0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 07:16 pm
And something new added to Iraq War Made Simple - Results & Statistics as of October 2005 are results of a poll taken in August 2005 of Iraqi citizens by the British Ministry of Defense. Here are a few results....

-- Iraqis "strongly opposed" to presence of coalition troops - 82%

-- Iraqis who believe Coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security - less than 1%

-- Iraqis who feel less secure because of the occupation - 67%

-- Iraqis who do not have confidence in multi-national forces - 72%

-- Iraqis who rarely have safe, clean water - 71%

-- Iraqis who never have enough electricity - 47%
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 07:18 pm
a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 07:20 pm
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 07:43 pm
If more Iraqis vote in this election than voted in the last election, I will conclude the Iraqis are more positive about the future of their government than has been reported.

If fewer or about the same number (plus or minus 100 thousand) Iraqis vote in this election than voted in the last election, I will conclude the Iraqis are as negative about their future of their government as has been reported.

I'm betting it will be more.

I'm betting it will be at least a million more.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 08:06 pm
icant isn't only changing the subject, but also missed this post:

ci wrote:
Mortkat, Don't under credit where credit is due. The report actually said 79 percent of Iraqis surveyed said they have confidence in their future, but 59 percent also said that the US occupation exacerbates the insurgency problems. Most want the US to leave.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 11:49 pm
December 14, 2005
New Army Rules May Snarl Talks With McCain on Detainee Issue
By ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 - The Army has approved a new, classified set of interrogation methods that may complicate negotiations over legislation proposed by Senator John McCain to bar cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees in American custody, military officials said Tuesday.

The techniques are included in a 10-page classified addendum to a new Army field manual that was forwarded this week to Stephen A. Cambone, the under secretary of defense for intelligence policy, for final approval, they said.

The addendum provides dozens of examples and goes into exacting detail on what procedures may or may not be used, and in what circumstances. Army interrogators have never had a set of such specific guidelines that would help teach them how to walk right up to the line between legal and illegal interrogations.

Some military officials said the new guidelines could give the impression that the Army was pushing the limits on legal interrogation at the very moment when Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, is involved in intense three-way negotiations with the House and the Bush administration to prohibit the cruel treatment of prisoners.

In a high-level meeting at the Pentagon on Tuesday, some Army and other Pentagon officials raised concerns that Mr. McCain would be furious at what could appear to be a back-door effort to circumvent his intentions.

"This is a stick in McCain's eye," one official said. "It goes right up to the edge. He's not going to be comfortable with this."

Army officials said the manual required interrogators to comply with the Geneva Conventions, which give broad protections to prisoners of war against coercion, threats or harsh treatment of any kind.

But they declined to give examples of specific interrogation techniques that the addendum authorizes, or the conditions for their use, saying they wanted to prevent captives from learning how to thwart them.

The Bush administration has held that many captives in the campaign against terrorism are not entitled to the same protections as prisoners of war.

Mr. McCain's measure, which the Senate has overwhelmingly approved, would require that only interrogation techniques authorized by the new Army field manual be used on prisoners held by the military.

Mark Salter, Mr. McCain's chief of staff, said that the Army and Pentagon had not briefed his boss or other aides on the contents of the manual or its addendum.

He warned that if the interrogation techniques in the addendum were overly aggressive, they could complicate the talks Mr. McCain continued on Tuesday with Stephen J. Hadley, President Bush's national security adviser.

"This is politically obtuse and damaging," Mr. Salter said in a telephone interview. "The Pentagon hasn't done one molecule of political due diligence on this."

Larry Di Rita, the Defense Department spokesman, said Pentagon officials had not yet told Mr. Hadley about the contents of the classified addendum and any political implications it might pose to discussions with Mr. McCain. Mr. Di Rita said the Pentagon meeting on Tuesday was simply to review the status of the field manual and related detention policies.

"The field manual is not finished," he said. "We're mindful of the negotiations going on with the White House and Congressional committees on Senator McCain's language."

The officials who described the manual, the meeting on Tuesday and its implications for the negotiations were granted anonymity so they could speak candidly about a sensitive internal debate that involves classified information.

One Army officer expressed exasperation that senior military and civilian officials were failing to articulate a coherent approach toward interrogation, saying much of the confusion centered on disparate definitions of abuse.

"Everybody's talking past each other on this," the officer said. " 'Cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment' is at the crux of the problem, but we've never defined that."

