References:
A. 9-11 Commission, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
B. Secretary of State, Colin Powell's speech to UN, "sinister nexus," 2/5/2003:
www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm
C. "The Encyclopedia Britannica, Iraq"
www.britannica.com
D. "American Soldier," by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
"10" Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers
E. Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
McG talks about how much the lives of Iraqis have improved since our invasion, then starts talking about how bad the problem was before our invasion. This guy doesn't understand logic very well. We are the ones that approved the sanctions in Iraq since 1991. What is he trying to tell us? It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. The US have really screwed thing up in Iraq - royally. In case McG fails to know this fact, starving children never do well in school no matter how good the school building is.
Ican - not your resources are bad. It's your selective quoting of them.
1. President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “harbor” terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “support” terrorists. [Reference A]
2. Al Qaeda terrorist bases are necessary for the successful perpetration by al Qaeda terrorists of al Qaeda terrorism. [Reference A]
3. The US must remove those governments that persist in knowingly providing sanctuary for al Qaeda terrorist bases. [Reference A]
4. On 9/11/2001 there were terrorist training bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorist training bases in Afghanistan were established in 1988 after the Russians abandoned their war in Afghanistan. The terrorist training bases in Iraq were re-established in 2001 after the Kurds had defeated them a couple of years earlier. [References A, B, C, D]
5. We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 without obtaining UN approval and removed Afghanistan's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Afghanistan. [Reference A]
6. We invaded Iraq in March 2003 without obtaining UN approval and removed Iraq's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Iraq. [References A, B, D, E]
7. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Afghanistan people’s own design in Afghanistan primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]
8. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Iraq people’s own design in Iraq primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]
9. I think that only after this enormously difficult work is completed successfully, will the US again possess sufficient means to seriously consider invasions to remove any other tyrannical governments that refuse to attempt to remove terrorist bases from their countries.
References:
A. 9-11 Commission, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
B. Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s speech to UN, “sinister nexus,” 2/5/2003:
www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm
C. “The Encyclopedia Britannica, Iraq”
www.britannica.com
D. "American Soldier," by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
“10” Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers
E. Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
Ican - not your resources are bad. It's your selective quoting of them.
B. Secretary of State, Colin Powell's speech to UN, "sinister nexus," 2/5/2003:
www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm
Former US secretary of state Colin Powell says he is "furious and angry" about being misinformed and has criticised George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld for their clumsy rhetoric in the lead-up to the war.
Powell, once revered as an American hero, will be remembered as Bush's shill for a sham case for war, waxing eloquently: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence" for ever fixed in the minds of the people who watched him that day. The moment that plainly scarred him was when he made a presentation to the UN Security Council in February 2003. He remembered being "furious and angry" that he had been misinformed.
Before appearing at the UN he had spent four days with the Central Intelligence Agency inspecting every photograph and word. "Still, it was wrong."
"Hundreds of millions followed it on television. I will always be the one who presented it. I have to live with that." Powell said he had argued for a diplomatic solution against cabinet colleagues such as Vice President Dick Cheney, who did not believe that diplomacy would work.
He said terms like "Old Europe," the expression coined by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to describe countries such as France and Germany which opposed the war, had not helped ease European concerns about Washington's policies. "We were sometimes too loud, too direct, perhaps we made too much noise. That certainly shocked the Europeans sometimes."
He said that the rhetoric of Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, "contributed to pitting European public opinion against us". And Mr Bush came in for criticism too, with Mr Powell saying he "presented some positions in a perhaps overstated way".
Mr Powell, who announced his resignation in November after Mr Bush won a second term as President, has said previously that his testimony was "not solid".
Page Not Available
Sorry, you have tried to access a page that is not available.
Quote:
"Former US secretary of state Colin Powell says he is "furious and angry" about being misinformed and has criticised George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld for their clumsy rhetoric in the lead-up to the war."
This is very encouraging; I didn't think Colin Powell would ever come clean with the back room lies that went on. "Misinformed" and "clumsy rhetoric" clears it up for many of us pretty well.
old europe wrote:Ican - not your resources are bad. It's your selective quoting of them.
Please supply those selective quotes of yours that you think contradict the selective quotes of mine.
