0
   

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

 
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 09:40 am
Don't know that, but I do know what Tommy Franks said about Doug Feith:

Quote:
I have to deal with the f*cking stupidest guy on the face of the earth almost every day.


(from Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack, pg 281)
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 09:46 am
blatham
dyslexia
Kara
McTag
Steve (as 41oo)

Osama bin Laden probably died of an infection in a cave in Afghanistan before he could flee to Iraq prior to the US invasion of Iraq.

The al Qaeda will probably reveal this just before the November election in another FATWA, in which they celebrate the capture of Osama by Allah instead of by Bush.

This news will probably reduce Bush's percentage of the popular vote to 63%.

Kerry will probably demand a Senate investigation of John O'Neil.

You folks along with others who think like you will probably continue to lament the failure of the American voters to believe your hysterical fantasies about Bush and company.

Happy Labor Day! Smile
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 09:59 am
An appropriate salutation for a mightily-laboured man of denial.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 10:05 am
Not to mention a master of 'strategery'.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 10:07 am
I hear they are re-naming it "Cheap Labor Day" in honour of the cons/big business and their practice of outsourcing manufacture.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 10:12 am
I say we 'outsource' Bush and his droogies.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 10:18 am
If in November there remains a remote chance GWB may get elected again, do you think it will be necessary to require pre-qualification for voters, so that individuals will have to prove they have a minimum intelligence and competence before being allowed to cast a vote?

You know, competence like reading a newspaper occasionally, or a book with not many pictures, or even writing a few words?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 10:27 am
McTag wrote:
If in November there remains a remote chance GWB may get elected again, do you think it will be necessary to require pre-qualification for voters, so that individuals will have to prove they have a minimum intelligence and competence before being allowed to cast a vote?

You know, competence like reading a newspaper occasionally, or a book with not many pictures, or even writing a few words?


Your qualifications would be discriminatory to the blind, for openers.

I think the Founders had the right idea in the beginning, McTag; to paraphrase Ben Franklin, we just don't seem to be doing the best job of keeping our democracy lately.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 10:27 am
Rather have Bush prequalified ...... solve a lot of problems.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 11:26 am
http://www.cagle.com/news/KerrySwiftBoat/images/babin.gif
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 01:27 pm
McTag wrote:
If in November there remains a remote chance GWB may get elected again, do you think it will be necessary to require pre-qualification for voters, so that individuals will have to prove they have a minimum intelligence and competence before being allowed to cast a vote?

You know, competence like reading a newspaper occasionally, or a book with not many pictures, or even writing a few words?

Laughing
This post, McTag, is an excellent example of your reliance on lying propaganda. Rolling Eyes

In Florida in 2000, many votes were disqualified because the casters of those votes failed to correctly follow voting instructions. In other words, they voted incompetently. That's part of what all the Gore-Democrat hysteria was about. The Gore-Democrats took the position that all votes should be counted except (dispite federal law to the contrary) those absentee votes delivered by the military services after the deadline for receipt of absentee votes. That implies the votes of those who could not prove they have a minimum intelligence and competence, before being allowed to cast a vote, should be counted.

If your rule were to be generally applied, millions of potential Kerry-Democrat voters nationwide would be disqualified.

Application of your rule would actually help Bush!

If I thought it could be done accurately, I would advocate also disqualifying those voters who rely on lying propaganda rather than their own self-educated judgment to make their decisions.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 01:38 pm
ican711nm wrote:

If I thought it could be done accurately, I would advocate also disqualifying those voters who rely on lying propaganda rather than their own self-educated judgment to make their decisions.


Pyongyang, August 4 (KCNA) -- The central election committee for deputies to the 11th Supreme People's Assembly of the DPRK today announced a report on the results of the elections for deputies to provincial (municipal), city (district) and county people's assemblies which were held on Sunday. According to the results available at the provincial (municipal), city (district) and county election committees, 99.9 percent of the voters registered on the pollbooks went to the polls and 100 percent of the casters voted for candidates for deputies registered at all constituencies, the report notes.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 04:51 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

If I thought it could be done accurately, I would advocate also disqualifying those voters who rely on lying propaganda rather than their own self-educated judgment to make their decisions.


