0
   

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

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 09:04 am
if Bush lied about the whole thing, why would he commission a group to look into it and publish their findings?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 11:13 am
WHO IS RESONSIBLE Question
ican711nm wrote:
Yes, this "silent daily massacre" is a form of murder. It must be stopped. The Baathist-AQs Alliance must be stopped, because it is they who are causing this "silent daily massacre" by sabotaging the efforts of the US and Iraq to make things better.


Gelisgesti wrote:

Would this be the result of 'compassionate Conservatism' or 'leave no child behind'?


ican711nm wrote:

No, this is obviously the result of the alliance between the subversive, deposed Baathist terrorists and the subversive al Qaeda terrorists. The chaos is not US caused. It is Baathist-al-Qaeda caused.


Cycloptichorn wrote:

Right, right, everything is the fault of the bad evil mens and none of it ours.

What ever happened to the concept of personal responsibility? It has vanished.


Cicerone Imposter wrote:

Yeah, 25 percent of Iraqi children are starving, and the right would have us believe it's the Baathist's causing it. When we invaded Iraq for whatever reasons, it's now our responsibility for the whole shet'n kabootle whether we want it or not - in other words, it's our responsibility. Many on the right don't understand one thing about responsibility.


THE PERPETRATORS OF MURDER ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR MURDERS Question

THOSE WHO TRY TO STOP THE PERPETRATORS FROM MURDERING ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PERPETRATOR'S MURDERS Question

"1984" has arrived after a delay of only 21 years Exclamation Shocked
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 11:20 am
Well Ican, just reading these last few pages, there are those who scour the internet looking for articles to support their point of view and they post them and post them and post them as 'proof' of the facts no matter how many other articles dispute those same facts. (I'm not commenting about those--including me--who post something with new information, a new slant on an issue, or a different point of view that is constructive to the debate.)

The fact is, some can't do what George suggested--adjust their conclusions as new evidence is presented. The--what do you call them, the "Irratios?" will conclude from their posts what even their posts don't say. Smile
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 11:30 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17353-2005Mar31.html

Quote:

Fooling Ourselves

By David Ignatius
Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A27

...
If there's one thing that has become clear in the history of U.S. intelligence over the past 50 years it is that the CIA is not in fact a rogue agency. It is shaped, often to a fault, by the priorities and pet projects of whoever is in the White House. Intelligence supports policy, but it doesn't make it. [/b]

The Bush administration must examine its role in the process of self-deception over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, above all to guard against future mistakes. It wasn't Saddam Hussein who deceived American leaders; he claimed repeatedly that he had no WMD. It was America that deceived itself. .
Cycloptichorn


Yeah, George Bush had almost 8 months prior to 9/11/2001 to discover that US intelligence agencies he inherited needed fixin'! The incompetent fool should have known from the 1st day of his inauguration that these agencies were incompetent. It's just plain dumbluck that we have not suffered any more, much less many more, 9/11s since Bush has been president. Gad, Bush is incompetent!.... "1984"
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 11:38 am
Your whole tack of argument is false, Ican, as it ignores the pressure the the WH put on the CIA to deliver positive answers about the war in Iraq.

We know that this pressure existed not only through reports but through the fact that the Neocons had laid their plans out quite convienently through PNAC documents before 9/11 even happened.

How you can ignore that the members of said PNAC are now our highest governmental stragegists is beyond me.

Quote:
It's just plain dumbluck that we have not suffered any more, much less many more, 9/11s since Bush has been president. Gad, Bush is incompetent!....


What a pitiful attempt at sarcasm. You should work on that if you're gonna use it on a regular basis.

It's not 'Dumb luck' that we haven't been attacked again, it's the fact that there's no reason for AQ TO attack us again. We're already doing exactly what they wanted; polarizing the middle east through our heavy-handed, predictable response to 9/11, and adding more recruits to Al Qaeda than they ever would have had without us.

Remember what the goal of AQ is: Dar Al-Islaam! NOT conquering America!!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 11:38 am
From the Ignatius article
Quote:
The Bush administration must examine its role in the process of self-deception over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, above all to guard against future mistakes. It wasn't Saddam Hussein who deceived American leaders; he claimed repeatedly that he had no WMD. It was America that deceived itself.


This is pure baloney. If George W. Bush was incompetent for misreading the intelligence for eight months, then how culpable was the Clinton administration for misreading the intelligence for eight years? Saddam Hussein denied having WMD, but he still twarted the U.N. inspectors on every turn causing THEM to believe he had WMD as is well documented. Why would he do that? The only reason I can think of is he wanted us to believe he had WMD because those sanctions were so very very lucrative for him. A tyrant butcher he was. Stupid, he was not.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 11:41 am
He didn't misread the intelligence at all. He knew exactly what was happening, and every piece of it has played completely into what Bush would have wanted to happen.

