

unless, of course, there are coups of which you, in your infinite wisdom, approve

[High Plains]

143. Yes. He went to prison for it. Then he got out.

Then he was elected president.

[Joanne98]

71. Human Rights Watch...

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=12...
ZNet | Human Rights

Human Rights Watch in Service to the War Party: Including A Review of “Weighing the Evidence: Lessons from the Slobodan Milosevic Trial” (Human Rights Watch, December, 2006)

by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson and George Szamuely; February 25, 2007

Part 1: Introduction: The Role and Biases of Human Rights Watch



Human Rights Watch (HRW) came into existence in 1978 as the U.S. Helsinki Watch Committee. Early documents affirmed that its purpose was to “monitor domestic and international compliance with the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Final Act.”<1> But though a private U.S.-based organization whose vice chairman once stated “You can't complain about other countries unless you put your own house in order,”<2> its main focus was on Moscow. Thus its literature also affirmed that founding the Committee “was intended as a gesture of moral support for the activities of the beleaguered Helsinki monitors in the Soviet bloc,” and its early work was well geared to advance the U.S. government's policy of weakening the Soviet Union and loosening its ties to Eastern Europe.<3> While the organization has broadened its horizons and grown enormously since its $400,000 seed money from the Ford Foundation, it has never sloughed off its close link to the Western establishment, as evidenced by its leadership’s affiliations,<4> its funding,<5> and its role over the years. Because of its institutional commitment to human rights and its broad purview, however, HRW has done a great deal of valuable work, as for example in helping to document the character and effects of the Reagan era wars across Central America, where its Americas Watch reports on the U.S. support for the Nicaragua Contras, the Salvadoran army and death squads, and Guatemalan state terror were eye-opening and led to intense hostility on the part of the Reaganites and Wall Street Journal editors.<6>



But despite these and countless other constructive efforts, the organization has at critical times and in critical theaters thrown its support behind the U.S. government’s agenda, sometimes even serving as a virtual public relations arm of the foreign policy establishment. Since the early 1990s this tendency has been especially marked in the organization’s focus on and treatment of some of the major contests in which the U.S. government itself has been engaged—perhaps none more clearly than Iraq and the Balkans. Here, its deep bias is well-illustrated in a March 2002 op-ed by HRW’s executive director, Kenneth Roth, published in the Wall Street Journal under the title “Indict Saddam.”<7> The first thing to note about this commentary is its timing. It was published at a time when the United States and Britain were clearly planning an assault on Iraq with a “shock and awe” bombing campaign and ground invasion in violation of the UN Charter. But Roth doesn’t warn against launching an unprovoked war—though wars of aggression had been judged by the Nuremberg Tribunal to be the “supreme international crime” that “contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”<8> On the contrary, Roth's focus was on Saddam’s crimes, and provided a valuable public relations gift to U.S. and British leaders, diverting attention from and putting an apologetic gloss on their prospective supreme international crime.



Three years earlier, when the NATO powers had begun the bombing of Yugoslavia on March 24, 1999, HRW said nothing critical about that action; as we shall see, it focused mainly on the crimes of the target country then under attack. In a 1998 commentary for the International Herald Tribune, Fred Abrahams, an HRW researcher whose major focus has been Kosovo, urged regime-change for Yugoslavia, either through President Slobodan Milosevic's indictment or a U.S. war to affect the same outcome. “At what point will the Clinton administration decide that they have seen enough?” Abrahams asked. “he international community's failure to punish Milosevic for crimes in Croatia and Bosnia sent the message that he would be allowed to get away with such crimes again. It is now obvious that the man who started these conflicts cannot be trusted to stop them.”<9> This line also served the United States and other NATO powers well, and both cases show a clear adaptation of HRW definitions of human rights and choice of worthy victims to the needs of the Western powers and institutions that nurture the organization. (In Part 3, we deal with the mind-boggling misrepresentation of history in Abrahams' statement about Milosevic’s unwillingness to stop these wars—in fact, Milosevic signed-on to every major peace proposal 1992-1995, whereas Abrahams’ favorite state regularly sabotaged them.)



Roth’s “Indict Saddam” starts as follows: “The Bush administration’s frustration with a decade of porous sanctions against Iraq has led to active consideration of military action. Yet one alternative has yet to be seriously tried—indicting Saddam Hussein for his many atrocities, particularly the 1988 genocide against Iraqi Kurds.” This clearly implies that the sanctions imposed on Iraq were ineffective (“porous”) and that the administration’s alleged frustration on that account was real and well grounded, establishment claims that were false and misleading and that an unbiased analyst might have had some doubts about at the time. We may note also the lack of concern with the “active consideration of military action.”
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=12...