0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

 
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 06:41 pm
Sounds like any protest in America these days...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 06:58 pm
Brand X, Good point: I hope it's not lost on them that during Saddams' regime, these demonstrations were impossible unless it was to praise their leader.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 07:10 pm
The US should support the interim government in holding elections in Iraq as early as the interim government wants them held. Yes, the terrorists there will do everything they can to disrupt these elections, but we should help not discourage the Iraqies to hold those elections anyway as best they can.

The US should announce to the Iragies before these elections that the US will stay or leave after these elections according to what the surviving newly elected government wants the US to do.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 11:02 pm
ican, I doubt very much that's in this administration's plans - to leave Iraq totally. We are now planning to establish the biggest embassy in the world in Baghdad, and we're going to keep a good size military presence there. That's the reason why the Shia and Sunni's are demonstrative against the American occupation.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 05:48 am
Quote:


SOURCE ... registration required
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 06:11 am
And more on Clark. He's to be on 60 Minutes on Sunday saying that this administration, especially Rumsfeld, was intent on attacking Iraq before 9/11 and that after, despite all efforts to focus on Afghanistan and Al Queda, Bush and his folks stayed with the idea of an invasion against Saddam.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=4610418§ion=news

"There are no good targets in Afghanistan, there are lots of good targets in Iraq." Donald Rumsfeld 9/12/2001

Edit: Sorry, the article above my post also covers this aspect of the story.
I'll leave this here so folks can see the Reuters coverage. Joe
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 06:47 am
Prepare for a blamathon as the 9/11 hearings progress.

Quote:
Official: Kerry failed
to act on pre-9/11 tip
3rd agent to say he warned security lapses made Boston airport ripe for 'jihad' attack

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 19, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Paul Sperry
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON - A third federal aviation-security agent, one still with the government, has stepped forward to say he also warned Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry about security lapses at Boston's Logan International Airport before the 9-11 hijackings there.

Earlier this week, two former FAA agents said the Democratic presidential hopeful failed to take effective action after they gave him a prophetic warning that his home airport was vulnerable to multiple hijackings.

Brian Sullivan, a retired special agent from the Boston area, advised Kerry in a May 7, 2001, letter (page 1, page 2) that Logan was ripe for a "jihad" suicide operation possibly involving "a coordinated attack." He cited serious breaches at Logan security checkpoints exposed by an undercover investigation he and another former agent helped a Boston TV news station conduct.

Sullivan says he had a copy of the undercover videotape hand-delivered to Kerry's office.

It turns out the person who delivered it was a senior FAA agent in Washington who's now with the Transportation Security Administration. The agent, Bogdan Dzakovic, headed covert testing of airport security across the country before TSA took over aviation security from FAA after 9-11.

In an exclusive interview, he says he gave the tape to Jamie Wise, a Kerry staffer at the time.

After the office visit, "I received no feedback from anyone there," Dzakovic told WorldNetDaily.

Kerry boasts in campaign ads he "sounded the alarm on terrorism years before 9-11."

But he waited three months to reply to Sullivan's letter. And his July 24, 2001, letter, a copy of which was obtained by WorldNetDaily, merely offers to pass Sullivan's warning on to the Transportation Department's inspector general - even though Sullivan had made it clear in his letter that going to his old agency was a dead end. He and other agents, including Dzakovic, had complained about security lapses for years and got nowhere.

"The DOT OIG has become an ineffective overseer of the FAA," Sullivan told Kerry.

He suggested Kerry show the tape to peers on committees with FAA oversight. He even volunteered to testify before them.

Yet the correspondence stopped there. Kerry never followed up with him.

"He just did the Washington shuffle," said Sullivan, who thinks Kerry had a chance to prevent the Boston hijackings.

Another former agent, Steve Elson, who set up the TV sting at Logan, tried to follow up with Kerry, but was told by Wise he wasn't a constituent. (Elson, formerly of the elite Red Team that did covert testing, was a Houston field agent at the time.)

He came unglued, warning the staffer that if Kerry didn't act soon he'd risk the lives of planeloads of his actual constituents.

"What would the senator say if a large plane filled with holiday travelers took off from Logan at Thanksgiving for somewhere in California and went - boom - spattering men, women, children and babies all over the landscape at a couple of hundred knots?" demanded Elson, an ex-Navy SEAL.

His warning now looks like prophecy: At least 82 Kerry constituents were murdered aboard American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175.

Elson says he also dealt with Gregg Rothschild, Kerry's legislative director at the time. Attempts to reach him were unsuccessful.

Dzakovic laments the lack of attention to their warnings.

"We could have fed fish at the aquarium and accomplished just as much," he said.

