THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

No apologies or admitance of mistakes.
Instead of forwarding any admitions of mistakes, Dubya the Dunce has merely changed the "reasons" for the illegal pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. The American people mostly forgive or overlook mistakes by their hero the Pres. because..well everyone makes mistakes but the intent was for the good of America, Iraq and the world. The invasion was for the cause of FREEDOM, to protect Americans and the World, after all. America is always right, good and just. America stands for FREEDOM, Liberty and justice for all.

Killing over 15,000 Iraqis is a minor point. FREEDOM RINGS.

Honesty
Iraqi deaths &/or injuries mean little if anything to Americans. that number could have been 150,00. What matters is American lives, period. Let's be honest. If no Americans had been killed after the invasion there would be scant news about Iraq.

Published on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 by The Nation
Never Apologize, Never Explain
by David Corn

Never apologize. Never explain. Never concede. Many politicians--and many Homo sapiens--live and die by these words. But the Bush clan has emblazoned them onto the family crescent. Bush has had a good run of late: US forces nabbed Saddam Hussein, Libyan ruler Moammar Qadaffi declared he would voluntarily abandon his WMD programs, the US economy grew at a high rate this past quarter. All of this has contributed to a Bush bubble, and political commentators are once again diminishing the chances of the Democratic presidential nominee, whomever it will be.

But at the moment Bush's political fortunes are on the rise, more evidence has emerged showing that he deserves less respect than ever. Take the case of those missing weapons of mass destruction. Before the war, Bush said there was "no doubt" Hussein had them. In the months following the fall of Baghdad--as no such weapons were discovered--Bush and his crew continued to insist that Bush had been right to say Hussein was neck-deep in actual WMDs. Then in the fall, chief weapons hunter David Kay reported that his team had found evidence of possible weapons programs in Iraq. (Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has argued that the evidence is not conclusive that the labs cited by Kay were used for WMD research.) Bush and his aides pointed to Kay's report as proof they had been right all along, even though there is an obvious distinction between weapons and weapons programs. And when asked if the administration was backing away from its previous assertions about the presence of weapons (not programs) in Iraq, Bush officials said no. They suggested that Kay needed more time to find the proof. (The Bush crowd has been far more patient with him than they were with the UN inspectors.)

Now Bush--attempting to shift the terms of the debate in his favor--says it did not matter whether or not Iraq possessed weapons before the invasion. In a recent interview, ABC News' Diane Sawyer asked Bush, "Fifty percent of the American people have said that they think the administration exaggerated the evidence going into the war with Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, connection to terrorism. Are the American people wrong, misguided?" Bush replied, "No, the intelligence I operated on was good, sound intelligence." That was a non-responsive but untruthful reply, for the House and Senate intelligence committees (both led by Republicans) and Kay himself have each definitively stated that the prewar intelligence on Iraq's WMDs was loaded with uncertainties. Sawyer continued to press Bush about his prewar statements on WMDs, and he refused to directly address the question, repeatedly asserting that Saddam Hussein had been a "threat." And then he referred to Kay's discovery of a supposed "weapons program" to defend himself. But when Sawyer noted that Bush and other administration officials had "stated as a hard fact that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that [Hussein] could move to acquire those weapons," Bush countered, "What's the difference?...The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger."

Hold on. Before the war, Bush asserted Hussein was an immediate threat because he already had such weapons. He never went before the public and said, Hussein may have weapons of mass destruction; then again, he may only have weapons programs; but there's no difference. This is disingenuousness after the fact, backpedalling without acknowledgment. Moreover, after the Sawyer interview, the news broke that Kay had decided to quit his post, supposedly for personal reasons. Reports of his departure were widely interpreted (and probably rightfully so) as a signal that he had uncovered little in the way of evidence of WMDs. And Representative Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, noted that the administration had removed "critical people"--including analysts and linguists--from Kay's weapons hunting unit. This was another sign that Kay and his crew were not close to finding WMDs, and it showed that the Bush administration was not taking the WMD search all that seriously.

Which leads to the question: will Bush and his aides ever admit they oversold the WMD threat? Their case gets weaker by the day. If there had been real WMDs in Iraq, wouldn't at least one Iraqi have turned over information on them to the CIA, which presumably is ready to pay millions of dollars for information leading to real WMDs? Even conservative columnist George Will weeks ago urged the Bush White House to come clean on WMDs. The administration ignored his advice. Rather, Bush officials kept saying, wait for Kay's report. But even Kay is not sticking around for it.