The new manual, the first revision in 13 years, will specifically prohibit practices like stripping prisoners, keeping them in stressful positions for a long time, imposing dietary restrictions, employing police dogs to intimidate prisoners and using sleep deprivation as a tool to get them to talk, Army officials said. In that regard, it imposes new restrictions on what interrogators are allowed to do.

Those practices were not included in the manual in use when most of the abuses occurred at Abu Ghraib in Iraq in the fall of 2003, but neither were they specifically banned.

Army officials said that barring any last-minute problems, they expected the manual to be issued this month.

On Capitol Hill, negotiations intensified Tuesday between Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who heads the Armed Services Committee, and his counterpart in the House, Representative Duncan Hunter, a California Republican.

The two lawmakers are working with the White House and Mr. McCain to resolve differences on his provision, the last major issue holding up passage of the annual military budget and policy bill.

Mr. Warner, who strongly supports the provision, expressed confidence that House and Senate negotiators could approve the conference report within 48 hours.

It was unclear, however, how far the House was willing to go to back White House efforts to alter Mr. McCain's language. The speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, met Tuesday with Vice President Dick Cheney but details of their talks could not be learned.

Mr. Cheney strongly opposes Mr. McCain's measure and unsuccessfully sought to have the Central Intelligence Agency exempted from its restrictions.

Also on Tuesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a speech to the Heritage Foundation, tried to recalibrate her position on the treatment of terrorism suspects in American detention, saying the administration was willing to do anything legal to prevent a terrorist attack.

During her trip through Europe, she made several statements about the administration's policy on torture, culminating with one in Kiev Wednesday when she said the United States prohibits "cruel and inhumane and degrading treatment" of suspects, "whether they are in the United States or outside of the United States."

She reiterated that in a truncated form on Tuesday but added that "we should be prepared to do anything that is legal to prevent another terrorist attack."

The statement in Kiev, which went a long way to placating skeptical Europeans, was based on policy, not legality. So her statement Tuesday could be seen as an effort to scale back from her remarks last week. But some officials dismissed any suggestion of major policy shifts.

"Do not read this in a tortured, convoluted and contrived way," a senior State Department official said.


Joel Brinkley contributed reporting for this article.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 07:32 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121302119.html


DAHUK, Iraq -- When hundreds of rioters ransacked and torched the Kurdistan Islamic Union office in this northern Iraqi city last week, their message seemed as clear as the electric-blue graffiti left on the building's blackened shell.

Spray-painted across a stone facade dimpled with hundreds of bullet holes were the words "Long live 730," the numerical ballot designation for the political alliance led by Iraq's two largest Kurdish parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). Along a stairwell, someone had written "traitors."

Mobs carried out similar daylight attacks in four other cities in normally tranquil Dahuk province on Dec. 6, destroying offices of the Islamic Union, which quit the alliance last month to field its own candidates in Thursday's parliamentary elections. Four party members were killed, including two shot in the head here in the provincial capital who died of their wounds Saturday. Dozens were injured, many of them police officers.

Although U.S. officials consider the semiautonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq a model of what the rest of the country could someday become, the attacks last week were another reminder that Iraqis have been slow to discard the politics of force and intimidation in the country's lurch toward democracy. They also suggest that as Iraqis prepare to choose their first full-term government since the ouster of Saddam Hussein, some of the deepest social fissures lie not just among its large communities, but within them.

"Is there any doubt the big parties punished us for leaving the coalition? It is impossible that anything like this can happen here without their hand in it," said Omar Badi, an Islamic Union candidate for parliament, standing beside the wreckage of 21 cars set ablaze that day. "This had to be organized. It did not happen spontaneously."

Local officials and police said the KDP, the dominant power in the province, had not orchestrated the attacks. Public animosity had built for weeks against the Islamic Union, a Sunni Muslim party, for portraying the coming election as a clash of believers and nonbelievers in a region known for secularism and religious tolerance, politicians and residents said.

"The Islamic Union must share blame. They stirred this up. Their ideology led to an incident we didn't want," said Dahuk Gov. Tamar Ramadan, who, like the province's police chief and most members of the provincial council, is a member of the KDP. "We wanted to stop it, and we tried to. But it is impossible to stand against a crowd so large."

The following account is based on information from several witnesses to last week's violence and two videos provided by the Islamic Union, as well as interviews with party officials from all sides involved, police and independent election monitors in Dahuk, a city of about 400,000 people less than 50 miles from the border with Turkey.