Actually, even your resources are bad. Obsolete. For example, I recommend dropping this one from your list:
ican711nm wrote:B. Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s speech to UN, “sinister nexus,” 2/5/2003:
www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm
Why? Nothing in the "sinister nexus" part of Powell's speech has been characterized by Powell, or any of the other references I gave, as invalid.
In case you wonder why:
Former US secretary of state Colin Powell says he is "furious and angry" about being misinformed and has criticised George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld for their clumsy rhetoric in the lead-up to the war. ...
All that new I'm mad stuff of Powell's is irrelevant to my quote. We've all known for quite a while that the first part of Powell's speech to the UN (the WMD part) was false and that Powell was angry about it. He had every right to be angry, but that too is irrelevant to my quote (Saddam's alleged ready-to-use WMD never was my own primary reason for supporting the invasion of Iraq). The fact of his unhappiness over the WMD part of his speech was stated in Reference D long before your Powell quote in this post of yours. The only thing in the "sinister nexus" part that I use (that is not also supported by at least one other of my five references) is that Powell said that the US twice asked Saddam to extradite the leaders of the al Qaeda based in northern Iraq. Bringing this up in his UN speech constituted a third request (more than a month before our invasion of Iraq, 3/20/2003) to Saddam to extradite the leaders of the al Qaeda based in northern Iraq.
So, when you repost your post (I have no doubt you will), don't give that UN speech as a reference. Even the Department of State has deleted it:
... I heard Powell's speech to the UN myself on 2/5/2003 when he brought up the previous two requests for extradition (the State Department has not yet made me forget what I heard, nor made me erase my copy of that speech). Consequently, I'll keep the Powell reference, and, like you predicted, I'll repeat my quote because no one here has yet provided anything more than hearsay to refute it.
1. President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “harbor” terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “support” terrorists. [Reference A]
2. Al Qaeda terrorist bases are necessary for the successful perpetration by al Qaeda terrorists of al Qaeda terrorism. [Reference A]
3. The US must remove those governments that persist in knowingly providing sanctuary for al Qaeda terrorist bases. [Reference A]
4. On 9/11/2001 there were terrorist training bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorist training bases in Afghanistan were established in 1988 after the Russians abandoned their war in Afghanistan. The terrorist training bases in Iraq were re-established in 2001 after the Kurds had defeated them a couple of years earlier. [References A, B, C, D]
5. We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 without obtaining UN approval and removed Afghanistan's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Afghanistan. [Reference A]
6. We invaded Iraq in March 2003 without obtaining UN approval and removed Iraq's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Iraq. [References A, B, D, E]
7. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Afghanistan people’s own design in Afghanistan primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]
8. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Iraq people’s own design in Iraq primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]
9. I think that only after this enormously difficult work is completed successfully, will the US again possess sufficient means to seriously consider invasions to remove any other tyrannical governments that refuse to attempt to remove terrorist bases from their countries.
References:
A. 9-11 Commission, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
B. Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s speech to UN, “sinister nexus,” 2/5/2003:
this link is replaced by the new link that follows www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm
this is the new link
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm
C. “The Encyclopedia Britannica, Iraq”
www.britannica.com
D. "American Soldier," by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
“10” Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers
E. Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
revel wrote:... Iraq has not improved since the fall of saddam hussien.
It is still like a war zone which is not good for anybody. The violence is not getting better just less with better planning and more precision style attacks, which is a worry itself.
Do a majority of the Iraqi people agree with you?
The Baathist-al-Qaeda terrorist violence is not yet under control every where in Iraq. But it is under control in some parts of Iraq.
What do you recommend be done to get that violence under control faster everywhere in Iraq?
As long as that violence is not gotten under control everywhere in Iraq, the Iraqi people will not be able to evolve a secure democracy of their own design; they will not be able to evolve a productive society. Young Iraqi children will continue to die of hunger or worse.
Wasted and wounded, it ain't what the mood did,
I've got what I prayed for now
I'll see you tomorrow, hey Frank, can I borrow a couple of bucks from you
To go waltzing Mathilda, waltzing Mathilda,
You'll go waltzing Mathilda with me
I'm an innocent victim of a blinded alley
And I'm tired of all these soldiers here
No one speaks English, and everything's broken, and my Stacys are
soaking wet to go waltzing Mathilda, waltzing Mathilda,
You'll go waltzing Mathilda with me
Gallup: Bush Approval Rating Lowest Ever for 2nd-Term Prez at this Point
By E&P Staff
Published: April 05, 2005 11:45 AM ET updated 7:00 PM
NEW YORK It's not uncommon to hear or read pundits referring to President George W. Bush as a "popular" leader or even a "very popular" one. Even some of his critics in the press refer to him this way. Perhaps they need to check the latest polls.
