Would a liberal please respond to this...

[M1A2U2]

I have noticed throughout my time at military photos that when someone gives facts to destroy a liberals argument they happen to "lose interest" in the thread. Here is something shed posted about some liberal made a comment about WMDs never exsiting and Bush lying. Of course no liberal has responded to this. Just wondering if maybe you guys would like to?


Did you guys happen to follow this story at all as it evolved? Because you keep stating that there may not be any WMDs. This is a dead issue. It is not up for debate. There is nobody who disputes that Iraq had WMD. Not Iraq. Not the UN. Nobody.

Here's the Reader's Digest version of how it went down:

UN- "do you have WMDs, and if so, how much?"
Saddam - "yes we do, we have this much"
UN- "thank you. where are they?"
Saddam- "over there by the couch"
UN- "well, there's some here, but according to your list, this isn't all of them."
Saddam- "oh yeah, I forgot, we destroyed a bunch of it already"
UN- "fine, show me the documents verifying their destruction"
Saddam- "dang it, my dog ate all that stuff, but really we did"
UN- "oh, well alright..."
Bush- "WTF are you doing UN, you're gonna accept that as an answer?"
UN- "well if it's good enough for them..."
Saddam- >maniacal laughter from the kitchen, sound of oil-stained money changing hands<
Bush- "you gotta be f*in kidding me..."
>sound of door breaking in, Saddam screaming like a woman<

I just posted an article from the UN, based on numbers from Iraq, that has completely blown your arguments to hell. Yet you continue to blather on with particulars that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

So, was the UN lying?

Was Iraq lying?

Because for your arguments to hold water, both must have been in on the conspiracy.

As for the point about "imminent danger" - the 9/11 commission here was trying to hang the Bush administration out to dry for failing to act prior to 9/11 on various murky reports...which we now see as "imminent danger". It was Bush's call, and his job to do so. Only an idiot woud leave Saddam with 1000 tons of "lost" chemical weapons at his disposal.

[venture160]

give it up man, there arn't any WMD's in Iraq. Who are you getting your facts from? Old INtel reports from the 1990's??? WHEN THE CIA DIDNT HAVE A SINGLE AGENT IN COUNTRY AFTER 1998??? come on get real. We were solely relying on sigint intel and defectors, whom the DIA had ruled untrustable. I think I will believe that the fact that now that david kay spent an entire year in Iraq looking around himself, unhindered and declared that he didn't find anything. are you going to continue to believe the crappy intelligence we relied on before the Iraq war? Who are you trying to convince? yourself?

[catdat]

I'm what you call a "liberal" republican. I voted for Bush in the last election but I try to use common sense and I really have no need for partisan politics. Iraq and 911 are two different subjects unless you've got some evidence your withholding that you'd like to share.

I personally see no logical reason for us to start the conflict in Iraq when we did.

As far as shed's post goes I hadn't seen it before and I might have reponded and then maybe not. It reads like a work of fiction but if there are some facts could you point them out?
preferably with references since they're "facts" please.

The 911 commission never even addressed the most basic question about 911. They never investigated who did it. If everthing is so "murky" as you say how then are we so certain that OSB did it on September 12th? Who profited by 200 million in PUT options on the airlines prior to 911? The 911 commission was all bark and no bite.

fire and adjust
catdat

[Tane Angle]

As I said on another post a few days ago, I was fortunate enough to meet and talk with Dave Kay not too far back. Dr. Kay recently resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group (the US, not UN, WMD search team), as he was disgusted by the lies he had been told by the Bush Administration.

He had been personnally selected for that post by President Bush, is extremely non-partisan (he's not anti-Republican, he's just not big on Bush anymore) and has more credibility when it comes to WMDs than pretty much anyone else, including any NCA or SECDEF. And remember, why would Bush choose someone who would lie or have Democrat leanings? Kay, like **** Clarke, was chosen for his job not just because he knows what he is talking about but because he is known for being honest and non-partisan.

Dr. Kay said in no uncertain terms that everyone had been had, and that there have not been WMDs in Iraq since 1994. He said the know how was still there, but to get rid of that, we would have had to execute every scientist and burn every book on weapons in the country. Many countries can make WMDs, most just choose not to.