Sullivan is perhaps the most frustrated. His two-page warning to Kerry four months before the Logan hijackings was eerily prescient.

"With the concept of jihad, do you think it would be difficult for a determined terrorist to get on a plane and destroy himself and all other passengers?" he wrote. "Think what the result would be of a coordinated attack which took down several domestic flights on the same day. With our current screening, this is more than possible. It is almost likely."

The toll from such an attack would be economic, as well as human, he predicted with chilling accuracy.

And the Logan security failures he highlighted in the letter included breaches at the very checkpoints the hijackers would later exploit.

The undercover investigation by Fox affiliate WFXT in Boston showed crews penetrating security checkpoints at Logan with knives and other weapons in nine of 10 tries.

Elson says the crew, led by reporter Deborah Sherman, walked through with Leatherman tools concealed in fanny packs. The Leatherman is a fancy utility knife. The 9-11 hijackers used utility knives. Sherman says she also had no luck getting Kerry to act on the video he apparently saw.

"It was always being 'reviewed' every time I called," she said. "There was no comment or action taken on the senator's part other than passing the tape along to someone else."

Sullivan - a registered independent who's also critical of Bush's handling of aviation security, both before and since 9-11 - thinks Kerry could have saved the Twin Towers, which were toppled by the Boston jetliners, and thousands of lives.

"John Kerry should have - and could have - prevented 9-11," he said.

How? "He could have taken direct action to address the concerns we had identified by visiting Logan and the MassPort authorities at Logan or the Massachusetts State Police," he said.

If that didn't work to bring about corrective action, he could have applied political pressure by having Sullivan and other agents testify before Congress, he says.

"Enhanced security would have prevented the hijackings, virtually without question," Elson agreed. If nothing else, it might have discouraged ringleader Mohamed Atta, who monitored security procedures at Logan weeks before the hijackings.

Phone calls to Kerry's campaign were not returned.

Right after 9-11, he told the Boston Globe that he'd triggered an undercover probe of Logan security by the General Accounting Office in June 2001, based on the TV report.

Only, he wrote Sullivan no such thing in his July letter, stating only that he passed his warning and the tape on to Transportation, not GAO.

And GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, did not test security at Logan. (Kerry confessed he didn't know the outcome of the probe he says he initiated.)

GAO spokesman Jeff Nelligan says there is no evidence Kerry requested anything specific with regard to Logan, although he says GAO had communications with "a number of interested members and staff, including Sen. John Kerry's office" about airport screener testing work in 2001.

He would not elaborate.

Sullivan and Elson, joined by aviation-security experts David Forbes and Andrew Thomas, want to see Kerry called before the 9-11 Commission, as well as President Bush, to answer questions about what he knew about Logan's lapses, and specifically what he did about them, before that fateful day. They also recommend GAO and Transportation officials testify to sort out discrepancies in Kerry's story.

Calls to the panel were not immediately returned.

"We don't have to wait for a tragedy to occur to act," Sullivan urged Kerry in his letter.


Source
Source 2
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 06:57 am
There's nothing new about Bush's determination to launch a war against Iraq from the moment he came into office. This from Paul O'Neill



from

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3925358/

Dated 13 Jan 04

O’Neill, whom Bush fired because he opposed another round of tax cuts, is quoted in the book as saying he was surprised by how focused the president was on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq from the start of his administration.

O’Neill said Tuesday that he did not mean to imply that the administration was wrong to begin contingency planning for a regime change in Iraq but that he was surprised that it was at the top of the agenda at the first Cabinet meeting.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 07:58 am
brand

For a peak at your source 1 (go peak, please please do) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/

source 2? New York Post, no less.

and, more importantly, blathamathons involve females, not politics.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 08:12 am
Linky went blinky.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 10:25 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, I doubt very much that's in this administration's plans - to leave Iraq totally. We are now planning to establish the biggest embassy in the world in Baghdad, and we're going to keep a good size military presence there. That's the reason why the Shia and Sunni's are demonstrative against the American occupation.


The media are widely disseminating these claims and repeating them, what seems to me, endlessly. Perhaps they are right; perhaps not. I'm inclined to think not.

I was was a young teenager during WWII and became well acquainted with the "Mein Kampf" inspired repetitive propaganda principle: The big lie, often repeated, will eventually become what the masses accept as truth.

About 20 years later I met a fellow engineer and new American citizen at work. He claimed he was a former Hitler youth and Nazi fighter pilot. He clearly could not forgive himself for ever believing the Nazi lies pumped into his youthful head. He felt compelled to redeem himself any way he could. He made it his mission to acquaint as many Americans as he could with how one could recognize the Nazi propaganda techniques should they ever be employed again. These techniques were the very ones used successfully to deceived him.