Dahuk city is nestled in a lush valley ringed by bald, craggy peaks. The undisputed local power is the KDP, led by Massoud Barzani, the Kurdish regional president, whose pugnacious style draws comparisons to Hussein. A hulking statue of Barzani's father, Mustafa, a revered Kurdish separatist leader who founded the KDP in 1946, stands at the edge of the city.

Campaign Heats Up

While the KDP and the PUK have occasionally fought for control over the Kurdish independence movement they jointly lead, they and other Kurdish parties formed a united slate for last January's parliamentary elections. But this time, frustrated by its lack of influence within the alliance, the Islamic Union decided to run on its own, members said.

"The rights of the Kurds in Iraq were secured, and we wanted to work on other issues," said Badi. "We are a separate party and we have the freedom to do this."

The Islamic Union soon began airing advertisements on a party-owned radio station calling the local government corrupt and comparing the coming election to Uhud, a 7th-century battle between early Muslims and nonbelievers.

"They called us agents of the Americans and the Israelis," said Ali Nirwaie, provincial head of the KDP. "They have the right to advertise for their party, but they don't have the right to talk badly about the others."

Badi said the KDP mounted its own media offensive against the Islamic Union, which receives funding from religious groups in several Arab countries. People posted signs in Dahuk accusing the party of "working with the Arabs against the Kurds," an inflammatory charge in a region where animosity toward Arabs runs deep. Posters depicted an Islamic Union member shaking hands with a man in an Arab headdress.

Rumors of an Attack

The week before the attacks, Islamic Union members said, they heard from friends in the KDP that trouble might be coming their way. Badi went to see U.S. Army Maj. Calvin Robinson, a civil affairs officer assigned to Dahuk.

"We passed his concerns up the chain of command, but they were only that -- concerns," Robinson said. "After that, we monitored the situation the best we could."

On Dec. 1, five days before the attacks, Badi and Sayid Ali Abu, the local party head, wrote a letter that they said was hand-delivered to the provincial government. "We have received information from a multitude of sources on the intention of some members and supporters of the Kurdistan Democratic Party to stage a demonstration targeting our party offices, storming them, as well as harming our staff and vandalizing our property," it said. "We respectfully ask you to provide the necessary protection for our offices in the following cities: Dahuk, Zakhu, Amadiyah, Aqrah, Bardarash."

Dahuk's police chief, Waadallah Muhammed Selky, said that Ramadan, the governor, "called and told me, you will be responsible for anything that happens."

About 11 a.m. on Dec. 6, dozens of students -- some as young as 10, others from the local technical high school -- gathered outside the Islamic Union headquarters, a four-story stone building festooned with a giant flag of Kurdistan that sits along a main highway. Other locals joined them, and the crowd quickly grew, with estimates ranging from 5,000 to 10,000.

"At noon, people from the Islamic Union called me by phone and said things were getting out of control," Selky said in an interview in his office, where he keeps a photograph of himself shaking hands with Barzani by his desk. "I sent some cars over there and then I went myself."

When Selky and Ramadan arrived, with a company of soldiers from a local army branch, police and soldiers made a ring around the building to protect it from attack. "The crowd had one request," Ramadan said. "They wanted the Kurdistan flag taken down from their front wall."

Azad Omar Haji, 36, a restaurant worker in Dahuk who joined the crowd, said later: "We wanted them to put up the Saudi flag or the Egypt flag, since that is who they are."

Ramadan sent a delegation, including the city's mayor, inside about 1 p.m. "We asked them to just take it down for a half-hour, so everyone would calm down and go away," the governor said. The request was refused.

Meanwhile, people began breaking through the police cordon, smashing rocks against the building's front door and throwing bricks through windows. Others overturned cars and set them on fire. When the fire spread to the building's lower floors, party members took refuge on the roof.

On the video provided by the party, some soldiers can be seen attempting to stop people from entering the building. Others stand by and watch. "They let it happen," said Othman Younis, an Islamic Union member who said he had been trapped inside the building.

'Everything Went Crazy'

"We tried as hard as we could to keep the crowd back, but there were too many of them, and the people on the roof were playing with the nerves of the crowd, pouring oil on the fire," Selky said. On the roof, Islamic Union members waved election posters as rocks hurtled past. They pointed to the south, where Iraq's Arab population lives, and clasped their hands in solidarity.

In the mounting chaos, a shot rang out and a bullet struck a policeman in the right ankle. Several witnesses said it was fired by a party member on the roof. Party members said they had no weapons on hand and did not fire a shot that day.

"Someone shouted, 'They are killing the police,' " Selky said. "Then everything went crazy."