Iraq having WMDs is a bit of a Catch-22. If there were WMDs and we went in, we would have lost thousands of troops in the opening hours of the war. So we would be right, but still lose lots of people. But if we go in and they're not there, we don't lose as many people, but no WMDs are found.

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

[EvanL]

As I said on another post a few days ago, I was fortunate enough to meet and talk with Dave Kay not too far back. Dr. Kay recently resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group (the US, not UN, WMD search team), as he was disgusted by the lies he had been told by the Bush Administration.

Dr. Kay said in no uncertain terms that everyone had been had, and that there have not been WMDs in Iraq since 1994. He said the know how was still there, but to get rid of that, we would have had to execute every scientist and burn every book on weapons in the country. Many countries can make WMDs, most just choose not to.

Iraq having WMDs is a bit of a Catch-22. If there were WMDs and we went in, we would have lost thousands of troops in the opening hours of the war. So we would be right, but still lose lots of people. But if we go in and they're not there, we don't lose as many people, but no WMDs are found.

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...
Every member of this board is now smarter for reading your posts.
You continue to keep this forum sane. Thank you tane.
Woah i should do poems.

[memphiz]

As I said on another post a few days ago, I was fortunate enough to meet and talk with Dave Kay not too far back. Dr. Kay recently resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group (the US, not UN, WMD search team), as he was disgusted by the lies he had been told by the Bush Administration.

Dr. Kay said in no uncertain terms that everyone had been had, and that there have not been WMDs in Iraq since 1994. He said the know how was still there, but to get rid of that, we would have had to execute every scientist and burn every book on weapons in the country. Many countries can make WMDs, most just choose not to.

Iraq having WMDs is a bit of a Catch-22. If there were WMDs and we went in, we would have lost thousands of troops in the opening hours of the war. So we would be right, but still lose lots of people. But if we go in and they're not there, we don't lose as many people, but no WMDs are found.

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...
Every member of this board is now smarter for reading your posts.
You continue to keep this forum sane. Thank you tane.
Woah i should do poems.
Word

[MetalBoy]

Didn't Dr. Kay also say that the US was right in going into Iraq even though? That's what I've heard, I could be wrong.

[budanski]

David Kay's progress report. - October 2, 2003 (http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html)

[martinexsquaddie]

the wmds are not in iraq anymore as the kingos from liverpool nicked them all to use in turf wars much more effective than a glock rofl.

[weedman]

Come on man, recognize that the weapons, that were used for justifying this war, do not exist anymore, nor had they existed in 2003.

Yes, Iraq has had WMD - by the way, mostly supported by the US for weakening Iran, but things have changed. Of course Saddam is still a mass murderer, I'm not trying to protect this repellant personality.

But people should realize nowadays, that the decision about war was also based on other considerations.

[HELEX]

I am liberal and will respond to this --------> :lol: rofl

[Haiw]

As I said on another post a few days ago, I was fortunate enough to meet and talk with Dave Kay not too far back. Dr. Kay recently resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group (the US, not UN, WMD search team), as he was disgusted by the lies he had been told by the Bush Administration.

Dr. Kay said in no uncertain terms that everyone had been had, and that there have not been WMDs in Iraq since 1994. He said the know how was still there, but to get rid of that, we would have had to execute every scientist and burn every book on weapons in the country. Many countries can make WMDs, most just choose not to.

Iraq having WMDs is a bit of a Catch-22. If there were WMDs and we went in, we would have lost thousands of troops in the opening hours of the war. So we would be right, but still lose lots of people. But if we go in and they're not there, we don't lose as many people, but no WMDs are found.

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...
Every member of this board is now smarter for reading your posts.
You continue to keep this forum sane. Thank you tane.
Woah i should do poems.
Maybe we should from now on just call him 'Sane Angle'? :lol:

Time for the troll to get back in his cage only to come back with another anti-left/anti-kerry/anti-liberal topic. :(

[Trident-za]

"Sane Angle" rofl Excellent post, man.


I have noticed throughout my time at military photos that when someone gives facts to destroy a liberals argument they happen to "lose interest" in the thread.