He 'hit the trifecta,' remember?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 11:45 am
McG:

Quote:
if Bush lied about the whole thing, why would he commission a group to look into it and publish their findings?


Because said group was ""not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received."

This means that there could in no way be blame placed upon Bush for his part of it from this commission. Ask me again why Bush would authorize such a commission, one that has no potential for holding his admin. at fault at all. Or just think about it for a minute.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 11:59 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Your whole tack of argument is false, Ican, as it ignores the pressure the the WH put on the CIA to deliver positive answers about the war in Iraq.

...

Remember what the goal of AQ is: Dar Al-Islaam! NOT conquering America!! Cycloptichorn


"Your whole tack of argument is false," Cyclo. But it is quite in harmony with good ol' "1984" double speak .... AND it is quite in harmony with the liturgy of the Irratios. You're performance is really quite good for a volunteer accomplice.

Repeatedly posted:
Quote:
Al Qaeda declared war on Americans in 1996, 1998, and 2004, and they have murdered thousands of Americans.

Al Qaeda were based in Afghanistan prior to US invasion of Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda were based in Iraq prior to US invasion of Iraq.

Before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda and connections fomented the following mass murders of Americans:
1. 10/1983 US Marine Corps Headquarters in Beirut--241 dead Americans;
2. 2/1993 WTC in NYC--6 dead Americans;
3. 11/1995 Saudi National Guard Facility in Riyadh--5 dead Americans;
4. 6/1996 Khobar Towers in Dhahran--19 dead Americans;
5. 8/1998 American Embassy in Nairobi--12 dead Americans;
6. 12/2000 Destroyer Cole in Aden--17 dead Americans;
7. 9/2001 WTC in NYC, Pentagon, Pennsylvania Field--approximately, 1500 dead Americans and 1500 dead others.


I await al Qaeda's offer of an armistice now that they finally have us exactly where they want us. ... "1984"
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 12:22 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
...This means that there could in no way be blame placed upon Bush for his part of it from this commission. Ask me again why Bush would authorize such a commission, one that has no potential for holding his admin. at fault at all. Or just think about it for a minute. Cycloptichorn

No need to ask you again! Ever since the Duelfer report last September we have all been convinced that Saddam didn't possess any ready-to-use WMD since 1991. We have known for months now how Bush&Adm used the incompetent intelligence presented all of them by some of them.

What you and your fellow volunteers seek is hard evidence that Bush did deliberately, willingly and knowingly mislead the American people that Saddam did possess ready-to-use WMD. A better approach to the "1984" approach that you and your fellow volunteers are currently taking, might be to more closely follow the full "1984" approach and hypnotize Bush into lying to Dan Rather on tape about his real motives.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 12:29 pm
April 1, 2005
We Can't Remain Silent
By BOB HERBERT

At dinner on a rainy night in Manhattan this week, I listened to a retired admiral and a retired general speak about the pain they've personally felt over the torture and abuse scandal that has spread like a virus through some sectors of the military.

During the dinner and in follow-up interviews, Rear Adm. John Hutson, who is now president of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H., and Brig. Gen. James Cullen, a lawyer in private practice in New York, said they believed that both the war effort and the military itself have been seriously undermined by official policies that encouraged the abuse of prisoners.

Both men said they were unable to remain silent as institutions that they served loyally for decades, and which they continue to love without reservation, are being damaged by patterns of conduct that fly in the face of core values that most members of the military try mightily to uphold.

"At some point," said General Cullen, "I had to say: 'Wait a minute. We cannot go along with this.' "

The two retired officers have lent their support to an extraordinary lawsuit that seeks to hold Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ultimately accountable for policies that have given rise to torture and other forms of prisoner abuse. And last September they were among a group of eight retired admirals and generals who wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to create an independent 9/11-type commission to fully investigate the problem of prisoner abuse from the top to the bottom of the command structure.

Admiral Hutson, who served as the Navy's judge advocate general from 1997 to 2000, said he felt sick the first time he saw the photos of soldiers abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. "I felt like somebody in my family had died," he said.

Even before that, he had been concerned by the Bush administration's decision to deny the protections of the Geneva Conventions to some detainees, and by the way prisoners at Guantánamo Bay were being processed and treated. He said that when the scandal at Abu Ghraib broke, "I knew in my soul that it was going to be bigger than that, that we had just seen the tip of the iceberg and that it was going to get worse and worse and worse."

