« the 2 year anniversary party continues | Main | wearing my skeptic's hat (and my inner tube) »

nobody expects the EU inquisition!

Ok, you can all go home now. No need for war. Saddam has done a tell-all interview and now we can be sure the truth will be known.

Tony Benn met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad yesterday in an attempt to avert war in the Gulf.

During an interview filmed by an Iraqi crew, the former Labour MP and veteran peace activist said he asked President Saddam whether Iraq possessed any weapons of mass destruction. He said he also asked him whether Iraq had links to the al-Qa'ida terrorist network. Iraq has repeatedly denied both accusations

The interview will be broadcast on television this week, but my network of underground spies has already obtained a copy of the transcript:

As Benn enters the room, Saddam looks surprised. Benn is accompanied by Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder, who have vowed to finally get the truth out of Saddam .

Saddam: I didn't expect a kind of EU Inquisition.

Benn: NOBODY expects the EU Inquisition!

They sit down to begin the interview

Benn:You are hereby charged that you did have weapons of mass destruction and connections to al-Qa'ida. Now, how do you plead?

Saddam: I'm innocent.

Chirac:Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Schroeder: We'll soon change your mind about that!

Benn: Now, old man - you are accused of terrorism on three counts - heresy by thought, heresy by word, heresy by deed, and heresy by action - four counts. Do you confess?

Saddam: I don't understand what I'm accused of.

Chirac: Ha! Then we shall make you understand! Biggles! Fetch...THE SOFT CUSHIONS!

(Schroeder holds out two ordinary modern household cushions)

Schroeder: Here they are, Chirac.

comfy.gifBenn: Now, old man- you have one last chance. Confess the heinous sin of building nuclear weapons, reject al-Qaida- two last chances. And you shall be free - three last chances. You have three last chances.

Saddam: I don't know what you're talking about.

Benn :Right! If that's the way you want it - Chirac! Poke him with the soft cushions!

Chirac: Confess! Confess! Confess!

Schroder: It doesn't seem to be hurting him.

Benn: Have you got all the stuffing up one end?

Chirac: Yes, lord.

Benn:Hm! He is made of harder stuff! Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!

Schroeder:(terrified) The...Comfy Chair?

(Chirac pushes in a really plush comfy chair)

Benn: So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Chirac! Put him in the Comfy Chair!

(They roughly push him into the Comfy Chair)

Benn: Now - you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven.

Eventually, the lobbing of the soft questions gets to Saddam and he breaks down and confesses that yes, he had a weapon once but he got rid of it. It was a BB gun that he gave his son Uday for his tenth birthday, but they threw it in the river when Uday embraced peace as a way of life.

When asked why he did the interview, Benn replied, "We hear President Bush and Tony Blair every day but we don't hear from Saddam Hussein."

He then added, "Now that you have heard Saddam speak -and you cannot say we did not try to force the answers from him - you know the truth. He is truly a man of peace. I feel bad that we even tortured him like that."


See, there you go, evidence that Bush shouldn't be going to war in Iraq. So why does everyone still want to bomb them? I've heard a transcript from NK too. I hear they used an even scarier device for them, it was a massage chair from the Sharper Image!

It's a fair cop.

Chip, check out this link:

Once Powell comes forward with the NSA transcripts of Iraqi phone conversations detailing their deception, that's pretty much it, unless you're completely unconvinceable.

Tony, it's not a matter of being unconvinceable, hell I don't even oppose a War in Iraq. I just oppose an unsupported attack on Iraq. Unfortunately, and this isn't meant to be offensive, but, Americans seem to feel that they don't need any sort of global support. Maybe when it comes to national security they're right, I wouldn't exactly take a vote with my neighbors when protecting my home, but, if the U.S. does decide to go to war without some sort of U.N. Resolution, or atleast the support of NATO, they take the risk or alienating many countries that they depend on for trade and commerce. Although the U.S. is fairly self sufficient, and many countries rely upon them, it still doesn't give the Bush administration the right to undo the work of many pervious administrations. If these stories are true, if Iraq has the weapons, and if there are links to Osama, then I'm sure it won't be hard to convince others that a war is necessary. I just wonder why Bush doesn't come forward with his information. I've heard the arguements that it would comprimise sources and such, but there must be some proof that won't cause any damage. I'm just waiting for the evidence before I will agree to such a drastic measure such as war. The American nation was founded on the concept of questioning your leaders, and holding those people accountable for their actions.

Chip, do you honestly think there's any additional evidence that the U.S. could reasonably obtain that would convince the French and Germans? I mean, we've convinced a lot of other countries. 15 of the 19 members of NATO voted to provide logistical support; the only objectors were France, Germany, Belgium, and Luxembourg.

Yes, it would be nice to have the extra diplomatic cover, but at some point you've just got to decide whether you're going to let two countries that are playing domestic politics with global security veto action and further undermine the authority of the U.N. - because the ultimate authority of the Security Council doesn't come from its unanimity, it comes from its ability to enforce its binding resolutions. To believe otherwise fundamentally misunderstands the nature of international law.

True enough. True enough.