Armed members of the crowd opened fire on the building, riddling it with bullets from all directions.

"We hid behind walls and crouched on the floor," said another Islamic Union member, Khalil Kocher, his head still bandaged from a bullet that ricocheted off a wall and struck a glancing blow above his temple.

Dozens of people stormed the building, emptying containers of gasoline inside and igniting them. With the structure now engulfed in smoke, Islamic Union members scrambled out the back entrance and pushed toward cars or taxis to take the wounded to a hospital.

Three men had been shot in the head, another in the stomach. Two of the gunshot victims died Saturday in Dahuk's hospital.

In addition, 12 police officers and seven civilians were wounded, including two young girls.

Meanwhile, in cities hundreds of miles apart across Dahuk province, Islamic Union offices were also under attack.

In Zakhu, on the Turkish border, two Islamic Union members inside their office died when a crowd opened fire with machine guns and rockets, Badi said. Eleven other party members were jailed for three days. In the towns of Amadiyah, Bardarash and Aqrah, "it was different theaters, but the same play," Badi said. "It was the KDP's plan."

Asked to explain the apparent coordination of the attacks, the governor, police chief and local party head gave nearly identical answers. Each reached for a cell phone and held it aloft.

"People started making calls," Ramadan said. "They called their friends and relatives and told them what was happening, and it just grew like that. It is not so hard to imagine."

So far, police in Dahuk have made three arrests, all of them Islamic Union members identified by people in the crowd as having shot at police and civilians.

"The big question is whether or not the events that took place could happen like that without being orchestrated. I don't know, but you can read between the lines," said a Western diplomat in Kirkuk who has investigated the incidents and spoke on condition he not be named. Asked about allegations that the KDP had played a role, he said, "It's hard to disagree with that assessment."

"Perhaps some people think we were behind this," said Nirwaie, the local KDP chief. "But the truth is, these types of things happen in elections in many places, random incidents. We are the ones in power here. We will get almost 100 percent support. Tell me, why would we make trouble?"
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 11:00 am
Thomas wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
What part of McCain's book contradicted his quotes about torture working on him.

The same part of McCain's book that also contains your source's quote. I'd say within two pages or less.

I'd say you don't know what you are posting about.

ican711nm wrote:
Why don't you quote those parts so as to enlighten us all?

I told you why I can't quote that part: I don't own the book, which I read while staying at an American friend, and Google Books doesn't index it yet.

Poor excuse! Try a library! You ought not make claims you cannot provide at least some valid evidence to substantiate. By the way, you had an alternate source to use to validate your claims: McCain's 1973 article in U.S. News and World Report. Why not check out that source on your own?

But I did refer you to a McCain article where he states that the North Vietnamese extracted no useful intelligence from him.

John McCain is not an objective evaluator of the information the North Vietnamese extracted from him. One thing is clear, the North Vietnamese extracted from McCain via torture exactly what they wanted to extract. The value of that information to them is their's to determine, and not McCain's -- and certainly not yours.

So while your McCain quote was filtered through a blogger with an incentive to spin it, at least my McCain quote was unflitered.

My quote was abstracted and perhaps filtered by a blogger. Your quote is abstracted and perhaps filtered by you. Based on the silliness of your responses on this topic, I'll trust the blogger and not you. It looks to me like you have the greater "incentive to spin it."



www.m-w.com
Quote:
Main Entry: com·pul·sion
Pronunciation: k&m-'p&l-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French, from Late Latin compulsion-, compulsio, from Latin compellere to compel
1 a : an act of compelling : the state of being compelled b : a force that compels

Main Entry: com·pel
Pronunciation: k&m-'pel
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): com·pelled; com·pel·ling
Etymology: Middle English compellen, from Middle French compellir, from Latin compellere, from com- + pellere to drive -- more at FELT
1 : to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly
2 : to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure


Here's my definition of prisoner interrogation by compulsion. It's prisoner interrogation by torture minus: killing, maiming, disabling, and injuring them.

Both prisoner interrogation by torture and prisoner interrogation by compulsion are successful in extracting from terrorist prisoners their knowledge of locations of their ordnance, their staging areas, and their sanctuaries. Obtaining such knowledge enables anti-terrorist forces to save the lives of civilians -- occasionally, it enables anti-terrorist forces to save thousands of civilian lives.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 11:13 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
icant isn't only changing the subject, but also missed this post ...

It is you who has missed the point. It is you who are repeatedly trying to change the subject.

The subject is: What do Iraqis actually think and not what do pollsters (or CI) allege Iraqis think.