Bush's excuses are falling apart on another front. After 9/11, he and his senior advisers maintained over and over that no one could have imagined such an attack against the United States. That was not so. For years, the intelligence community had collected warnings reporting that al Qaeda and other terrorists were interested in launching a 9/11-sort of attack--using hijacked aircraft as weapons--against American targets. (The final report produced by the joint inquiry on 9/11 conducted by the Senate and House intelligence committees includes a list of such warnings.) And there is strong evidence that Bush was told of a July 2001 intelligence report that noted that al Qaeda was planning a "spectacular" attack involving "mass casualties" against an American target. But by insisting falsely that 9/11 was so far out of the box that no one could have done anything about it, Bush absolved his administration and the Clinton administration of any blame for failing to thwart the assault.

Now former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean, the Republican chairman of the independent 9/11 commission, says that 9/11 could have been prevented. In a recent interview with CBS News, Kean noted that he would, if he could, fire the government officials who had failed the public. For over a year, evidence has been public proving that two administrations screwed up. But Bush and his aides have refused to acknowledge that. Kean's remarks--which drew much public attention--cast new light on a damn serious allegation that Bush had so far dodged rather well. Kean's commission is due to release its final report in the spring, but the commission--which has encountered bureaucratic resistance--may have trouble finishing its complex inquiry by then.

Another excuse from Bush circles was recently proven phony. In the run-up to the Iraq war, media accounts revealed that in 1983 Donald Rumsfeld had been sent by President Ronald Reagan to meet with Saddam Hussein and broker a closer relationship between Baghdad and Washington. At the time, Hussein was using chemical weapons in his war against Iran. How odd that Hussein's use of WMDs in 1983 did not bother Rumsfeld back then, when in 2002 and 2003 it was cited by Bush officials as a reason the United States had no choice but to invade Iraq. In his defense, Rumsfeld claimed that in 1983 he had "cautioned" Hussein against using chemical weapons. But then The Washington Post reported that declassified State Department notes of the meeting with Hussein indicated Rumsfeld had not raised this subject with the Iraqi dictator.

Rumsfeld then claimed he had discussed the matter with Iraqi Foreign Minster Tariq Aziz, not Hussein. Official records, though, showed that Rumsfeld had only mentioned it in passing. More recently, the National Security Archive found records related to a 1984 meeting that occurred between Rumsfeld and Aziz. According to these documents, Rumsfeld had been instructed to tell Aziz privately that the Reagan administration's public criticism of Iraq for using chemical weapons was not intended to signal the United States was any less eager "to improve bilateral relations, at a pace of Iraq's choosing." That is, Rumsfeld was to tell Aziz not to fret over what the Reagan administration said in public about Iraq's use of chemical weapons; the Reaganites still wanted to cozy up with Hussein.

So the Bush gang has escaped accountability on WMDs, on 9/11, and on the policy sins of their political fathers. Their cover stories no longer hold, yet there are no indications Bush and his lieutenants will necessarily pay for that. The accepted wisdom among analysts of American politics is that voters tend to look forward, not backward. When voters evaluate politicians, they care less about history than they do about present-day results and ask, what are you going to do for me (or us) now? Will that pattern hold in 2004? No doubt, Bush is hoping so. With the Bush clan, politics is indeed never having to say you're sorry.

What is troubling most of all is that three million folks are jobless, but the economy is 'growing.' My math was never that good, but less consumers usually means less buyers of goods and services. I'm not sure what I'm missing in the formula, but minus "j" can't continue to equal plus "e" for very long.

No matter
The tax cut for the wealthy is what matters. They will buy the more expensive goods. The Middle Class, soon to be the working poor or plain poor, can shop at Wal-Mart or Thrift stores.

It no longer matters to the Plutocracy that 98% of the America people will be a poorer . The Corporations will get richer via outsourcing jobs and re-locating mfg. The American Worker is now expendable due to the great Free Trade deals and Globalization.

