0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2006 07:35 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Hey, ican, when is Bush going to start bombing US cities to get rid of terrorists in our country?
...

Immediately after hell freezes over. Razz

But before that comes the greater danger. The Democratic Party leadership has finally agreed to an agenda. Even as I type this they have begun an all out USA pissoff. Shocked

I tell ya it will be terrible. The streets will run with Democrat urine. The sun will begin to cool. The halls and chambers of Congress will smell up high heaven. Republicans will fart. The North Koreans and Iranians will hold their noses. The Iraqis and Afghanistanis will invade the USA in self-defense. Mexican immigrants in the USA will emigrate back through Mexico to Guatamala. And Canadian immigrants in the USA will emigrate back through Canada to ANWAR and start drilling for oil by next Tuesday. Surprised
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2006 07:40 am
ican711nm
I want some of whatever ican711nm is smoking.

BBB
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2006 08:29 am
Re: ican711nm
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
I want some of whatever ican711nm is smoking.
BBB

Jet Exhaust.

You can get it free at almost any general aviation airport. Smile
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2006 04:38 pm
Laughing Ican Laughing
And let's all give great thanks to the New York Times for once again betraying the United States by tipping off our enemies the methods we use to find them. Thank you for your treason. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2006 05:50 pm
ican, Here's another challenge for you. Australians are selling a deadly new weapon to Iran that can penetrate body armour or a Humvee from a mile away, and can even shoot down helicopters.

Better tell Rummy what's going on with our "allies," hey?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2006 08:58 pm
Isn't it interesting that the democrats were poo-pooed by the republican dominated congress on troop reductions just last week. They talked about "cut and run" or some such.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2006 09:45 pm
From the NYT:

SAFER NEIGHBORHOODS? To Sir Ian Blair, top left, London's police commissioner, much of the answer to terrorism lies in developing a rapport between the police and residents of heavily Muslim communities like Brick Lane, Whitechapel and Forest Gate, bottom left, where in June, the police raided a row house but found nothing. Abdel Bari Atwan, bottom right, editor of an Arabic daily headquartered in Hammersmith, says that as long as the U.S. and its allies occupy other countries, "the current escalation of suicide attacks is unlikely to abate."

By CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL
Published: June 25, 2006
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2006 10:42 pm
Homeless vets

Quote:
Jun 24, 2006 12:27 pm US/Eastern

Iraq Veterans Facing Homelessness
(AP) NEW YORK As a member of the National Guard, Nadine Beckford patrolled New York train stations after Sept. 11 with a 9mm pistol, then served a treacherous year in Iraq.

Now, six months after returning, Beckford lives in a homeless shelter.

"I'm just an ordinary person who served. I'm not embarrassed about my homelessness, because the circumstances that created it were not my fault," said Beckford, 30, who was a military-supply specialist at a base in Iraq that was a sitting duck for around-the-clock attacks, "where hell was your home."

Thousands of veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan are facing a new nightmare -- the risk of homelessness. The government estimates that several hundred vets who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan are homeless on any given night around the country, although the exact number is unknown.

The reasons that contribute to this new wave of homelessness are many: Some are unable to cope with life after daily encounters with insurgent attacks and roadside bombs; some can't navigate the government red tape; others simply don't have enough money to afford a house or apartment.

They are living on the edge in towns and cities big and small from Washington state to Florida. But the hardest hit are in New York City, because housing costs here "can be very tough," said Peter Dougherty, head of the Homeless Veterans Program at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Former Army Pfc. Herold Noel had nowhere to call home after returning from Iraq last year. He slept in his Jeep, parked anywhere in New York "where I wouldn't get a ticket."

"Then the nightmares would start," said the 26-year-old, who drove a military fuel truck in Iraq -- one of the war's most dangerous jobs.

At one point, he saw a friend's leg get blown off. "I saw a baby decapitated when it was run over by a truck. I relived that every night," said Noel, who walks with shrapnel in his knee and suffers from severe post-traumatic stress syndrome.