For the record, this behaviour is in no way limited to "liberals" - it is common to all political affiliations. You will also notice that some truly excellent posts vanish from page 1 very very fast if it's not particularly pro-Bush but isn't conducive to flaming.

I have a question... on this forum the term "liberal" is used as an insult, almost as a "swearword". This is something I find very odd... do you people all think that liberals as a collective group are all idiots/evil/out to destroy the free world? Or what?

Also, how exactly do you define "liberal"? The reason I ask is that different countries have different definitions... and on this forum the term seems to apply to anyone who questions anything that the Pentagon or GOP say. I don't consider myself a liberal, but lots of people on this forum seem to think I am.....

[M1A2U2]

A liberal is a person who thinks that war is not the answer

[venture160]

that is not true, why did clinton go to war in kosovo, somalia, bosnia, east timor?

[Pégase]

A liberal is a person who thinks that war is not the answer

it depends what and where are your interests

[Trident-za]

A liberal is a person who thinks that war is not the answer

THATS your definition? Err... OK. Do you mean war in general, or are you referring specifically to, say, the war in Iraq?

And, speaking for myself... whether I consider war to be "the answer" depends entirely on what the question is... sometimes war is the only thing left to try, other times its not. But even the most jaded should consider war to be the last resort....

[gilgoul]

give it up man, there arn't any WMD's in Iraq. Who are you getting your facts from? Old INtel reports from the 1990's??? WHEN THE CIA DIDNT HAVE A SINGLE AGENT IN COUNTRY AFTER 1998??? come on get real. We were solely relying on sigint intel and defectors, whom the DIA had ruled untrustable. I think I will believe that the fact that now that david kay spent an entire year in Iraq looking around himself, unhindered and declared that he didn't find anything. are you going to continue to believe the crappy intelligence we relied on before the Iraq war? Who are you trying to convince? yourself?

IF NOTHING IN IRAK, IT`S BECAUSE IT`S ALREADY IN SYRIA, KNOWN FOR A LONG TIME :bash:

[Ian H]

As I said on another post a few days ago, I was fortunate enough to meet and talk with Dave Kay not too far back. Dr. Kay recently resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group (the US, not UN, WMD search team), as he was disgusted by the lies he had been told by the Bush Administration.

He had been personnally selected for that post by President Bush, is extremely non-partisan (he's not anti-Republican, he's just not big on Bush anymore) and has more credibility when it comes to WMDs than pretty much anyone else, including any NCA or SECDEF. And remember, why would Bush choose someone who would lie or have Democrat leanings? Kay, like **** Clarke, was chosen for his job not just because he knows what he is talking about but because he is known for being honest and non-partisan.

Dr. Kay said in no uncertain terms that everyone had been had, and that there have not been WMDs in Iraq since 1994. He said the know how was still there, but to get rid of that, we would have had to execute every scientist and burn every book on weapons in the country. Many countries can make WMDs, most just choose not to.

Iraq having WMDs is a bit of a Catch-22. If there were WMDs and we went in, we would have lost thousands of troops in the opening hours of the war. So we would be right, but still lose lots of people. But if we go in and they're not there, we don't lose as many people, but no WMDs are found.

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...


That'll do for me. **** are we lucky to have you around Tane.

[ibstolidude]

I'm what you call a "liberal" republican. - liberal v/s conservative is NOT at all Democrat v/s Republican.

[Tane Angle]

:oops: Aw thanks guys. I'd say we're luckier to have some of the other folks around here. And I'd say we're lucky that for the most part, everyone gets along, regardless of political leanings.


A liberal is a person who thinks that war is not the answer
No offense, but I don't know how good a definition of liberal that is. Besides, didn't a very large number of liberal representatives and senators vote for the war in Iraq?

MetalBoy, excellent point. Dr. Kay actually said, at least to me, that he fully supported the humanitarian reasons. He also said, however, that he felt there were larger, more drastic threats to human rights in the world, such as genocide in the Congo. I have to agree with that. As bad as Hussein was, he wasn't killing innocent civilians at the rate of 1 million a year.

Kay was also very critical of our "alliance" with the Saudi government.

