THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Well, regardless of who contributed how much when to the evolution of this Osama-Saddam Frankenstein monster, I think we are obligated to pay the price now required to kill it before it evolves beyond our ability to kill it ....

Top Army Commander in Iraq Complained of Poor Supply Situation, Document Shows

The top U.S. commander in Iraq complained to the Pentagon last winter that his supply situation was so poor that it threatened Army troops' ability to fight, according to an official document that has surfaced only now.

The lack of key spare parts for gear vital to combat operations, such as tanks and helicopters, was causing problems so severe, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez wrote in a letter to top Army officials, that "I cannot continue to support sustained combat operations with rates this low."

<snip>

His letter of concern has surfaced after repeated statements by President Bush that he is determined to ensure that U.S. troops fighting in Iraq have all that need to execute their missions. "I have pledged, as has the secretary of defense, to give our troops everything that is necessary to complete their mission with the utmost safety," he said in May. Earlier this month, he said in Manchester, N.H., that, "When America puts our troops in combat, I believe they deserve the best training, the best equipment, the full support of our government."

A copy of Sanchez's letter was given to The Washington Post by a person familiar with the situation who was dismayed that front-line troops had not been adequately supplied. That person also disagrees with the Bush administration's handling of Iraq, but said that was not part of the motivation in providing the document. The disclosure of Sanchez's concerns also follows recent comments by former ambassador L. Paul Bremer, Sanchez's civilian counterpart in running the U.S. occupation of Iraq, that he believed more troops were needed in Iraq and had asked the Bush administration to send them.

Monday, October 18, 2004

Putin: Terrorist aiming to derail Bush bid
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

DUSHANBE, Tajikistan -- Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday that terrorists are aiming to derail President Bush's chances at re-election through their attacks in Iraq.

Putin noted that his government continued to disagree with Bush on Washington's invasion of Iraq, which Russia strongly opposed as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

"I consider the activities of terrorists in Iraq are not as much aimed at coalition forces but more personally against President Bush," Putin said at a news conference after a regional summit in the Tajik capital, Dushanbe.

"International terrorism has as its goal to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term," he said. "If they achieve that goal, then that will give international terrorism a new impulse and extra power."

Still, Putin didn't say which candidate he favored in the Nov. 2 election. "We unconditionally respect any choice of the American people," he said.

revel wrote:

Quote:

Another of my conjectures is: The statement to date we have seen no evidence is equivalent to we don't know whether or not the evidence exists..

If three years from now we still have no evidence are you and others like you still going to be saying we just haven't found it yet?

Your statement has nothing to do with my conjecture. We have found the evidence!

Quote:

me: I am afraid that I find you confusing. You said that the statement that we have seen no evidence is the same as we don't know whether or not the evidence exist. Then you said we have found the evidence. Just look up at your quotes, they do not make on bit of logical sense.

I have presented here what I judge to be convincing evidence that Afghanistan harbored al Qaeda before we invaded it.

[quote]me: I agree.

me: Don't agree that you presented convincing evidence.

ican711nm wrote:

BY THE WAY

JOHN W. DEAN'S Friday, Jun. 06, 2003 is demonstatively irrelevant.

What is demonstratively relevant is Charles Duelfer's Reort posted here again for your convenience.

I read a good deal of the Duelfer Report. I think like the Bible it is taken apart and used by both sides to support whatever side a person is on.

In the end this is what matters as it concerns the Bush administration and their case for going to war with Iraq when they did and the reasons they stated at the time. Sanctions was not even mentioned at that time nor was any food for oil program things.

From what I gather from the report, saddam had intentions but at the time of the war he did not have wmd, nor could he have threatened us in the form of mushrooms clouds for a long time as all his capablity to produce wmd have been destroyed since the 90's.

So the Bush administration lied about saddam havingWMD.

There was not a need to rush to war. The situation of the sanctions could have been handled better than rushing to war and killing lots of people on both sides. There was not an immediate threat to us in the United States.

According to the report (not your key finding), Saddam didn't even consider the US really an enemy, he wanted wmd for Iran and other middle east neighbors who he felt threatened against.

In any event, at the time of the war he did not possess any stockpiles of wmd as was claimed or any wmd at all so there was no need to rush to war at the time that Bush did it without a plan to succeed once toppling saddam hussien.

According Bush himself they miscalculated on getting saddam so quickly.

So I am wondering, did they plan on just making up their plans as they went along and that is why they didn't know what to do once they toppled saddam hussien? I mean these supposed experts and war hawks seem to be totally inept at executing a war and all its natual aftermath ramifications.

The US would have never agreed to lift to sanctions no matter who was in charge. They never would have trusted saddam hussien not to try to rebuild his wmd if he was not watched.

I think it was a good thing that Bush went to the UN. However I don't think it was a good thing he ahead and went to war when he did it. there was no need. So I am in agreement with John Kerry on this.

IF you disagree, I agree to disagree.

Those who read the first part of the Duelfer report but do not read the last half will have a very different impression than those who read the whole thing.

Foxfyre wrote:

Those who read the first part of the Duelfer report but do not read the last half will have a very different impression than those who read the whole thing.

.... and forget, what was written in the first half :wink:

Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53

To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54

So, why didn't we just blow the camp up with a few missles then?

Why bother invading the whole country?

A high-flying diplomat who helped frame the Government arguments that laid the groundwork for the Iraq war, has resigned because Downing Street "did not tell the whole truth" about the Iraqi threat.

Carne Ross, a former first secretary to Britain's UN mission between 1998 and mid-2002 in charge of Iraq issues, had resigned a month ago just as he was about to take up a senior post in London.

Asked about his reasons, 38-year-old Mr Ross told The Independent yesterday: "I had lost trust in a Government that I believe did not tell the whole truth about the alleged threat posed by Iraq before the war."

He also highlighted the Government's failure to "fully pursue available alternatives to invasion", a reference to the option of allowing the UN weapons inspections to continue. But the diplomat, who had taken a year's sabbatical before going on to serve until last month as chief strategist to the UN mission in Kosovo, refused to comment further.

Mr Ross is the second senior Iraq expert from the Foreign Office to resign over the war. Elizabeth Wilmshurst, a deputy head in the legal department, left in March 2003. Other prominent officials including the chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix and Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, have said the war was illegal. Mr Ross's position reflects the unease about the prosecution of the war among those who knew there was no new evidence that Saddam Hussein represented a direct threat to Britain.