To help people like Noel, the VA gives grants to nonprofit, private housing organizations that offer about 8,000 free beds nationwide. The space isn't always enough to accommodate everyone in desperate need of shelter among the more than 500,000 vets of Iraq and Afghanistan who have been discharged from the military so far.

When Noel got back, the shattered soldier couldn't immediately find a job to support his wife and children, and all the housing programs for vets he knew of "were overbooked," he said.

The family ended up in a Bronx shelter "with people who were just out of prison, and with roaches," he said. "I'm a young black man from the ghetto, but this was culture shock. This is not what I fought for, what I almost died for. This is not what I was supposed to come home to."

Noel now attends a Brooklyn program to get a job in studio sound production. He also is the protagonist of the documentary film "When I Came Home," which was named best New York-made documentary at the Tribeca Film Festival this year.

Just after the news reports about his plight came out, he got a call from the VA granting him the 100 percent disability compensation he sought -- after being turned down.

He's not blaming the military, which "helped make my dreams come true. I had a house, a car -- they gave me everything they promised me," he said.

"It's up to the government and the people we're defending to take care of their soldiers."

Before she went to war, Beckford put all her belongings in storage. And while in Iraq, she sent most of her National Guard earnings of about $25,000 a year into her New York bank account. When she returned, the Brooklyn storage locker had been emptied, as was her bank account. She believes her boyfriend took everything and disappeared; she reported the thefts to police, but "he just vanished."

Without support from family -- her parents are barely making ends meet in their native Jamaica -- Beckford lives in a Brooklyn shelter where she shares a room with eight other women.

Beckford is no longer angry -- just anxious to get back on her feet as she attends a job-training program.

Long before the current war, the Homeless Veterans Program had guided men and women back into daily life after service in Vietnam, Korea and World War II. But Dougherty makes no secret of a truth few Americans know: About one-fourth of all homeless adults in America have served in the military -- most of them minority veterans.

There are now about 200,000 homeless vets in the United States, according to government figures.

"In recent years, we've tried to reach out sooner to new veterans who are having problems with post-traumatic stress, depression or substance abuse, after seeing combat," said Dougherty. "These are the veterans who most often end up homeless."

Across the country, 350 nonprofit service organizations are working with Veterans Affairs to provide a network of kindness that breaks the veterans' fall.

But they still land on a hard bottom line: Almost half of America's 2.7 million disabled veterans receive $337 or less a month in benefits, according to the VA's Veterans Benefits Administration.

Fewer than one-tenth of them are rated 100 percent disabled, meaning they get $2,393 a month, tax free.

"And only those who receive that 100 percent benefit rating can survive in New York," said J.B. White Jr., a 36-year-old former Marine who served with a National Guard unit in Iraq. His entire colon was removed after he was diagnosed with severe ulcerative colitis, which civilian medical experts believe started in Iraq under the stress of war.

White is in the midst of an uphill battle to get benefits from the government. He also helps others, as head of the Hope for New Veterans program for Common Ground, a Manhattan-based social service agency that finds non-government housing for vets.

For those struggling to keep a roof over their head, filing for benefits can be a bureaucratic Catch-22 that ratchets up the stress. But it's their survival ticket, if their claim is not turned down.

To an outsider, the VA benefit formulas can seem like a riddle.

If, for instance, a vet is diagnosed as 70 percent physically disabled and 30 percent disabled as a result of post-traumatic stress, the total disability does not necessarily add up to 100 percent; it could amount to 80 percent. And that means a monthly check of $1,277; $1,500 for a family of four -- a paltry amount in places like New York where cramped studio apartments routinely exceed $1,000 a month.

Even with a college degree in African studies and English, Beckford said, "I don't know when I'll be able to move out of the shelter."


All these programs to help the homeless, job training and so forth; are these not the so called social programs those socialistic and communistic Democrats want to waste taxpayers money on? Why, if we could cut out these socialistic giveaways and give the rich another taxcut, think of how much greater this country would be?