Trident-za, the term is used as an swear of srots sometimes by some people. I think most of the non-liberals still refrain from using it as an swear, but unfortunately they are sometimes overshadowed by others. Political views are certainly not black and white. You and I both seem to be proof of that.

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

IF NOTHING IN IRAK, IT`S BECAUSE IT`S ALREADY IN SYRIA, KNOWN FOR A LONG TIME :bash:
I know you are just joking Gilgoul but a lot of people belive all that stuff about Syria getting Saddams chemical and bio weapons, there is no sense in Saddam giving anyone outside Iraq any of his weapons for safe keeping he did not need to. The ground work had been done and the lessons learned all he had to do was destroy the weapons and dismantle the plant and say look folks no WMD's. It would be easy for Iraq to replicate its programs and kickstart Chem & Bio production when it was most suitable and usable supplies of material in little time at all its not like ChemBio weapon material is like some precious metal.

[Haiw]

A liberal is a person who thinks that war is not the answer
rofl
Get a dictionary, that's called a pacifist.

[Truthsayer]

A liberal is a person who thinks that war is not the answer

You dear underage-sir, are a moron.

You live in an liberal country. The abolishment of slavery, womans right to vote, equal rights and so on, are Liberal agendas.

You went into Iraq to Liberate them - no?

Now tell me, how can liberal be a swearing-word? You just try to invent it as such to be able to kick the homeless in the hed while they are laying down and joke about it in the countryclub.

Caring for others then yourself isn't a weakness - it's a sign of humanity.
It's was separete us from the animals. Any animal can go to 'war'.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

M1A2U2 your horse is dead stop flogging it. :)

[M1A2U2]

Tane Angle wrote:
As I said on another post a few days ago, I was fortunate enough to meet and talk with Dave Kay not too far back. Dr. Kay recently resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group (the US, not UN, WMD search team), as he was disgusted by the lies he had been told by the Bush Administration.

He had been personnally selected for that post by President Bush, is extremely non-partisan (he's not anti-Republican, he's just not big on Bush anymore) and has more credibility when it comes to WMDs than pretty much anyone else, including any NCA or SECDEF. And remember, why would Bush choose someone who would lie or have Democrat leanings? Kay, like **** Clarke, was chosen for his job not just because he knows what he is talking about but because he is known for being honest and non-partisan.

Dr. Kay said in no uncertain terms that everyone had been had, and that there have not been WMDs in Iraq since 1994. He said the know how was still there, but to get rid of that, we would have had to execute every scientist and burn every book on weapons in the country. Many countries can make WMDs, most just choose not to.

Iraq having WMDs is a bit of a Catch-22. If there were WMDs and we went in, we would have lost thousands of troops in the opening hours of the war. So we would be right, but still lose lots of people. But if we go in and they're not there, we don't lose as many people, but no WMDs are found.

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...



That'll do for me. **** are we lucky to have you around Tane.

well then i hope you read David Kays report because he specifically said that he believed Iraqs had weapons transported to Syria.

[cut]

Tane Angle wrote:
As I said on another post a few days ago, I was fortunate enough to meet and talk with Dave Kay not too far back. Dr. Kay recently resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group (the US, not UN, WMD search team), as he was disgusted by the lies he had been told by the Bush Administration.

He had been personnally selected for that post by President Bush, is extremely non-partisan (he's not anti-Republican, he's just not big on Bush anymore) and has more credibility when it comes to WMDs than pretty much anyone else, including any NCA or SECDEF. And remember, why would Bush choose someone who would lie or have Democrat leanings? Kay, like **** Clarke, was chosen for his job not just because he knows what he is talking about but because he is known for being honest and non-partisan.

Dr. Kay said in no uncertain terms that everyone had been had, and that there have not been WMDs in Iraq since 1994. He said the know how was still there, but to get rid of that, we would have had to execute every scientist and burn every book on weapons in the country. Many countries can make WMDs, most just choose not to.

Iraq having WMDs is a bit of a Catch-22. If there were WMDs and we went in, we would have lost thousands of troops in the opening hours of the war. So we would be right, but still lose lots of people. But if we go in and they're not there, we don't lose as many people, but no WMDs are found.