Getting back to Iraq: Another country of cheap labor source, American goods and cheaper oil, as soon as the USA gets rid of the "bad guys" there.

pistoff, The dynamics you describe is actually happening this holiday season. Both the low end and high end stores are doing a brisk business, while the middle-of-the-roaders are just barely hanging on. Does that mean that the middle class of America are disappearing or just reduced? A food bank here in Santa Clara County claims that the request for food increased from 20,000 last year to 51,000 this year. There's an article in the newspaper about a 43 year old engineer living in his car, and getting food from the food bank. I know for sure he's gonna be voting for GWBush.

Posted before
There are plenty of articles about the decimation of the Middle Class. I believe it's a purposeful plan to weaken all Unions. do away with worker's rights and turn the Middle Class into the Working Poor. In fact I ahve seen Senate hearing about this topic. I posted this topic on this board before but it garnered no interest.

Small towns all over the US are dying because of the move of mfg. outside of the US. The Middle Class is no longer needed. Corps. now see themselves as Intl. and no longer need the American work force.

If there is another terrorist attack, I have no doubt that the Govt. will declare Martial Law and no strikes by workers will be allowed as it would endanger Natl. security. The noose is tightening around the necks of Americans. They just don't realize that the noose is there...yet.

Iragies
The Brits dominated them. Then Saddam brutalized them. Now America and the UK are there to dominate them and steal their land and resources; cut that up into peices to the very same countries that helped Saddam before. I feel that Iraqies should get a lot of sympathy but do they?

Merry Christmas to everybody ... everywhere.

Only the best to you and your's Timber and all the ATK family...


By RALPH PETERS

Email Archives
Print Reprint

December 25, 2003 -- DEAR Pfc. Smith,

Most of your fellow Americans won't think of you today. Some may see a news clip of your Christmas dinner in Iraq, filmed against a backdrop of holiday decorations your unit scraped together. Those who once served in the ranks themselves will think of you at least briefly. And you'll be cherished in the hearts, if not in the arms, of your loved ones.

But most of us won't think of you at all. And that's a wonderful thing.

It's your great gift to us.

Because of you, hundreds of millions of Americans who celebrate the birthday of the Prince of Peace will spend this holiday in peace themselves, with their loved ones safe and our blessed country secure.

Terrorists may threaten us, but because of you we know they will not defeat us. You stand between us and the dark men who rode into Bethlehem in search of an innocent child.

So forgive us for not remembering you today. We'll be too busy giving gifts and opening them, enjoying the thrilled faces of our nation's children, saying a too-brief prayer of thanks, then eating well and drinking our "leaded" eggnog until the tree blurs ever so slightly.

Because you stand on the rough frontiers of humankind, this will be a day of joy, not nightmare.

We won't think of you. Because you've done such a remarkable job. A nation that must think constantly of its men and women in uniform, that lives in constant dread of the latest news from the front lines, is a nation gripped by fear. But we know that you'll never let us down. Some of history's wounds may be inevitable, but because of you our nation will always survive them.

Because of you, we fear no foreign invasions.

Because of you, those few who do disturb our peace will not disturb it long.

Because of you, we need not dread the tyranny of dictators or murderous ideologies.

Because of you, we need not fear a knock on the door from the secret police.

The only midnight visits we expect are from Santa Claus.

As we celebrate, you're on patrol in Iraq.

You're weathering the winter's bite in Afghanistan.

You're in the Balkans, giving peace a chance.

You're in, literally, a hundred countries, keeping us safe and making safe the lives of those who have lived in fear for centuries.

Your brothers and sisters in the other branches of our military patrol the seas and skies, in service not only to your fellow Americans on this holy day, but helping all of humankind pioneer a future in which despots no longer slaughter the innocents.

You're a long way from home, Pfc. Smith, but your thoughts leap continents and oceans. Your heart is with your spouse, with the children whose joy you'll miss again this holiday season, and with the elders who feel your absence even more strongly at Christmas than they do on the other 364 days of the year.

You're tough. We know that. But those of us who served before you also understand that, even for the strongest heart, Christmas in a foreign land, far from those we love, is hard to bear. Some soldiers keep their loneliness to themselves. Others make jokes. The guys in the unit help each other through the day with small generosities. But "Merry Christmas" still sounds different in an armed camp.