I see our good Republican congressmen and voted themselves a raise and told the workers at the lowest end of the pay scale to go to hell.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 12:16 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, Here's another challenge for you. Australians are selling a deadly new weapon to Iran that can penetrate body armour or a Humvee from a mile away, and can even shoot down helicopters.
Better tell Rummy what's going on with our "allies," hey?

More of your pseudology
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 12:19 pm
ican wrote:
More of your pseudology


Can't help you if you're blind to the obvious.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 01:00 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican wrote:
More of your pseudology

Can't help you if you're blind to the obvious.

You can help yourself by stopping your pseudology.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 01:06 pm
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/posters013.jpg
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 01:38 pm
cice, you can begin to help stop your pseudology by reading with understanding. To help you read with understanding, ican added the emphasis below
cicerone imposter wrote:
June 25, 2006
U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
WASHINGTON, June 24 — The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.

According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007.

Under the plan, the first reductions would involve two combat brigades that would rotate out of Iraq in September without being replaced. Combat brigades, which generally have about 3,500 troops, do not make up the bulk of the 127,000-member American force in Iraq.

American officials emphasized that any withdrawals would depend on continued progress, including the development of competent Iraqi security forces, a reduction in Sunni Arab hostility toward the new Iraqi government and the assumption that the insurgency will not expand beyond Iraq's six central provinces. Even so, the projected troop withdrawals in 2007 are more significant than many experts had expected.

Estimating the number of American troops that may be deployed in Iraq at the end of 2007 is difficult, one officer said. A reduction of eight combat brigades would equal about 28,000 troops. But that does not mean that the reduction in the remainder of the force would be proportional: troops would still be needed to help with logistics, intelligence, training and airstrikes.

General Casey's briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity. Word of the briefing comes after a week in which the American troop presence in Iraq was stridently debated in Congress, with Democratic initiatives to force troop withdrawals defeated in the Senate.

The commander met this week with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On Friday, General Casey and Mr. Rumsfeld met with President Bush at the White House. A senior White House official said that General Casey did not present a formal plan for Mr. Bush's approval but rather a concept of how the United States might move forward after consulting with Iraqi authorities, including Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

"The recent conversations that have taken place are all designed to formulate our thinking in concert with the new Iraqi government," said the White House official, who declined to discuss specific cuts. "What this process allows is for General Casey to engage with the new Maliki government so it can go from a notional concept to a practical plan of security implementation over the next two years."

Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters on Thursday that no final decisions would come on troop withdrawals until General Casey consulted with the new Iraqi government. "We expect that General Casey will come back and make a recommendation after he's had those discussions, which he has not yet had," he said.

Proponents of General Casey's approach described it as a carefully synchronized plan to turn over authority for security to the new Iraqi government. The administration has repeatedly said that American troops will begin to stand down as Iraqi forces stand up and begin to assert control. Although the planning for 2006 is advanced, officials say the projected withdrawals for 2007 are more of a forecast of what may be possible given current trends than a hard timeline.

But critics of the Bush administration's handling of the war question whether the ambitious goals for withdrawing troops are realistic given the difficulties in maintaining order there. The insurgency has proven resilient despite several big military operations over the years, and previous forecasts of significant troop withdrawals have yet to materialize.

Now, after criticizing Democratic lawmakers for trying to legislate a timeline for withdrawing troops, skeptics say, the Bush administration seems to have its own private schedule, albeit one that can be adjusted as events unfold.

If executed, the plan could have considerable political significance. The first reductions would take place before this fall's Congressional elections, while even bigger cuts might come before the 2008 presidential election.

According to accounts by American officials, General Casey's briefing identifies four main threats in Iraq: Al Qaeda, criminal groups, Iranian support for violent Shiite organizations, and ethnic and sectarian strife over the distribution of power.

In the general's briefing, the future American role in Iraq is divided into three phases. The next 12 months was described as a period of stabilization. The period from the summer of 2007 through the summer of 2008 was described as a time when the emphasis would be on the restoration of the Iraqi government's authority. The period from the summer of 2008 though the summer of 2009 was cast as one in which the Iraqi government would be increasingly self-reliant.