President Bush's approval rating has plunged to the lowest level of any president since World War II at this point in his second term, the Gallup Organization reported today.
All other presidents who served a second term had approval ratings well above 50% in the March following their election, Gallup reported.
Presidents Truman and Johnson had finished out the terms of their predecessors, and then won election on their own for a second term.
Bush's current rating is 45%. The next lowest was Reagan with 56% in March 1985.
More bad signs for the president: Gallup's survey now finds only 38% expressing satisfaction with the "state of the country" while 59% are "dissatisfied." One in three Americans feel the economy is excellent or good, while the rest find it "only fair" or poor.
Gallup noted that more challenges lie ahead for Bush, including public doubts about his Social Security plan and Iraq policies.
Here are the approval ratings for presidents as recorded by Gallup (all for March):
Truman, 1949: 57%.
Eisenhower, 1957: 65%.
Johnson, 1965: 69%.
Nixon, 1973: 57%.
Reagan, 1985: 56%.
Clinton, 1997: 59% .
Bush, 2005: 45% .
E&P Staff ([email protected])
...That is not how it is practically done in America. The public always criticizes those in charge whether they know a better way or not in the hopes of getting someone else in there who does know a better way instead of sticking with the one who keeps messing things up.
Fortunately we don't have to worry, George’s time is short and anybody else can’t be worse.
I disagree totally. Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Howard Dean are far worse alternatives than Bush. So we do have to worry that we not let ourselves be fooled by a Ms. or Mr. Platitudes for President: a President who thinks good intentions are far more important than good results.
April 05, 2005
US Military Recruiting Children
The US military is so short of recruits that it is using false advertising and misleading fine print contracts to recruit 14-year olds for combat duty.
In an effort to increase its ranks for coming wars, the U.S.
military is recruiting--and paying--children as young as 14 years old
for future combat duty. It's called a "pre-enlistment" program.
Excerpted from "Pointblank", one of Des Moines's alternative newspapers. From a recent column written by Tim Schmitt.
The military is faced with a shortage of manpower not seen in decades, so it claims it is appealing to the patriotism of parents to guarantee a future fighting force. In reality the army is bypasing the parents and tricking, seducing and bribing young boys to sign up for combat as young as 14.
Here is how it works. "Section 9528 of the No Child Left Behind Act (No Child Left Alive??)enables recruiters to gain personal information about students from school records. (The only time parental involvement is required is when it comes time to sign papers.) Recruiters, often pretty young female soldiers, gain access to the high school campuses to buttonhole boys and set up off campus meetings, confirming them by calling them at home. The off campus meeting can involve both male and female recruiters arnd ofter takes place at a coffee shop or pizza place known to the kids.
The army recruiters offer the kids a bonus of $10,000.00, paid in yearly installments plus $350 a month stipend until the boys go into the army in four years. Sometimes the meetings are at places like comics shops where the boys can see how much they can buy with the money. Then they go home and pressure their parents -- or parent -- to sign the permission slip so they can get the cash. Their parents have no idea they are being recruited, much less about to sign an agreement that requires them to enlist when they graduate from high school -- no college deferments, no sports scholarships, no matter what changes happen durng the 4 years of high school.
The army says it is a simple agreement. A young man who is at least 14 years old and has a parent's permission (one parent only that is) can enlist in the U.S. military but will not report until he is legally of age. Combat duty is a requirement, a point not always clear to the boys.
One mother took a close look at the fine print. It revealed that, not only was her son unthinkingly signing up to be in combat, the $350 monthly stipend her son receives is actually an advance on his $250 per month combat pay and $100 per month hardship duty pay. What the army is doing is guaranteeing that the boy will go to war and the Pentagon is paying him now so he can't back out later. Any recruit faces strictpunishment if they refuse duty when coming of age. If the recruit is incapacitated or killed before two years of service, he or his relatives will have to pay back the rest of the money "owed" to the government.
High school students can petition their high school to remove them from the recruiting lists given the army if they don't want to be pressured into enlisting. And they can just say no.