Pyongyang, August 4 (KCNA) -- The central election committee for deputies to the 11th Supreme People's Assembly of the DPRK today announced a report on the results of the elections for deputies to provincial (municipal), city (district) and county people's assemblies which were held on Sunday. According to the results available at the provincial (municipal), city (district) and county election committees, 99.9 percent of the voters registered on the pollbooks went to the polls and 100 percent of the casters voted for candidates for deputies registered at all constituencies, the report notes.

Laughing
Walter, they are required by their law to vote! That's how tyrannical governments manage to achieve their alleged 99.9%. The price for not voting is too high for all those not too infirm to vote. Whether it was the USSR or Saddam's gang or is Cuba or Vietnam, they all allege the same thing (between 99% and 99.9%) in a pathetic attempt to legitmize their rule -- a rule that cannot be legitimatized. In many of these types of regimes, the voters are presented with exactly one choice for each office.

Walter, if not coerced to vote, would you bother to vote in an election consisting of one candidate? If not coerced, would you vote in an election where you saw little difference between the candidates?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 06:58 pm
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9584265.htm

Quote:
Graham book: Inquiry into 9/11, Saudi ties blocked

By FRANK DAVIES

[email protected]


WASHINGTON - Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship, Sen. Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released Tuesday.

The discovery of the financial backing of the two hijackers ''would draw a direct line between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia, and trigger an attempted coverup by the Bush administration,'' the Florida Democrat wrote.

And in Graham's book, Intelligence Matters, obtained by The Herald Saturday, he makes clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties on the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Graham also revealed that Gen. Tommy Franks told him on Feb. 19, 2002, just four months after the invasion of Afghanistan, that many important resources -- including the Predator drone aircraft crucial to the search for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda leaders -- were being shifted to prepare for a war against Iraq.

Graham recalled this conversation at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa with Franks, then head of Central Command, who was ``looking troubled'':

``Senator, we are not engaged in a war in Afghanistan.''

''Excuse me?'' I asked.

''Military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to prepare for an action in Iraq,'' he continued.

Graham concluded: 'Gen. Franks' mission -- which, as a good soldier, he was loyally carrying out -- was being downgraded from a war to a manhunt.''

Graham, who was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee from June 2001 through the buildup to the Iraq war, voted against the war resolution in October 2002 because he saw Iraq as a diversion that would hinder the fight against al Qaeda terrorism.

He oversaw the Sept. 11 investigation on Capitol Hill with Rep. Porter Goss, nominated last month to be the next CIA director. According to Graham, the FBI and the White House blocked efforts to investigate the extent of official Saudi connections to two hijackers.

Graham wrote that the staff of the congressional inquiry concluded that two Saudis in the San Diego area, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassan, who gave significant financial support to two hijackers, were working for the Saudi government.

Al-Bayoumi received a monthly allowance from a contractor for Saudi Civil Aviation that jumped from $465 to $3,700 in March 2000, after he helped Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhdar -- two of the Sept. 11 hijackers -- find apartments and make contacts in San Diego, just before they began pilot training.

When the staff tried to conduct interviews in that investigation, and with an FBI informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who also helped the eventual hijackers, they were blocked by the FBI and the administration, Graham wrote.

The administration and CIA also insisted that the details about the Saudi support network that benefited two hijackers be left out of the final congressional report, Graham complained.

Bush had concluded that ''a nation-state that had aided the terrorists should not be held publicly to account,'' Graham wrote. ``It was as if the president's loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America's safety.''

Saudi officials have vociferously denied any ties to the hijackers or al Qaeda plots to attack the United States.

Graham ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination and then decided not to seek reelection to the Senate this year. He has said he hopes his book will illuminate FBI and CIA failures in the war on terrorism and he also offers recommendations on ways to reform the intelligence community.

On Iraq, Graham said the administration and CIA consistently overplayed its estimates of Saddam Hussein's threat in its public statements and declassified reports, while its secret reports contained warnings that the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was not conclusive.

In October 2002, Tenet told Graham that ''there were 550 sites where weapons of mass destruction were either produced or stored'' in Iraq.

''It was, in short, a vivid and terrifying case for war. The problem was it did not accurately represent the classified estimate we had received just days earlier,'' Graham wrote. ``It was two different messages, directed at two different audiences. I was outraged.''

In his book, Graham is especially critical of the FBI for its inability to track al Qaeda operatives in the United States and blasts the CIA for ``politicizing intelligence.''