The letter to President Bush emphasized the wide scope of the problem, noting that there were "dozens of well-documented allegations of torture, abuse and otherwise questionable detention practices" involving prisoners in U.S. custody. It said:

"These reports have implicated both U.S. military and intelligence agencies, ranging from junior enlisted members to senior command officials, as well as civilian contractors. ... No fewer than a hundred criminal, military and administrative inquiries have been launched into apparently improper or unlawful U.S. practices related to detention and interrogation. Given the range of individuals and locations involved in these reports, it is simply no longer possible to view these allegations as a few instances of an isolated problem."

Admiral Hutson and General Cullen have worked closely with a New York-based group, Human Rights First, which, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, filed the lawsuit against Mr. Rumsfeld. A report released this week by Human Rights First said that the number of detainees in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan has grown to more than 11,000, and that the level of secrecy surrounding American detention operations has intensified.

Burgeoning detainee populations and increased secrecy are primary ingredients for more, not less, prisoner abuse.

One of the many concerns expressed by Admiral Hutson and General Cullen was the effect of the torture and abuse scandal on members of the military who have had nothing to do with it. "I think it does stain the honor of people who didn't participate in it at all," said Admiral Hutson. "People in the military who find that kind of behavior abhorrent are painted with the same broad brush."

General Cullen, who has served as chief judge of the Army's Court of Criminal Appeals, spoke in terms of grief. "You feel sorrow," he said, "because you know there are so many servicemen and women out there who want to do the right thing, who are doing tough jobs every day. And to see these events blacken their names and call into question their whole mission just makes me sad. Very, very sad."

E-mail: [email protected]
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 01:01 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
April 1, 2005
We Can't Remain Silent
By BOB HERBERT...


Another NYT April Fool for volunteers to publicize.

I readily admit that I cannot ever know for certain whether you and your fellow volunteers are intentionally, knowingly and willingly volunteer accomplices to the Baathist-al-Qaeda terrorists, or are merely unwitting volunteer accomplices to the Baathist-al-Qaeda terrorists. It is however, becoming increasingly difficult for me to believe that you volunteers are incompetent enough to actually believe all that you post that is serving the purposes of the Baathist-al-Qaeda terrorists. Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 01:15 pm
Some are still waiting for the final result about the 'friendly fire', which killed two Italian agents (or just one, as the USA says) and wounded the just freed ex-hostaged journalist Sgrena.

According to officials three weeks back, the result should have been published this week.

Some blogs are reporting now that Sgrena's injuries are more serious than previously thought, and that she was fired at by a tank gun, not a hand held gun, and even a shot/shots from behind are discussed.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 01:42 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
...Some blogs are reporting now that Sgrena's injuries are more serious than previously thought, and that she was fired at by a tank gun, not a hand held gun, and even a shot/shots from behind are discussed.

Segrina was fired at by a huge 26.13" howitzer thought to be based nearby. While it was earlier reported she suffered a shrapnel wound in her shoulder, it has now been confirmed that she was hit on her head and shoulder by her car's engine block. After her car was stopped, Sgrena opened both rear car doors in a gracious attempt to learn from nearby soldiers why her car had been stopped. At that precise moment, the engine block was torn loose by the intense blast of the impacting murderous 26.13" shell and it flew through both open doors, hitting Sgrena on the head and shoulder as it passed to miraculously end up where it started. ... "1984"
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 02:09 pm
Quote:
US News and World Report
4/4/05
By Fouad Ajami
The apparition in the Levant
Here's the smell of the blood still:
All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand. Oh, oh, oh!
William Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act V, Scene 1

Lady Macbeth could never believe that Duncan, the murdered king, could have "had so much blood in him." The assassins of Lebanon's former prime minister, Rafiq Hariri, who took the life of this good man who had done his best for his captive country, are now in a world familiar to those who know Shakespeare's great tragedy. They had struck down Hariri, on February 14, in broad daylight and seemingly thought that the matter would be done and forgotten in the course of a few days. But the apparition of Hariri haunts the servile regime in Beirut and its puppeteers in Damascus. Syria's tyrannical rulers are at a loss. Who would have thought that another murder in Lebanon would become a crisis of the Damascus regime and would signal the beginning of the end of its lucrative dominion in Beirut? No one could have foreseen the mass grief of the captive country. No satrap on the scene could have anticipated the coming together a fortnight ago of the largest demonstrations in Lebanon's history. The terrible secrets and workings of a system of plunder and fear are now laid out for all to see.

Lebanon had been, in the past, a land of relative freedom--a freedom born of the multiplicity of its religious communities, of the anarchic nature of its people and their exposure to commerce and the sea. But slowly and methodically, over the course of two decades, the Syrians snuffed out the independent life of the land. The Syrian hegemony over Lebanon grew brazen and unapologetic. Under Hafez Assad, the old and ruthless Syrian ruler who led this steady assault on Lebanon's independence, there were all sorts of political pretexts: Syria had to be in Lebanon, as a balance to the power of Israel, as consolation for Syria's loss of the Golan Heights to Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967. In recent years, under Assad's heir, his son Bashar, the pretexts had fallen away. Lebanon had become an extortion racket for Syria's military rulers and for the Lebanese who rode with them. A supplicant of Syria, President Emile Lahoud did Syria's bidding. A noble and solitary opposition held on to a memory of a country that had once been a refuge for minorities and dissidents and a break from the autocracies of the other Arab states.