In line with this vision, some cuts would begin soon. The United States has 14 combat brigades in Iraq, plus many other support troops. Under the plan, the United States would shrink this force to 12 combat brigades in September. This would be done by not replacing 2 brigades that are scheduled to be withdrawn.

A combat brigade would be kept on alert in Kuwait or elsewhere in case American commanders needed to augment their forces to deal with a crisis. Another brigade would be kept on a lesser state of alert elsewhere in the world, but still prepared to deploy quickly. As a result of these arrangements, the plan to bring the combat force down to 12 active brigades in Iraq is being called 12-1-1.

Further reductions might be made by the end of the year. By December, the number of American combat brigades in Iraq would be 10 to 12. As with the September reduction, a brigade would be kept on alert and another brigade would be ready to deploy.

According to the projections in General Casey's briefing, the number of combat brigades would shrink to seven to eight by June 2007 and finally to five to six by December 2007.

At the same time, the number of bases in Iraq would decline as American forces consolidated. By the end of the year the number of bases would shrink to 57 from the current 69. By June 2007, there would be 30 bases, and by December 2007 there would be only 11. By the end of 2007, the United States would have three principal regional military commands: in Baghdad and the surrounding area, in Anbar Province and the west, and in northern Iraq.

The reduction and consolidation of the American force is contingent on the growth and expansion of the Iraqi forces. According to the plan, the Iraqis are to have five army divisions that will control their own swaths of territory by September. By December, that number is to grow to nine. A 10th Iraqi Division is to take on an operational role in the dangerous Anbar Province in western Iraq next spring.

The reduction in American combat brigades would have an importance beyond troop numbers. The strategy is to gradually shift the responsibility for fighting the insurgency to the new Iraqi military and to encourage the Iraqi forces to secure the nation's territory. Arranging for the Iraqis to take on an increasing combat role is the key to reducing the American military presence in Iraq.

As American forces draw down, a growing number of provinces are also scheduled to revert to Iraqi control. Prime Minister Maliki has said that his government will take over responsibility for security in Muthanna Province this summer. Located in southern Iraq near Kuwait, Muthanna is the most peaceful of the southern provinces.

Officials said General Casey's briefing did address the long-term American presence beyond 2007. At the end of that year, the United States would still have responsibility for the Iraq capital and the area west of Baghdad, two of the most violent areas in the country.

Asked for comment on the general's meeting with Mr. Bush, a White House spokesman said: "The president has clearly stated he will listen to the commanders on the ground. We are constantly evaluating our posture and the growing capability of the Iraqi security forces.

"As we move forward, we will closely work with the new Iraqi government as they develop plans to take more and more responsibility for securing their country and providing for the Iraqi people. The president appreciates the opportunity to meet with Secretary Rumsfeld and General Casey to forge a way forward with the new Iraqi government."

Isn't it interesting that the democrats were poo-pooed by the republican dominated congress on troop reductions just last week. They talked about "cut and run" or some such.
This is more of your pseudology, cice. The democrat plan for unconditional scheduled withdrawals (i.e., "cut and run") was "poo-pooed". That Democrat plan deserved to be "poo-pooed!"
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 05:37 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Isn't it interesting that the democrats were poo-pooed by the republican dominated congress on troop reductions just last week. They talked about "cut and run" or some such.
Not at all. We're all looking forward to troop reductions. They were criticized for demanding an artificial time-table, which would present our enemies with a goal-line so to speak. Big difference.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 06:28 pm
ican711nm wrote:
MEASURABLE PROGRESS IN IRAQ TOWARD THE IRAQ SOLUTION -- AS OF May 31, 2006
The USA and Iraq's solution is to establish a democracy in Iraq secured by the Iraqis themselves. Iraq and the USA have completed six of eight steps toward their solution:
(1) Select an initial Iraq government to hold a first election;
(2) Establish and begin training an Iraq self-defense military;
(3) Hold a democratic election of an interim government whose primary function is to write a proposed constitution for a new Iraq democratic government;
(4) Submit that proposed constitution to Iraq voters for approval or disapproval;
(5) After approval by Iraq voters of an Iraq democratic government constitution, hold under that constitution a first election of the members of that government;
(6) After that election, organize the newly elected Iraq government;

(7) Train, as specified by the new Iraq government, an Iraq military to secure that Iraq government;
From 01/01/2006 to 05/31/2006, 1,943 was the average number of Iraqi civilian violent deaths per month.
(8) After the Iraq government is secured, remove the USA military from Iraq in a phased withdrawal.
I predict less than 645 Iraqi civilian violent deaths from 12/01/2006 to 12/31/2006.