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...



That'll do for me. **** are we lucky to have you around Tane.

well then i hope you read David Kays report because he specifically said that he believed Iraqs had weapons transported to Syria.

so we should invade Syria? Because according to what you are suggesting the reason we went into Iraq was because of the weapons now allegedly in Syria's hands.

WMD was not the true reason for going to war, nor was terrorism, although they may have added imputus, however unjustified. Everybody I know who are knowledgable on these matters and isn't against the war, thinks that the war wasn't about WMD and there was no justifiable reason for going to war when we did. In other words there was no emergency to it, no immediate threat. If however Bush had waited he may have lost the next election without, doing the thing that by all accounts he has always wanted to do as president.


Terrorism should have been placed first and dealt with, that doesn't mean having to wait until they were finished with but at the very least, hugely weakened them, which, whatever the Whitehouse might say, clearly hasn't been done.

Also everyone sees Syria as being a bad country, some people think it's perhaps the next target in the "axis of evil". I think this naming and shaming has worked against the US. In an american 2003 report on the fight against terrorism, it has been acknowledged that Syria has helped greatly in tracking down al qaeda and one of the strongest arab supporters of the war on terror. And yet they are still on the list, yes they are very anti-israel and help fund palestinian terrorist, but then they should be on the israeli's "axis of evil" not that of the US. Why? because the US in particular and the West in general need the support of arab countries and those with western educated leaders are the ones that will help, and with increased trust not only will more arabs be supportive of a war in Iraq but the US would also be able to put friendly pressure on these countries (eg jordan and syria) to deminish their support of other terrorists (such a those that attack israel).

The syrians also need help policing their state, particularly of intrest to the coaliation is the border with Iraq, which at the momnet is proving to be extremely porous for arab fighters bent on killing coalition soldiers.

Putting them on a black list is all well and good if you can deal with it but the conflict in Iraq has made it all too obvious that that's asking to much of the streched US armed forces. And the reason why they are so streched in the first place is because the War on terror and the Iraq war are being fought at the same time.

[TALOS]

Any actual WMD weapons or material is likely to be small in relation to the total conventional armaments footprint and difficult to near impossible to identify with normal search procedures. It is important to keep in mind that even the bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two car garage;
Mind you he said this too... I think we all read our own agendas into everything, that is the human way and anybody who says they dont is deluded.
He HAD wmd and COULD have still had them. The point is it will be difficult to ever prove now. The US is in Iraq and what the Iraqis need is a stable environment to determine their future and even with the US there they can do it if the insurgents allow them the time.
Now I know some are going to say "The US will decide their future" but that is only partially true, in democratic societies we have a much BETTER chance of actually controlling our direction then in a country ruled by extremists.

[TALOS]

Tane Angle wrote:
As I said on another post a few days ago, I was fortunate enough to meet and talk with Dave Kay not too far back. Dr. Kay recently resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group (the US, not UN, WMD search team), as he was disgusted by the lies he had been told by the Bush Administration.

He had been personnally selected for that post by President Bush, is extremely non-partisan (he's not anti-Republican, he's just not big on Bush anymore) and has more credibility when it comes to WMDs than pretty much anyone else, including any NCA or SECDEF. And remember, why would Bush choose someone who would lie or have Democrat leanings? Kay, like **** Clarke, was chosen for his job not just because he knows what he is talking about but because he is known for being honest and non-partisan.

Dr. Kay said in no uncertain terms that everyone had been had, and that there have not been WMDs in Iraq since 1994. He said the know how was still there, but to get rid of that, we would have had to execute every scientist and burn every book on weapons in the country. Many countries can make WMDs, most just choose not to.

Iraq having WMDs is a bit of a Catch-22. If there were WMDs and we went in, we would have lost thousands of troops in the opening hours of the war. So we would be right, but still lose lots of people. But if we go in and they're not there, we don't lose as many people, but no WMDs are found.

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...



That'll do for me. **** are we lucky to have you around Tane.

well then i hope you read David Kays report because he specifically said that he believed Iraqs had weapons transported to Syria.

so we should invade Syria? Because according to what you are suggesting the reason we went into Iraq was because of the weapons now allegedly in Syria's hands.