He reserves his harshest criticism for Bush.

Graham found the president had ''an unforgivable level of intellectual -- and even common sense -- indifference'' toward analyzing the comparative threats posed by Iraq and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

When the weapons were not found, one year after the invasion of Iraq, Bush attended a black-tie dinner in Washington, Graham recalled. Bush gave a humorous speech with slides, showing him looking under White House furniture and joking, ``Nope, no WMDs there.''

Graham wrote: ``It was one of the most offensive things I have witnessed. Having recently attended the funeral of an American soldier killed in Iraq, who left behind a young wife and two preschool-age children, I found nothing funny about a deceitful justification for war.''
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 08:06 pm
Lola wrote:
Quote:
Graham book: Inquiry into 9/11, Saudi ties blocked
By FRANK DAVIES

WASHINGTON - Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship, Sen. Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released Tuesday.

The discovery of the financial backing of the two hijackers ''would draw a direct line between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia, and trigger an attempted coverup by the Bush administration,'' the Florida Democrat wrote.

And in Graham's book, Intelligence Matters, obtained by The Herald Saturday, he makes clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties on the House and Senate intelligence committees. ...


In this forum and in its predecessor we have discussed and debated the sponsorsip of al Qaeda by Saudi Arabians and others. The nature of the discussion and debate here was not whether such sponsorship occurred. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations claimed it occurred. What was and is not yet clear is whether or not the Saudi Government sponsored al Qaeda, or only Saudi Arabian royal family members sponsored al Qaeda.

Let's assume in this post that the Saudi Arabian government itself was among the sponsors. However, we know and do not have to assume that the Saudi Arabian government was and is sponsoring the effort to terminate the al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia.

Under these circumstances, should we also have attempted a regime change in Saudi Arabia by invading it too?

Let's assume here in this post Senator Bob Graham believes what he wrote in his book. Let's assume in this post in particular that Graham actually thinks the release of this information was blocked by the Bush Administration. Why was this information nonetheless widely published and known prior to the 9-11 Commiission's report? Why didn't Democrats on the Committee nonetheless refuse to withhold this information and publish it nationwide? Probably because Senator Graham is wrong and so are the assumptions made here in this post.

By the way, the Bush Administration did shift its emphasis to Saddam government sponsorship of al Qaeda in Iraq after the Taliban sponsorship of al Qaeda in Afghanistan was terminated. Makes sense to me.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 10:32 pm
Quote:
Why was this information nonetheless widely published and known prior to the 9-11 Commiission's report?


Maybe because we don't know everything about it? Maybe because the basic information is out there to hide whatever else may be. Lots of possibilities.


Quote:
Why didn't Democrats on the Committee nonetheless refuse to withhold this information and publish it nationwide?


Uh....let's see, <scratching head>........maybe because the decision had to be unanimous, and it would have been politically unfortunate during an election year? That's a possibility.

Your excuses don't convince me.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2004 04:02 am
September 05, 2004
Thinking like Karl Rove

It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it...

So okay, if I were Karl Rove, what would I need to have happen in Iraq before November 2?

I think, if I were him, the thing I'd most like to see is some palpable progress toward stability and elections in Iraq. (As in Afghanistan, where the holding of the elections has been rushed forward to October, specially to fit Mr. R's election priorities in the US.)

But if actual progress toward stability in Iraq doesn't look probable--and faking it for the whole electorate might be a LOT harder than faking it for the GOP faithful who flocked to new York last week-- then, well, how would a bit of determined bang-bang play for Bush's election campaign instead?

My fears about this are certainly related to my experience of seeing half a dozen successive Prime Ministers in Israel launch escalations in Lebanon as part of their re-election strategies... Oh, the Lebanese have a very intimate view of the dark chauvinistic under-belly of Israel's "democracy". And then, remember the strong influence that Israeli politicians have on many in Bush's close circle.

Actually, if I were Karl Rove, I wouldn't think that a big, showy escalation in Iraq would necessarily--in the US context--be such a great vote-getter. But still, I might be tempted... Wag the dog, and all that...

So my fears in this regard [Helena speaking now, not Mr. R.] were piqued when I read a big piece of US Army swagger coming from the lips of Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz, the number 2 in the military command in Iraq, as reported by AP's Jim Krane today.