The USA will withdraw from Iraq in phases in harmony with the evolution of Iraq's self-governance. As a consequence, both Iraqis and Americans will in their mutual self-interest achieve the following goals:
(A) Stop the terrorists and Saddamists from threatening Iraq's democracy;
(B) Enable Iraqi security forces to protect their own people;
(C) Prevent Iraq from becoming a potential safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the USA and other countries.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 07:43 am
I see things haven't changed in Iraq. It's still getting worse instead of better.

Quote:
British 'helpless' as violence rises in southern Iraq
By Kim Sengupta and Raymond Whitaker
Published: 25 June 2006

British forces are facing rising violence among Shia Muslim factions in southern Iraq, but are powerless to contain it, military and diplomatic sources have told The Independent on Sunday. Both British and Iraqi authorities were seeking to play down the situation, they added.

The hidden political and factional tensions in the British zone of Iraq, particularly in Basra, were highlighted by a car bomb in the centre of the country's second city on Friday. The local police said 10 were killed and 15 wounded. Hospital sources said at least five bodies were brought in. But the provincial governor, embroiled in a bitter dispute with the police chief, insisted only two people were killed. As violent incidents have increased recently, political leaders in other southern cities have also tried to minimise casualty figures.

In Baghdad the Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is due to present a national reconciliation plan to parliament today, aimed at reducing sectarian violence and defusing a significant portion of the Sunni insurgency, although Saddam Hussein loyalists and foreign fighters such as al-Qa'ida are excluded. There are question marks over the plan, but it will do nothing to heal tensions among Shias in their southern heartland.

Last week, as the Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, was declaring that the withdrawal of British forces from parts of Iraq was evidence of "mission accomplished", the senior British commander in the country disclosed that the security situation in Basra had deteriorated.

Lieutenant General Nick Houghton told the Commons defence committee: "There is a worrying amount of violence and murder carried out between rival Shia factions. There is no doubt that it has got worse of late, due to the protracted period of talks to form the government."

Since a spate of bomb attacks against them last autumn, British forces have largely kept out of the centre of Basra. Much of the police force in the south has been taken over by Shia militias who often clash with one another as well as intimidating ordinary people and attacking what is left of the Sunni community in the south.

Earlier this month a Sunni mosque in Basra was stormed by the overwhelmingly Shia police force and 12 died - a day after a market bombing killed 28. The police said they wanted to search the mosque following intelligence that arms and explosives linked to the bombing were stored there, and claimed they only returned fire after people inside the mosque began shooting at them.

Omar Rashid (not his full name), a Sunni carpenter of 34, injured by flying glass during the exchange, denied police claims. "This was not the first time they have raided this mosque," he said. "I have had two members of my family killed, another 10 have fled."

British forces have been bystanders in these clashes, but for the first time, according to sources on the ground, they are coming under pressure from political factions to leave areas of the south so that their militia allies can move in. While there was a co-ordinated announcement last week that Iraqi security forces would soon take responsibility for Muthanna, a province bordering Saudi Arabia, the Iraqi authorities suddenly announced the next day that the more volatile Maysan province, where British soldiers have been killed this year, would also be handed over.

The relatively small number of British troops in the two provinces will not be brought home, but will be deployed in Basra, where Mr Maliki declared a state of emergency during a visit from the capital last month. The decision, which he said was taken in response to the growing violence, is said to have caught British officials by surprise. It was seen as a flexing of muscle by the new Prime Minister, but also emphasises how little control Britain has over events in the region.