WMD was not the true reason for going to war, nor was terrorism, although they may have added imputus, however unjustified. Everybody I know who are knowledgable on these matters and isn't against the war, thinks that the war wasn't about WMD and there was no justifiable reason for going to war when we did. In other words there was no emergency to it, no immediate threat. If however Bush had waited he may have lost the next election without, doing the thing that by all accounts he has always wanted to do as president.


Terrorism should have been placed first and dealt with, that doesn't mean having to wait until they were finished with but at the very least, hugely weakened them, which, whatever the Whitehouse might say, clearly hasn't been done.

Also everyone sees Syria as being a bad country, some people think it's perhaps the next target in the "axis of evil". I think this naming and shaming has worked against the US. In an american 2003 report on the fight against terrorism, it has been acknowledged that Syria has helped greatly in tracking down al qaeda and one of the strongest arab supporters of the war on terror. And yet they are still on the list, yes they are very anti-israel and help fund palestinian terrorist, but then they should be on the israeli's "axis of evil" not that of the US. Why? because the US in particular and the West in general need the support of arab countries and those with western educated leaders are the ones that will help, and with increased trust not only will more arabs be supportive of a war in Iraq but the US would also be able to put friendly pressure on these countries (eg jordan and syria) to deminish their support of other terrorists (such a those that attack israel).

The syrians also need help policing their state, particularly of intrest to the coaliation is the border with Iraq, which at the momnet is proving to be extremely porous for arab fighters bent on killing coalition soldiers.

Putting them on a black list is all well and good if you can deal with it but the conflict in Iraq has made it all too obvious that that's asking to much of the streched US armed forces. And the reason why they are so streched in the first place is because the War on terror and the Iraq war are being fought at the same time.
Goddamn Cut, I think we may agree :roll: this is scary.
Although I dont believe in all the "blood for oil" screaming (yes I know I am assuming what you meant and I could be way wrong) I believe that when arab countries are willing to cooperate they should be negotiated with, just like Libya for instance.

[budanski]

Invading Syria wouldnt be a bad thing. The "insurgents" in Fallujah is reason enough. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040420-115628-7182r.htm)

[cut]

oil was no more a real reason then anything else you'd have to be stupid to think that whole reason behind the war was secure Iraqi oil. It contributed but blood for oil is a bit extreme.

[catdat]

ibstolidude wrote:

- liberal v/s conservative is NOT at all Democrat v/s Republican.

You get a "F" in political science for that one. Most political parties have a right, left, and central. i.e. conservative, liberal and moderate. Go have another shot of stoli dude.

P.S. I'm not "Vs" anything except the long glorious history of Big Oil backed Texas Presidents that drag us into unnecessary conflicts to line the pockets of thier corporate middle eastern carpetbaggers at the expense of non voting under twenty one americans. :)

[TALOS]

oil was no more a real reason then anything else you'd have to be stupid to think that whole reason behind the war was secure Iraqi oil. It contributed but blood for oil is a bit extreme.
Thx for clearing that up, I still run into people up here in Canada who insist that the Bush family set Hitler and Saddam and others into power so that they could monopolize oil for centuries :cantbeli:
O and yes, I did say HITLER. utterly amazing the stuff some people will believe

[cut]

Invading Syria wouldnt be a bad thing. The "insurgents" in Fallujah is reason enough. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040420-115628-7182r.htm)

the situation in fallujah should be enough to show you that it would be a bad idea.

[catdat]

Talos wrote:

O and yes, I did say HITLER. utterly amazing the stuff some people will believe

Well Talos I think "some people" believe stuff like that because it has some basis in fact. I don't personally believe that what your grandfather does you should be held accountable for two generations later. I mean it's not likely that your grandfather had much influence on your views unless he discussed how he got away with stuff at every opportunity.

Prescott was treading on very traitorously thin ice:


“Bush - Nazi Dealings Continued Until 1951” - Federal Documents
By John Buchanan and Stacey Michael
from The New Hampshire Gazette Vol. 248, No. 3, November 7, 2003

After the seizures in late 1942 of five U.S. enterprises he managed on behalf of Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen, Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, failed to divest himself of more than a dozen "enemy national" relationships that continued until as late as 1951, newly-discovered U.S. government documents reveal.