Krane wrote:

A U.S. assault on one or more of Iraq's three main 'no-go' areas - including Fallujah - is likely in the next four months as the Iraqi government prepares to extend control before elections slated for January, the U.S. land forces commander [Metz] said Sunday...

'I don't think today you could hold elections,' Metz said during an interview with three reporters at Multinational Corps headquarters near Baghdad International Airport. 'But I do have about four months where I want to get to local control. And then I've got the rest of January to help the Iraqis to put the mechanisms in place.'

An American military offensive will be needed to bring the toughest places to heel, Metz said.

The three places Metz singled out as needing to be "brought to heel" were Fallujah, Samarra, and Sadr City.

The piece continued:

Assaults to retake these areas could be done consecutively or simultaneously, Metz said.

But he was graciously open to having the local people in these cities surrender to his terms without his forces having to pulverize their cities, the same way they pulverized Najaf:

'If you're a leader in a town ... do you want to have to go rebuild it because it got destroyed, because foreign fighters came to hang out in your city? They can help us make these decisions,' Metz said.

The general also said the Americans' August siege of Najaf could be considered a model for subduing rebel-held areas.

Well, let's not get hung up for too long on the totally bizarre use that Metz-- like many others in the US military-- makes of terms like "foreign fighters". (What the heck, in the Iraqi context, are the Americans and all the ragtag members of their so-called coalition, anyway?)

But let's ask ourselves, if the US powers-that-be in Iraq have decided there needs to be some bang-bang there before January-- how averse would Karl Rove be to having some of that happen before November 2? Or are the orders out there that Metz and Co. should basically avoid escalations until after that fateful date?

I don't know the answer to that. I am not Karl Rove. (And I confess I find it hard even to try to think like him, though I still think it's good to try to do so.)

But there is a much larger issue at stake here, too: Why should the US forces feel they need to control everything inside Iraq before the elections, anyway? Seriously, why?

Now, I know it's true that you need a basic degree of peaceableness in the country if the elections are to be successfully and credibly held in January. That goes without saying. Candidates, party workers, and--especially--election administrators all need to be able to move around the country in security.

But why does all that zone of peaceableness have to be under US control? From the point of view of holding a credible nationwide election, there is no requirement that the whole country be under US control. Certainly, elections have been held before in many countries and zones where control was actually, on the ground, divided; and they worked.

If the momentum toward elections is strong enough, and the terms on which they are held are solid enough--in other words, the elections have to be credible and fair, and they have to be about something serious, not merely about the formation of yet another local-Quisling administration... If those conditions are met, then arranging the security situation on the ground through a nationwide, election-related ceasefire would be easy enough.

In other words, you don't need to "bomb Fallujah into submission", Before Fallujah can participate in the national democratic election.

Indeed, a moment's thought would surely indicate that doing this--or even threatening to do it-- sends exactly the wrong signals about how political differences among groups need to get resolved in a democracy, anyway.

No, General Metz, you can't build democracy by using inherently anti-democratic methods of coercion, violence, and threats of violence. Ends are always related to means.

So back off, all of you little strutting Bismarcks, please, please, please! Let's have no more threats about bombing cities into submission. Instead, let's hear all of you talk a lot more about how democratic means of joint problem-solving can be used to achieve the desired end of building a functioning democracy...

Oh, that's not how you do things in the US Army? Well in that case, maybe the US Army is the wrong instrument to be trying to do this job of helping Iraq build a functioning democracy... In that case, move over, and make more space for the body that has a solid, recent record in this arena: the UN.

Posted by Helena at September 5, 2004 10:21 PM | TrackBack
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2004 04:28 am
Much too lengthy to post.... links are pdf .... lots of very interesting stuff such as ......

Quote:
Feb 1, 2002 - Department of Justice memo to President Bush reiterating position against the application of Geneva Convention to al Qaeda and the Taliban

The memo, written by Attorney General John Ashcroft, summarizes the position of the Justice Department on why the Geneva Convention does not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban prisoners. Ashcroft warns against the possibility of U.S. officials being subject to prosecution for violating U.S. and international laws if the Geneva Conventions are applied.
[The memo was released on June 22, 2004. Obtained from The Washington Post website at www.washingtonpost.com.]



The Interrogation Documents:
Debating U.S. Policy and Methods


Webpage
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2004 04:48 am
Try reading this without the hair on the back of your neck standing on end...