British forces are facing rising violence among Shia Muslim factions in southern Iraq, but are powerless to contain it, military and diplomatic sources have told The Independent on Sunday. Both British and Iraqi authorities were seeking to play down the situation, they added.

The hidden political and factional tensions in the British zone of Iraq, particularly in Basra, were highlighted by a car bomb in the centre of the country's second city on Friday. The local police said 10 were killed and 15 wounded. Hospital sources said at least five bodies were brought in. But the provincial governor, embroiled in a bitter dispute with the police chief, insisted only two people were killed. As violent incidents have increased recently, political leaders in other southern cities have also tried to minimise casualty figures.

In Baghdad the Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is due to present a national reconciliation plan to parliament today, aimed at reducing sectarian violence and defusing a significant portion of the Sunni insurgency, although Saddam Hussein loyalists and foreign fighters such as al-Qa'ida are excluded. There are question- marks over the plan, but it will do nothing to heal tensions among Shias in their southern heartland.

Last week, as the Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, was declaring that the withdrawal of British forces from parts of Iraq was evidence of "mission accomplished", the senior British commander in the country disclosed that the security situation in Basra had deteriorated.

Lieutenant General Nick Houghton told the Commons defence committee: "There is a worrying amount of violence and murder carried out between rival Shia factions. There is no doubt that it has got worse of late, due to the protracted period of talks to form the government."

Since a spate of bomb attacks against them last autumn, British forces have largely kept out of the centre of Basra. Much of the police force in the south has been taken over by Shia militias who often clash with one another as well as intimidating ordinary people and attacking what is left of the Sunni community in the south.

Earlier this month a Sunni mosque in Basra was stormed by the overwhelmingly Shia police force and 12 died - a day after a market bombing killed 28. The police said they wanted to search the mosque following intelligence that arms and explosives linked to the bombing were stored there, and claimed they only returned fire after people inside the mosque began shooting at them.

Omar Rashid (not his full name), a Sunni carpenter of 34, injured by flying glass during the exchange, denied police claims. "This was not the first time they have raided this mosque," he said. "I have had two members of my family killed, another 10 have fled."

British forces have been bystanders in these clashes, but for the first time, according to sources on the ground, they are coming under pressure from political factions to leave areas of the south so that their militia allies can move in. While there was a co-ordinated announcement last week that Iraqi security forces would soon take responsibility for Muthanna, a province bordering Saudi Arabia, the Iraqi authorities suddenly announced the next day that the more volatile Maysan province, where British soldiers have been killed this year, would also be handed over.

The relatively small number of British troops in the two provinces will not be brought home, but will be deployed in Basra, where Mr Maliki declared a state of emergency during a visit from the capital last month. The decision, which he said was taken in response to the growing violence, is said to have caught British officials by surprise. It was seen as a flexing of muscle by the new Prime Minister, but also emphasises how little control Britain has over events in the region.


Of course there is a solution to this; kill them all!
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 07:44 am
New report offers no evidence that Iraq stockpiled WMD
Posted on Thu, Jun. 22, 2006
New report offers no evidence that Iraq stockpiled WMD
By Warren P. Strobel
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - A new, partially declassified intelligence report provides no new evidence that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion, as President Bush alleged in making the case for war, U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday.

The report, made public in the midst of a partisan debate in Congress, says that about 500 munitions containing degraded chemical weapons, including mustard gas and sarin nerve agent, have been found in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion.

But the intelligence officials said the munitions dated from before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and were for the most part badly deteriorated. "They are not in a condition where they could be used as designed," one intelligence official said.

"There is not new news from the coalition point of view," one official said, noting that chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer predicted in a March 2005 report that such vintage weapons would continue to be found.

The officials from three agencies briefed reporters on condition of anonymity, citing the sensitive intelligence data involved.

Rep. Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, charged Thursday that Republicans' release of the report was a last-ditch effort to justify the war.

"Rolling out some old fairly toxic stuff sounds to me like a desperate claim by those who wish that we could find some new way to rationalize the ongoing devastation in Iraq," she said.