Central to the Nazi technique were constant and repeated verbal attacks on alleged motives of others. He emphasized that since no one can know the real motives of another, it was an easily successful tactic to attack the motives of one's supposed enemies since such attacks could never be proved wrong. Ignore, he warned, those who claim to know another's motives. Focus instead on the actual consequences of what people actually do. I heed that warning to this day. I recommend you heed it too.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 10:35 am
Ican, you just described the Bush administration:
Quote:
inspired repetitive propaganda principle: The big lie, often repeated, will eventually become what the masses accept as truth.

and
Quote:
constant and repeated verbal attacks on alleged motives of others.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 10:36 am
Gelisgesti wrote:
Quote:
NYTimes

Clinton Aides Plan to Tell Panel of Warning Bush Team on Qaeda
By PHILIP SHENON

Published: March 20, 2004

WASHINGTON, March 19 — Senior Clinton administration officials called to testify next week before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks say they are prepared to detail how they repeatedly warned their Bush administration counterparts in late 2000 that Al Qaeda posed the worst security threat facing the nation — and how the new administration was slow to act. ...


HMMMMMM?????

So pray tell, why didn't the Clinton Administration heed these same warnings while they were in power Question Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 10:43 am
hobitbob wrote:
Ican, you just described the Bush administration:
Quote:
inspired repetitive propaganda principle: The big lie, often repeated, will eventually become what the masses accept as truth.

and
Quote:
constant and repeated verbal attacks on alleged motives of others.


No, you just described what you allege to be the Bush administration. And you have been doing it repeatedly, seemingly endlessly, for weeks. If it falls like a bull turd, looks like a bull turd, smells like a bull turd, works like a bull turd, then I'll bet it's a bull turd.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 10:43 am
ican, It seems from my perspective that you're applying your advise only "one" way which favors the Bush administration. I think I'll stick with my manner of coming to conclusions on any matter having to do with repeated media messages and how to interpret them.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 10:47 am
I subscribe to that old saying, lie to me once, shame on you. Lie to me twice (and if I believe you), shame on me. I could name many things about the Bush administration that turned out to be lies. I'm now very careful about the rhetoric they use and how to interpret them in the "real" world. One example from his SOU speech last year; "We're going to help Africa with $15 billion in funding to help them fight HIV/AIDS." Go find out from any source you like how much was actually spent, ican. I can tell you it was nowheres near $15 billion. Don't forget, that was in his SOU speech!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 10:54 am

For months, lawmakers had been seeking the data, but Mr. Foster said in an interview that he had withheld it under instructions from Bush administration officials."


************
I feel that my ability to decide who's telling the truth and who isn't is pretty well developed, and can decide with some confidence and reliability that my choice is the right one.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 10:59 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
... One example from his SOU speech last year; "We're going to help Africa with $15 billion in funding to help them fight HIV/AIDS." Go find out from any source you like how much was actually spent, ican. I can tell you it was nowheres near $15 billion. Don't forget, that was in his SOU speech!


I believe it! It generally takes more than a year to administer that amount of money wisely. Now if it were to be merely thrown at the problem with little concern for effective application and lots of concern for appearances, then it could be spent in 24 hours via one bank draft.

My Hitler Youth and Nazis fighter pilot acquaintenance also advised the obvious: Examine carefully the logic within each claim!

Yes, Bush is no saint! He's waiting for you to attain that status first. Laughing

Yes, Bush is a mediocrity! Crying or Very sad

Yes, Kerry is a fantasizer! Crying or Very sad

Yes, Gore was a fantasizer! Crying or Very sad

So sue me! I prefer a mediocrity to a fantasizer. Shocked
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 11:17 am
Quote:
I prefer a mediocrity

How American. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 11:33 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
... the chief actuary of Medicare, provided Congress with documents on Friday showing that federal payments to private health insurance plans under a new Medicare law could far exceed what Congress assumed when it passed the measure last fall.


For months, lawmakers had been seeking the data, but Mr. Foster said in an interview that he had withheld it under instructions from Bush administration officials."




It was withheld for enough time to allow Mr. Mediocrity to verify that unpleasant conclusion.

However, as mediocre as I am, I knew that would be the consequence of the new Medicare Law before it was signed. I also know that most so-called federal entitlements that attempt to provide insurance of one kind or another will eventually exceed budget and evolve into some form of Ponzi scheme (e.g., social security retirement insurance, non-time limited unemployment insurance). I also know that taxing the dollars of those with more dollars a greater amount than those with less dollars, discourages job maintenance and growth.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.61 seconds on 01/18/2025 at 01:36:08