Truth. Hariri's historic role, the gift that his cruel murder gave the Lebanese people, was the knitting together of a country given to communal feuds. The "cedar revolution" had been gathering force; it now had its martyr and a simple rallying cry held atop banners in Beirut's plazas-- al-haqiqa , the truth. The Lebanese wanted the truth of their world: the truth about Hariri's assassination, the truth about the secret services that disposed of their public life, the truth about a young, inexperienced Syrian ruler who had come to believe that Lebanon was his personal inheritance. People bullied into submission, or simply indifferent to the call of political causes, wanted their country back. Arabs had always viewed Lebanon as an "easy," frivolous land. Now the Lebanese were treating the other Arabs to a spectacle of peaceful revolt. There is much that is wrong in the Arab world--the willful refusal by modern-day Arabs to accept responsibility for their history, the schizophrenia of a world in the orbit of western culture but always accusing the West of all that is wrong. But these young people of Beirut, who had come together around the national cult of Rafiq Hariri, embody a desire for genuine change.

In a radically different era, America was "burned" in Beirut and quit the city under the gaze of Arabs who took the withdrawal as a sign of American abdication. There had been that searing October 1983 attack on the Marine barracks , which took the lives of 241 Americans. The U.S. Embassy was targeted by terrorists, and American missionaries and educators were murdered or taken as hostages for a cruel trade with Syria's and Iran's rulers. For good reasons, America gave up on Lebanon. But now the world is different, and there is in America a willingness to come to the aid of the Lebanese. It is Damascus and its tyranny on one side and the cedar revolution of the vast majority of Lebanon's people on the other. For once, there is an easy and good choice in an Arab land.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 03:53 pm
Showing there were in existence plans to take over and privatise the Iraqi oil industry within weeks of Bush's inauguration in 2001

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=417&row=0

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.

Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protestors claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.

In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists."

"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.


<FONTSIZE=-3View Segments of Iraq oil plans


Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.

An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.

Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.

Secret sell-off plan

The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by yet another secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan, crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.

The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Ahmed Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel. Mr. Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, flew to the London meeting, he told Newsnight, at the request of the State Department.

Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces.

"Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, your losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable," said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco.

(more)
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 04:15 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
McTag,

No, you suffer from an excess of credulity with respect to things that reinforce your prejudices and a reflexive skepticim about things that threaten them. Fox news would neither help nor hurt that.

On what basis do you claim extensive knowledge of the current state of our armed forces, or the ability to make reliable judgements about such matters? I know what is the basis for my assessment - it is quite extensive, but I don't know yours.


My A2K is malfunctioning tonight, but on thre assumption and hope "they" will fix it, I will continue.

My answer to this is to direct you to previous posts on this very thread, where we have been able to read evidence of:

Revulsion about abuse of prisoners
Dismay in finding said abuse was officially-sanctioned
Indignation (putting it mildly) about tours of duty being extended
And extended again
Dismay of over-age and barely eligible reservists being called up
Flight of personnel to Canada
Self-harm by troops on furlough, to prevent being sent back

Plenty of evidence like that is "out there". I do not wish it to be so, but I believe it is so, and I clearly see the reasons for it. More and more people are realising they have been sent to fight an unjust war on the basis of a lie, of several lies.

McTag
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 04:16 pm
It's april fools day; enjoy the anonymity.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 05:45 pm
McTag wrote:
Showing there were in existence plans to take over and privatise the Iraqi oil industry within weeks of Bush's inauguration in 2001

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=417&row=0


Sand-Bag-McTag, left out the rest of this BBC story. For example (ican added the boldface):

Quote:
"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.
...

Privatization blocked by industry

Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.

Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatization of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."

The chosen successor to Mr Carroll, a Conoco Oil executive, ordered up a new plan for a state oil company preferred by the industry.

...

New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favored by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004, Harper's discovered, under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas. Former US Secretary of State Baker is now an attorney. His law firm, Baker Botts, is representing ExxonMobil and the Saudi Arabian government.


Again we are confronted by a BBC allegation of uncertain validity about an alleged scheme by the Bush&Adm that was not implemented. What sly devils these guys are. No one can disprove that a nefarious plan was formulated if it was never implemented. What guys? Why of course the always reliable BBC guys via sand-bag-mctag Laughing
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 08:19 pm
Enough already.
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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/03/2024 at 03:15:38