The most reliable way to learn what Iraqis think will be the size of tomorrow's Iraqi voter turnout as well as how they vote.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 11:31 am
This is relevant to why it is so important to the USA to make sure that the true Iraqi, democratically expressed opinion is served.

Al Qaeda and the al Qaeda religion are a deadly threat to a major part of humanity. Al Qaeda must be exterminated or it will attempt to exterminate that major part of humanity that chooses not to adopt the al Qaeda religion. Anyone or government that abets al Qaeda, is likewise a deadly threat to that same part of humanity.

My most recent post of a preponderance of evidence that supports these allegations will be found at:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1714233#1714233


Al Qaeda moved into Iraq December 2001 (after 9/11/2001 and after the USA invasion of Afghanistan October 2001) and established new training camps there. Al Qaeda grew substantially by the time of our invasion of Iraq in March 2003, because Saddam's government tolerated (i.e., harbored) al Qaeda in Iraq.

My most recent post of a preponderance of evidence that supports these allegations will be found at:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1714240#1714240


My most recent answer to the question whether any of this evidence supports reasons that were among Bush’s original reasons for invading Iraq, will be found at: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1714246#1714246
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 11:33 am
icant will never understand the simple fact that Bush's war in Iraq increased al Qaida terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 11:33 am
Osama should send Bush a christmas card to say "thank you!"

Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 12:05 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
icant will never understand the simple fact that Bush's war in Iraq increased al Qaida terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere.

CI refuses to admit that this statement of his is nonsense. Al Qaeda terrorism incidents increased from 1996 to 2001 without any invasion by the USA of anyone.

CI refuses to admit that this statement of his is nonsense. Al Qaeda terrorism incidents increased from 2001 to 2003 without any invasion by the USA of Iraq.

CI refuses to admit that 10,000 to 20,000 al Qaeda trained terrorists were trained in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001.

CI refuses to admit that 10,000 to 20,000 al Qaeda trained terrorists did not go into hybernation upon our invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

CI refuses to admit that some of the 10,000 to 20,000 al Qaeda trained terrorists were not killed in our invasion of Afghanistan.

CI refuses to admit that some of these unkilled 10,000 to 20,000 al Qaeda trained terrorists fled to sanctuary in Iraq where they set up terroist training camps that grew in size and productivity until 2003.

CI refuses to admit that some of these unkilled 10,000 to 20,000 al Qaeda trained terrorists who fled elsewhere after we invaded Afghanistan have infiltrated Iraq since our invasion of Iraq.

CI refuses to admit that some of these unkilled 10,000 to 20,000 al Qaeda trained terrorists who infiltrated Iraq since our invasion of Iraq, understand that winning in Iraq is essential to the viability of al Qaeda's own self-declared objective of world domination.

Which is it, CI: Your refusal to recognize reality; or your determination to disseminate your lying propaganda and/or the lying propaganda of others?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 01:48 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Poor excuse! Try a library!

Please check the "location" entry under my avatar. It will inform you why that would be more trouble than winning an argument against you is worth to me.

ican711nm wrote:
I'd say you don't know what you are posting about.

It's a free web. You can say whatever you want.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 01:54 pm
Thomas,

Ican shows Texas as his location. His signature line specifies that he is at an altitude of 45,000 feet!
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 02:19 pm
wandeljw wrote:
Thomas,

Ican shows Texas as his location. His signature line specifies that he is at an altitude of 45,000 feet!

Not sure if DrewDad (who I think lives in Austin, TX) would agree with this. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 02:22 pm
I can assure you that we are much closer to sea level than Ican lists; though I can think of some interesting substances which would change that assessment.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 02:38 pm
Cyclo, That explains a whole lot why icant fails to make much sense.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 02:59 pm
Bush takes on Iraqi war critics
US President George W Bush has accepted responsibility for going to war in Iraq on the basis of faulty intelligence, but said it was still the right choice.


On the eve of Iraq's parliamentary election, he made a robust defence of the war that toppled Saddam Hussein.

He said: "Saddam was a threat, and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power."

It is the last of four keynote speeches on Iraq from a president under increasing pressure on the issue.





Polls suggest most Americans are unhappy with Mr Bush's handling of the war, and some lawmakers are questioning how long the troops should stay.

"Many intelligence agencies judged that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and it's true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong,"
said Mr Bush in the speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington.

But he added that Saddam Hussein was nonetheless a threat, and had been looking for the opportunity to restart his weapons programmes.