Quote:

The Boston Globe
JAMES CARROLL
The unwinnable war

By James Carroll | September 7, 2004

GEORGE W. BUSH finally told the truth. It happened last week when he said of the war on terrorism, "I don't think you can win it."

We know it was the truth because of the way it embarrassed him, because of the way his handlers immediately required him to repudiate it ("I probably need to be more articulate"), and because the mass of Republicans were deaf to it. Just as Bush had inadvertently spoken the exact truth about the war on terrorism at its onset ("This crusade, this war on terrorism"), he had inadvertently done so again.

Six months ago, I took a leave from this column. I had been writing obsessively about the war for more than two years, and my truth had become woefully repetitive. "Whatever happens from this week forward in Iraq," I wrote in March, "the main outcome of the war is clear. We have defeated ourselves."

In the time since I wrote that, I confess, even my bleak vision has come to seem like the good old days. After all, that was before Abu Ghraib, before the siege of Najaf, before the Sunnis and Shi'ites discovered that their hatred of the occupiers outweighed their hatred of each other, before the handover of Fallujah to outlaw militants, before Ahmed Chalabi's disgrace (and last week's rehabilitation), before Washington's installation in Baghdad of a blatant puppet regime, before the death toll of young Americans approached 1,000.

Citizens of the United States are a decent, fair-minded people. The only reason we tolerate what is being done in our name in Iraq is that, for us, this war exists only in the realm of metaphor. The words "war on terrorism" fall on our ears much in the way that "war on poverty" or "war on drugs" did.

War is an abstraction in the American imagination. It lives there, cloaked in glory, as an emblem of patriotism. We show our love for our country by sending our troops abroad and then "supporting" them, no matter what. When images appear that contradict the high-flown rhetoric of war -- whether of young GIs disgracefully humiliating Iraqi prisoners or of a devastated holy city where vast fields of American-created rubble surround a shrine -- we simply do not take them in as real. Thinking of ourselves as only motivated by good intentions, we cannot fathom the possibility that we have demonized an innocent people, that what we are doing is murder on a vast scale.

There is the single most troubling aspect of the war in Iraq. We launched it against the wicked Saddam Hussein, yet the majority of so-called "insurgents" against whom our forces are arrayed hated Hussein more than we did. We are killing people by the thousands who threaten absolutely nothing of ours.

The boys in the Iraqi resistance are not terrorists. They are not Ba'athists. They are not jihadists -- or they weren't until we gave them reason to be. Whatever the justifications for the invasion of Iraq were a year and a half ago, why are we in this war today? And as President Bush might ask, how in the world do we "win" it?

Obviously, something else is going on below the surface of all the stated reasons for this war. The Republican convention last week was gripped with war fever, and the fever itself was the revelation. War is answering an American need that has nothing to do with the Iraqi people.

Even though the war on terrorism is indeed, as the president said, a "crusade," it has nothing real to do with Islam either, although Islam is surely its target. Not Islam as it actually exists in dozens of different settings and cultures across the globe, but an imagined Islam that exists only in the troubled minds of a people who project "evil" outward and then attack it. Alas, it is an old Christian habit.

The war, meanwhile, answers the Bush administration's need to justify an unprecedented repressiveness in the "homeland," and simultaneously prompts widespread docile submission to the new martial law. But more deeply still, by understanding ourselves as a people at war, we Americans find exemption from the duty to face the grotesque shame of what we are doing in the world.

So the final truth about this war is that there is no real enemy (although we are creating enemies by the legion). There will be no victory. I resume this regular column by declaring, President Bush was right.

James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

© 2004 The New York Times Company


0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2004 07:13 am
Ge, thanks for the Globe article.

Carroll wrote, in part

Quote:
"the main outcome of the war is clear. We have defeated ourselves."


So sad. We have met the enemy and he is us.

On another note, David Brooks has a piece in today's NYTimes about terrorism. He expresses some notable thoughts, among them the observation that we tend to look away from such horrendous massacres as the one in Russia and hurry to blame "the government" for something it should have known or done.

He says that we must face, first of all, the fact that people can do such things. As I read the article, I thought that the reason we turn away from such horror is because it was committed by members of our own species. Can we really belong to a human strain that engages in such bestiality?
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 05/17/2025 at 12:44:30