The report was written by the National Ground Intelligence Center, an Army unit, and its key points were declassified at the request of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich. He and Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., released it during Senate debate this week over the U.S. troop presence in Iraq.

Santorum and Hoekstra didn't return calls requesting comment Thursday in response to the intelligence officials.

"This is an incredibly - in my mind - significant finding," Santorum told a news conference Wednesday. "It is important for the American public to understand that these weapons did in fact exist, were present in the country and were in fact and continue to be a threat to us."

The intelligence officials offered a less alarming view.

They said the old munitions had been found in groups of one and two, indicating that they'd been discarded, not that they were part of an organized program to stockpile banned weapons.

One of the declassified key points says the munitions - apparently dating from Iraq's 1980-88 war with Iran - could be sold on the black market.

But one intelligence official said there was "no evidence that any element of the insurgency in Iraq is in possession of these kinds of munitions."

Duelfer's report said that while the old munitions might be effective as terrorist weapons they didn't pose a "militarily significant threat" and couldn't cause mass casualties.

No evidence has surfaced to support the Bush administration's prewar contention that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.

Duelfer's predecessor, David Kay, said in January 2004 that "we were almost all wrong" in thinking that Iraq had such weapons. Duelfer reported that Saddam was planning to reconstitute his programs once U.N. sanctions were lifted, but hadn't done so.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 08:11 am
Another typical wonderful day in Iraq bought to you by that socialistic pro-terrorist rag called Reuters. Didn't they open a school somewhere in Iraq? That's what should have been reported.

Quote:
June 24 (Reuters) - The following are security and other developments in Iraq on Saturday as of 1630 GMT.

Asterisk denotes new or updated item.

NAJAF - Gunmen opened fire on a car in Najaf, 160 km (100 miles) south of Baghdad, killing two employees of a U.S. military base, police said.

DHULUYIA - A suicide car bomb exploded in Dhuluyia, 90 km (55 miles) north of Baghdad, killing five members of an Iraqi security patrol, a policeman at the scene said.

KIRKUK - A roadside bomb killed the local intelligence chief, Mousa Hachim, and two of his guards in northern Iraq's ethnically mixed city of Kirkuk, the city's police chief Torhan Abdul-Rahman said.

UDHAIM - Gunmen killed three Iraqi soldiers and wounded five when they fired at their minibus near the town of Udhaim, 100 km (60 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

BAQUBA - Gunmen killed three people near a car showroom in the violent eastern Iraqi town of Baquba, police said.

SUWAYRA - The headless body of a young woman was found in the River Tigris near the town of Suwayra on Friday, police said.

BAGHDAD - A U.S. soldier was killed in a bomb blast while on patrol south of Baghdad on Saturday, the U.S. military said. Earlier, it reported that a U.S. soldier was killed in a roadside bombing in the centre of the capital on Friday.

MAHAWEEL - A Shi'ite tribal sheikh was kidnapped along with his son in the mixed Shi'ite-Sunni town of Mahaweel, 90 km south of Baghdad, police said. Sheikh Jasim al-Hindi, who heads the small Gureyat tribe, was abducted late on Friday.

TIKRIT - U.S. forces hunting al Qaeda insurgents raided the home of a senior Sunni Arab religious leader in Iraq, seizing him and four suspected terrorists, the U.S. military said. The Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party said those arrested included the sheikh, his two sons and a fellow religious leader and demanded their release.

BAQUBA - One woman and two children were wounded when five shops belonging to Shi'ites were bombed in the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Baquba, police said.

BAGHDAD - A car bomb wounded two civilians when it exploded near a passing U.S. military convoy in the western Baghdad district in Khadhra, police said.

*DIWANIYA - Iraqi army forces captured a local insurgent commander, Ali al-Najar, and five other rebels in Diwaniya, 180 km (112 miles) south of Baghdad, on June 21, the U.S. military said.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 03:07 am
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 03:07 am
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 0.07 seconds on 03/19/2025 at 05:54:42