In each Christmas you spend apart from your family, there are moments of longing so wrenching you can hardly stand it - although you don't let on. You're a well-trained, dedicated soldier. It's not just a profession. It's a calling, proud and honorable. You serve history's greatest cause.

But no American soldier wants to fight on Christmas Day.

Yet outposts must be manned, patrols run and convoys escorted. Even on Christmas, you'll roll out of your compound "guns up," alert to those to whom no day is sacred.

God willing, you'll spend next Christmas back in your family's embrace, where you won't have to rely on a brief phone call or a belated e-mail to learn how those dearest to you spent the holiday.

But on that future Christmas, another Pfc. Smith will stand in your place. As others took the weight of freedom upon their shoulders before they passed the burden down to you.

Our history is laden with Christmases lost by the men and women who won our nation's wars, from Valley Forge through Bastogne and on to Baghdad.

Today, it's your turn to carry out your mission so well that those you protect can forget about our enemies for a few hours. And for that same, short, glittering day, we can forget about you, too.

But in those lonely hours when you're off-duty, killing time in your barracks or in a tent, remember that you're keeping the spirit of Christmas alive for many millions. You're giving a glorious gift to every one of us.

On this day that shines so brightly in our hearts, you're holding back the darkness of all the world. Without you, "peace on earth" would be no more than the lyrics to a carol. So, on behalf of those of us who'll forget you on this day, "Merry Christmas!"

Ralph Peters is a retired soldier and an author.

BS
Maudlin BS. This is pure right wing hack writing. Most soldiers that have more than 10 minutes experience know that the myth of war is mainly believed by those who have never had to be there up close and personal.

Valley Forge through Bastogne and on to Baghdad.

Yeah, those three really belong together. What a crock!!!

Some things transcend 'us and them' .... but I think you know that.

War
When war stops becoming glorious maybe we homo sapians will stop gloryfying those that engage in it.

I added a quote believed to be from Edmund Burke to my signature. It seems appropriate for this thread so I thought I'd write this to share it.

Valley Forge to Baghdad?
That's really quite a jump.

As I recall, the defences of the city of Baghdad were pits, full of old tyres and oil and set alight.

Closer .....




Source

Source

Got any answers?


Questions about 9/11




Why did FBI Agents feel "hindered" in their investigations of Islamic Terrorism?

www.rememberjohn.com
Former FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill resigned from Washington headquarters in August 2001, complaining that Big Oil interests were interfering with his investigation of Saudi Terrorism. Two weeks later, on September 11, he was killed while working at his new job as head of security at the World Trade Center.



FBI General Counsel Colleen Rowley from the Minneapolis field office testified before Congress that her office's efforts to investigate Zaccharias Moussaoui were hindered and obstructed by higher-ups in the FBI. One of the superiors who refused her request for a warrant, Marion (Spike) Bowman, was recently given a Presidential Award and a large cash bonus.
Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 12-18-02


Chicago FBI counter terrorism agent Robert Wright suffered retaliation when he complained that FBI Headquarters and the Justice Department were hindering his investigation of Islamic terrorism Chicago Sun-Times, May 31, 2002
Why was FBI Headquarters and the Justice Department hindering these terrorism investigations from around the country?


Why
did it
happen?

Things we need to know about September 11

October 25, 1999 - The jet carrying golfer Payne Stewart from Florida to Texas flies off course. Air traffic controllers alert the military, who send F-16s to intercept the flight. Response time: 21 minutes
July 16, 2002 - A group of entertainers from India on a flight to New York become excited at seeing the New York City skyline. Flight attendants alert authorities, and F-16s intercept the flight and escort it to the runway. Response time: 17 minutes
September 11, 2001 - Only after both of the World Trade Center towers had been hit and a third hijacked plane was known to be heading towards Washington DC did the US military dispatch fighter jets to patrol the skies of our Capitol, called in from Langley Air Force base, 130 miles away. The D.C. Air Guard is located at Andrews Air Force Base, less than ten miles from the Pentagon
Elapsed time of hijackings: 1 hour 42 minutes
Why weren't the fighters scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base? Why weren't they already patrolling the skies of Washington D.C., given the fact that our nation was under attack?
Letters with anthrax were mailed September 18 and October 9. The anthrax has been traced to U.S. government laboratories and a handful of people skilled enough to prepare it. For more see www.monitor.net/monitor/0208a/anthrax.html.
Why has the FBI probe into the anthrax threat been so inept? Why did the sender choose the date? Who gained from the scare?
Bush asks Daschle to limit 9-11 investigations
CNN, January 9, 2002
"President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events of September 11, congressional and White House sources told CNN. The request was made at a private meeting with congressional leaders Tuesday morning. Sources said Bush initiated the conversation."
Why would anyone not want a thorough investigation of the biggest intelligence and national defense failure in American history?
We should ask James A. Baker