Furthermore, the records show that Bush and his colleagues routinely attempted to conceal their activities from government investigators.

Bush's partners in the secret web of Thyssen-controlled ventures included former New York Governor W. Averell Harriman and his younger brother, E. Roland Harriman. Their quarter-century of Nazi financial transactions, from 1924-1951, were conducted by the New York private banking firm, Brown Brothers Harriman.

The White House did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Although the additional seizures under the Trading with the Enemy Act did not take place until after the war, documents from The National Archives and Library of Congress confirm that Bush and his partners continued their Nazi dealings unabated. These activities included a financial relationship with the German city of Hanover and several industrial concerns. They went undetected by investigators until after World War Two.

At the same time Bush and the Harrimans were profiting from their Nazi partnerships, W. Averell Harriman was serving as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's personal emissary to the United Kingdom during the toughest years of the war. On October 28, 1942, the same day two key Bush-Harriman-run businesses were being seized by the U.S. government, Harriman was meeting in London with Field Marshall Smuts to discuss the war effort.

Denial and Deceit

While Harriman was concealing his Nazi relationships from his government colleagues, Cornelius Livense, the top executive of the interlocking German concerns held under the corporate umbrella of Union Banking Corporation (UBC), repeatedly tried to mislead investigators, and was sometimes supported in his subterfuge by Brown Brothers Harriman.

All of the assets of UBC and its related businesses belonged to Thyssen-controlled enterprises, including his Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart in Rotterdam, the documents state.

Nevertheless, Livense, president of UBC, claimed to have no knowledge of such a relationship. "Strangely enough, (Livense) claims he does not know the actual ownership of the company," states a government report.

H.D Pennington, manager of Brown Brothers Harriman and a director of UBC "for many years," also lied to investigators about the secret and well-concealed relationship with Thyssen's Dutch bank, according to the documents.

Investigators later reported that the company was "wholly owned" by Thyssen's Dutch bank.

Despite such ongoing subterfuge, U.S. investigators were able to show that "a careful examination of UBC's general ledger, cash books and journals from 1919 until the present date clearly establish that the principal and practically only source of funds has been Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart."

In yet another attempt to mislead investigators, Livense said that $240,000 in banknotes in a safe deposit box at Underwriters Trust Co. in New York had been given to him by another UBC-Thyssen associate, H.J. Kouwenhoven, managing director of Thyssen's Dutch bank and a director of the August Thyssen Bank in Berlin. August Thyssen was Fritz's father.

The government report shows that Livense first neglected to report the $240,000, then claimed that it had been given to him as a gift by Kouwenhoven. However, by the time Livense filed a financial disclosure with U.S. officials, he changed his story again and reported the sum as a debt rather than a cash holding.

In yet another attempt to deceive the governments of both the U.S. and Canada, Livense and his partners misreported the facts about the sale of a Canadian Nazi front enterprise, La Cooperative Catholique des Consommateurs de Combustible, which imported German coal into Canada via the web of Thyssen-controlled U.S. businesses.

"The Canadian authorities, however, were not taken in by this maneuver," a U.S. government report states. The coal company was later seized by Canadian authorities.

After the war, a total of 18 additional Brown Brothers Harriman and UBC-related client assets were seized under The Trading with the Enemy Act, including several that showed the continuation of a relationship with the Thyssen family after the initial 1942 seizures.

The records also show that Bush and the Harrimans conducted business after the war with related concerns doing business in or moving assets into Switzerland, Panama, Argentina and Brazil - all critical outposts for the flight of Nazi capital after Germany's surrender in 1945. Fritz Thyssen died in Argentina in 1951.

One of the final seizures, in October 1950, concerned the U.S. assets of a Nazi baroness named Theresia Maria Ida Beneditka Huberta Stanislava Martina von Schwarzenberg, who also used two shorter aliases. Brown Brothers Harriman, where Prescott Bush and the Harrimans were partners, attempted to convince government investigators that the baroness had been a victim of Nazi persecution and therefore should be allowed to maintain her assets.