But it isn't all about evidence, it's also about morality. A war with Iraq will do nothing but cause more suffering, it will open the door for more terrorist actions against the U.S. It will create added problems in the middle east for allied countries like Israel. And it won't help alleviate the domestic problems facing the U.S. at home. This war will only spend tax dollars that are better used trying to combat unemployment, trying to provide a decent medicare system, trying to fight corporate crime. Maybe the tax dollars could be used to bolster the eroded safety programs in NASA, or they could be used to provide support for border officials. Every soldier that is put in the Gulf to fight Iraq is taken from the States, leaving one more gap for a terrorist to slip through. And without ANY evidence of Saddam's ties to Bin Laden, there is no reason to send them over to Iraq until there is proof that a threat exists. I'm sorry, but until the rest of the world believes Saddam is a risk, this entire fiasco appears to be a way for Bush to dodge bad press concerning the failures of his administration.

Let's please get straight what's in the French's best interests:
It's in their best interests that WE (the US) fight the long war against islamofacist terrorism and that THEY pretend to be on the other side.

Two main points to this:
1. that way the next big terrorist attack will be on London or New York again, but not on Paris. And any attacks in France will be attacks on Americans, not on French people.

2. France is approaching becoming a majority Muslim country. It may be internet bull, but I read the other day that the majority of births in France are Muslim. They've got a local population to pander to.

So their point of view is not, God forbid, that we shouldn't fight the war on terror, but simply that they should reap the benefits without paying the price. It seems perfectly consistant to me.

Chip, the requirement of "Saddam's ties to Bin Laden" is something the left has created to weasel around the truth: the "War on Terror" is just that, not a war on al Qa'eda, and that's always been the case. Strawman number one is down...

And as for the "rest of the world" -- did you not take note of the "Gang of Eight" letter to the WSJ last week? The one which has since had at least two more heads of state in Europe throwing their weight behind it (and maybe a third)? The truth is, the majority of those concerned are in fact behind the US and UK in this.

But I suspect that you're going to consult the manual and come up with the next set of invented reasons on why we shouldn't do anything about Saddam... after all, we've done, step by step, all the other things the left has demanded, and still new reasons are produced on demand.

But the support from the people of the US is increasing -- look at the latest polls -- and leftist resistance is beginning to fade: check out Julie Burchill's column in The Guardian, of all places! If you pay enough attention, you'll eventually get it...

Just some observations here...

"Every soldier that is put in the Gulf to fight Iraq is taken from the States, leaving one more gap for a terrorist to slip through." Our soldiers do not roam around the U.S. protecting it. Their job is to train and prepare for war, then go and fight it if necessary - not to protect us at home.

And speaking of morality... There hasn't been this much morality in the white house since 1992. In fact, between then and Jan 2001, there was none.

...but, if the U.S. does decide to go to war without some sort of U.N. Resolution... there have been many U.N. resolutions - which saddam continuously ignores. You know, there are only so many threats I can bestow upon my kids to clean their rooms before I have to make good and lay down the law. Same difference. Resolutions are useless unless enforced.

It also seems to me that those forgein nations who oppose a war with Iraq are those with the most to hide. Germany and France reek of anti-semitism - enough to not support the US, as friends of Israel. There's a money trail that goes right from Saddam to Chirac's pocket (so I've heard).

I'll take these points under consideration. But first where are you finding your polls to suggest growing support? From the FOX news propaganda machine? The American media is all style over substance, they only cover tragedy, as well they should, it gets much better ratings than "happy news".
Yeah the soldiers don't wander around protecting the country, but if the U.S. attacks Iraq then they had damned better be ready to wander around protecting the country. Many studies have shown that any action against Iraq will just give militant muslims a reason to ban together. I think a lot of people forget how fickle the U.S. government is. When Iraq was fighting Iran they were allies, when Osama was terrorizing Russia, he was an ally.
Yes there have been many U.N. resolutions and unfortunately like the U.N. predecessor the League of Nations the U.N. seems to be unable or unwilling to enforce these resolutions it passes. But that doesn't mean it falls to the U.S. to decide whether or not a new regime is needed in Iraq. There has been NO evidence shown to link Saddam to Bin-Laden so it's not about national security. Iraq has no interest in taking over or attacking U.S. soil. Their war with Kuwait was a result of a long running territorial dispute. The impending war with Iraq however is an oil dispute. It's no secret that George W is in the pocket of corporate America, and it's no surprise that something like that could happen in the land of the almighty dollar.
Maybe if this war was about doing something that is right then there wouldn't be an anti-war movement. Regardless of whether that movement is failing or not, which it isn't, I think it is noteworthy that this is the first anti-war movement in American history to begin BEFORE the war actually takes place, it was only after several years did the Vietnam war movement hit full steam. This should say something to those right wingers who would support military action in another nation.

Uh... it was a joke...

{ties Troy ChipScholar to chair}
(French Accent)
I will allow my pug dog to lick your nipples until you find a sense of humor! You cannot resist him! He can do this ALL DAY!!!
(/French Accent)

there are still a limited number of realistic personalities left in the Small Victory Gift Shoppe and Tequila Bar at clearance prices, be sure to stop in and peruse the selection of genuine VRWC goods

"When the going gets weird, the weird go pro" HST

Mike, that the best I've had in, uh, a while.

What's the dog's phone number?

Oh, so now you want his number so you two can sneak around and dilly-dally when we are at work?

As an Official Oppressor of the VRWC Sollie has an exclusive contract.

I do have an Akita who does freelance work but she has REALLY BIG teeth.

Turn ons:
rawhide treats, lying on the ice in a frozen yard

Turn offs:
Squirrels and those damn birds