Secretary of Treasury during Iran-Contra and the Chief of Staff during the Gulf War, James A. Baker now works as a lawyer and as Senior Counsel to The Carlyle Group, a Washington D.C. investment firm with extensive Saudi ties.

James A. Baker watched the 9-11 attacks with the Bin Laden family and a former CIA director in Washington, D.C's Ritz-Carlton (Red Herring business magazine Jan. 02) www.hereinreality.com./carlyle.html

His law firm, Baker & Botts, assists companies to get contracts for Caspian Sea oil. These require a pipeline through Afghanistan. www.bakerbotts.com

James A. Baker is also listed as Counsel for the Office of Intelligence Policy. This office advises the Attorney General, FBI, CIA, and the state and defense department about guidelines and legality of domestic and overseas intelligence operations. This office could "connect the dots." www.usdoj.gov/oipr

Meet The Carlyle Group www.thecarlylegroup.com
The Carlyle Group invests billions of dollars of state and teacher pension funds in defense and telecom industries. They had extensive ties to Global Crossing, Enron, and Arthur Andersen. As a private firm they are not subject to SEC inspection or regulations. Besides Baker, many other former government officials work for The Carlyle Group including Frank Carlucci, Carlyle Group Chairman, former CIA director and Secretary of Defense during the Iran-Contra affair. Carlucci is also a trustee for RAND, a think tank that is paid to give advice to the federal government and co-chair for RAND's Middle East Public Policy Advisory Board.

George Bush, Sr, Carlyle Senior Advisor
Regular visitor to Saudi Arabia on behalf of The Carlyle Group, and met with the Bin Ladens twice before September 11.
Judicial Watch September 28, 2001
He's also known to advise his son, George W Bush, on matters of foreign policy.
New York Times, June 10, 2001

Why are people who profit from war being allowed to make decisions in our government?
More unanswered questions:
· Whatever happened with the investigation into pre-9/11 insider trading, the unusual volume of "put options" that were sold the week before 9/11 on companies that stood to lose money after the attacks? Fox News Sept. 20, 2001
· Why was the Pakistani Air Force allowed to airlift hundreds of Taliban fighters out of Kunduz shortly before it fell? MSNBC, November 29, 2001
· Why was a "Net Jet" owned by Omaha billionaire Warren Buffet tracking Flight 93 when it crashed? AP August 9, 2002
Buffet happened to be holding a charity event at Offutt Air Force Base that morning. S.F. Business Times, 2-1-02
· Why was the Bin Laden family allowed to charter a jet and return to Saudi Arabia before being questioned by the FBI?
· Why did the White House staff start taking Cipro on September 11, more than a month before the anthrax attacks?
· Why did World Trade Center building 7 collapse like one and two, without being hit by a hijacked aircraft nor with rubble from them? See: www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
· Why was war not declared on bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Why was war declared on the emotion of terror? How do you know when such a war is won, or lost?
Books:
Forbidden Truth by Jean-Charles Brisard,
Guillaume Dasquie & Wayne Madsen
This book shows how corporate oil interests and Saudi Arabia disastrously compromised U.S. national security in Afghanistan. Note: Not to be confused with the French "Pentagon Conspiracy" book of a similar name.

For more information on the web.

www.rememberjohn.com
www.hereinreality.com
www.copvcia.com
www.unansweredquestions.org
www.whatreallyhappened.com
www.makethemaccountable.com

Since hours I'm trying to understand, why Paris Hilton's "The Simple Life" has beaten George B./Diane Sawyer by more than a million viewers.

Do (especially) American conservatives stay tuned to FOX 24/24 ?

You have to admit, Bush has a better title wth 'The Simpleton'