"It appears, rather, that the subject was a member of the Nazi party," government investigators concluded.

At the same time the last Brown Brothers Harriman client assets were seized, Prescott Bush announced his Senate campaign that led to his election in 1952.

Investigation Investigated?

In 1943, six months after the seizure of UBC and its related companies, a government investigator noted in a Treasury Department memo dated April 8, 1943 that the FBI had inquired about the status of any investigation into Bush and the Harrimans.

"I gave 'a memorandum' which did not say anything about the American officers of subject," the investigator wrote. "(Another investigator) wanted to know whether any specific action had been taken by us with respect to them."

No further action beyond the initial seizures was ever taken, and the newly-confirmed records went unseen by the American people for six decades.

What Does It All Mean?

So why are the documents relevant today?

"The story of Prescott Bush and Brown Brothers Harriman is an introduction to the real history of our country," says L.A. art book publisher and historian Edward Boswell. "It exposes the money-making motives behind our foreign policies, dating back a full century. The ability of Prescott Bush and the Harrimans to bury their checkered pasts also reveals a collusion between Wall Street and the media that exists to this day."

Sheldon Drobny, a Chicago entrepreneur and philanthropist who will soon launch a liberal talk radio network, says the importance of the new documents is that they prove a long pattern of Bush family war profiteering that continues today via George H.W. Bush's intimate relationship with the Saudi royal family and the bin Ladens, conducted via the super-secret Carlyle Group, whose senior advisers include former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III.

In the post-9/11 world, Drobny finds the Bush-Saudi connection deeply troubling. "Trading with the enemy is trading with the enemy," he says. "That's the relevance of the documents and what they show."

Lawrence Lader, an abortion rights activist and the author of more than 40 books, says "the relevance lies with the fact that the sitting President of the United States would lead the nation to war based on lies and against the wishes of the rest of the world." Lader and others draw comparisons between President Bush's invasion of Iraq and Hitler's occupation of Poland in 1939 - the event that sparked World War Two.

However, others see an even larger significance.

"The discovery of the Bush-Nazi documents raises new questions about the role of Prescott Bush and his influential business partners in the secret emigration of Nazi war criminals, which allowed them to escape justice in Germany," says Bob Fertik, co-founder of Democrats.com and an amateur 'Nazi hunter.' "It also raises questions about the importance of Nazi recruits to the CIA in its early years, in what was called Operation Paperclip, and Prescott Bush's role in that dark operation."

Fertik and others, including former Justice Department Nazi war crimes prosecutor John Loftus, a Constitutional attorney in Miami, and a former Veterans Administration official, believe Prescott Bush and the Harrimans should have been tried for treason.

What Next?

Now, say Fertik and Loftus, there should be a Congressional investigation into the Bush family's Nazi past and its concealment from the American people for 60 years.

"The American people have a right to know, in detail, about this hidden chapter of our history," says Loftus, author of The Secret War Against the Jews. "That's the only way we can understand it and deal with it."

For his part, Fertik is pessimistic that even a Congressional investigation can thwart the war profiteering of the present Bush White House. "It's impossible to stop it," he says, "when the worst war profiteers are George W. Bush and **** Cheney, who operate in secrecy behind the vast powers of the White House."

---

John Buchanan is a journalist and magazine writer based in Miami Beach. He can be reached by e-mail at jtwg@bellsouth.net.

[Trident-za]

Invading Syria wouldnt be a bad thing. The "insurgents" in Fallujah is reason enough. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040420-115628-7182r.htm)

the situation in fallujah should be enough to show you that it would be a bad idea.

I was thinking the same thing.... Anyway, the US has its hands full at the moment - I doubt any invasion of Syria is imminent.

[budanski]

Invading Syria wouldnt be a bad thing. The "insurgents" in Fallujah is reason enough. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040420-115628-7182r.htm)

the situation in fallujah should be enough to show you that it would be a bad idea.

We can change that, how much oil does Syria have? ;)

The fact that the U.S. will eventually return sovergnty back to Iraq explains the restraint/pullback in Fallajuh. If it was a case of conquering the town, I'm sure a good explanation to the pullback was to be out of the blast and fallout radius.