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that," Mr Bush said.

'Pure politics'

The president insisted that US troops would stay in Iraq until the country's forces were sufficiently well trained to fully take over security duties.


Freedom in Iraq will inspire reformers from Damascus to Tehran
President Bush


A stable Iraq was in the interests of both the Iraqi and American people, he said.
And he accused critics in Washington, many of whom had originally supported the decision to invade, of playing "pure politics".

He said: "Victory will be achieved by meeting certain objectives: when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can protect their own people, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against our country.

"These objectives, not timetables set by politicians in Washington, will drive our force levels in Iraq."

He concluded by saying that Iraq was becoming "a strong democracy" that would "inspire reformers from Damascus to Tehran".

Mr Bush's address follows earlier speeches on the Iraqi poll and the military and economic situation in the country.

Letter

A USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll released on Wednesday suggests 59% of Americans disapprove of Mr Bush's handling of the Iraq war.


Ahead of the speech, in the Senate, 40 Democrats and one independent signed a letter to the president in which they urge him to be more frank with the Iraqi and American public.
The administration, the letter says, should "tell the leaders of all groups and political parties in Iraq that they need to make the compromises necessary to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency in Iraq within the schedule they set for themselves".

It adds that Mr Bush must set out "a plan that identifies the remaining political, economic, and military benchmarks that must be met and a reasonable schedule to achieve them".





Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4528982.stm

Published: 2005/12/14 17:41:38 GMT
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 05:37 pm
Thomas wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Poor excuse! Try a library!

Please check the "location" entry under my avatar. It will inform you why that would be more trouble than winning an argument against you is worth to me.

Another poor excuse! Sad

On my first try, I searched for <U.S. News and World Report 1973 John McCain> and at
http://ojc.org/powforum/capital/mccain/7310514.txt
I found:
Quote:
May 14, 1973
US News & World Report

Inside Story

HOW THE POW's FOUGHT BACK
By John S. McCain III
Lieut. Commander, U.S. Navy


0f the almost unbelievably cruel treatment accorded American prisoners of war in
Vietnam, none is more dramatic than that of Lieut. Commander John S. McCain III-Navy
flier, son of the admiral who commanded the war in the Pacific, and a prisoner who
came in for "special attention" during 51/2 years of captivity in North Vietnam.
...
To get back to the story: They took me out of my room to "Slopehead," who said, "You
have violated all the camp regulations. You're a black criminal. You must confess your
crimes." I said that I wouldn't do that, and he asked, "Why are you so disrespectful of
guards?" I answered, "Because the guards treat me like an animal."

When I said that that guards, who were all in the room, about 10 of them-really laid into
me. They bounced me from pillar to post, kicking and laughing and scratching. After a
few hours of that, ropes were put on me and I sat that night bound with ropes. Then I
was taken to a small room. For punishment they would almost always take you to
another room where you didn't have a mosquito net or a bed or any clothes. For the next
four days, I was beaten every two to three hours by different guards. My left arm was
broken again and my ribs were cracked.

They wanted a statement saying that I was sorry for the crimes that I had committed
against North Vietnamese people and that I was grateful for the treatment that I had
received from them. This was the paradox-so many guys were so mistreated to get
them to say they were grateful. But this is the Communist way.

I held out for four days. Finally, I reached the lowest point of my 51/2 years in North
Vietnam. I was at the point of suicide, because I saw that I was reaching the end of my
rope.

I said, O.K., I'll write for them.

They took me up into one of the interrogation rooms, and for the next 12 hours we wrote
and rewrote. The North Vietnamese interrogator, who was pretty stupid, wrote the final
confession, and I signed it. It was in their language, and spoke about black crimes, and
other generalities. It was unacceptable to them. But I felt just terrible about it. I kept
saying to myself, "Oh, God, I really didn't have any choice." I had learned what we all
learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine.
[/size]
Then the "gooks" made a very serious mistake, because they let me go back and rest
for a couple of weeks. They usually didn't do that with guys when they had them really
busted. I think it concerned them that my arm was broken, and they had messed up my
leg. I had been reduced to an animal during this period of beating and torture. My arm
was so painful I couldn't get up off the floor. With the dysentery, it was a very unpleasant
time.

Thank God they let me rest for a couple of weeks. Then they called me up again and
wanted something else. I don't remember what it was now-it was some kind of
statement. This time I was able to resist. I was able to carry on. They couldn't "bust" me again.


Persistent torture works!
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 2.44 seconds on 06/07/2025 at 08:20:46