0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 05:08 pm
Quote:

Ain't this fun!


No, this isn't fun, it's asinine.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 05:55 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Ain't this fun!


No, this isn't fun, it's asinine.

Cycloptichorn

Surely you realize that an activity can be both fun and asinine. That is, they are not mutually exclusive. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 06:18 pm
Who said that they were mutually exclusive?

This is asinine, and not fun. You have moved away from serious policy discussion - away from discussing the future - and into 'sorosville,' a land of paranoid suspicion and 1984 quotations.

Let's talk about policy! Question: What is the best possible outcome that you can realisitically see for Iraq at this point? And where do we go from there in the WoT?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 03:26 am
(silence)
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 06:18 am
More information on how things are getting worse in Iraq.

Quote:
Shiite vs. Shiite
As the two main factions of Iraq's dominant religious group descend into armed conflict, the U.S. military has already been forced to pick sides.
By Juan Cole

Sep. 08, 2006 | Among the best-selling jewelry items in Iraq today is a pendant consisting of a whole map of the country. It's the symbol of a national unity many Iraqis see slipping away, because now even the majority Shiites are fighting among themselves.

The ongoing ethnic cleansing and piecemeal partition of Iraq most often takes place along ethnic and sectarian lines. Kurds fight Arabs, Sunnis fight Shiites, and so on. The recent battles in Diwaniyah, Karbala and Basra, however, raise the specter of Shiite-on-Shiite violence, and on a level that may pull in coalition troops and further imperil the U.S. mission in Iraq.

The provincial elections of January 2005 brought Shiite religious parties to power in 11 of Iraq's 18 provinces. Nine of those provinces are dominated by the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. SCIRI was formed in Iran in the early 1980s by Iraqi Shiite expatriates who had fled the repression of Saddam Hussein. Its paramilitary wing, the Badr Corps, was trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Its leader, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, remains close to the hardliners in Iran, who were his generous hosts for more than two decades. He is dedicated to the creation of a huge, nine-province regional confederacy in the Shiite south, a super-province on the model of Kurdistan in the north.

But since the elections, the movement of Muqtada al-Sadr has spread like wildfire throughout the south. The appeal of the beefy, strident young Shiite cleric is mysterious to most Americans. In Iraqi terms, however, he has staked out a clear position as a champion of the poor and a nationalist. He urges that local neighborhoods organize branches of his Mahdi army for self-protection from the depredations of the Sunni guerrilla movement. He has expanded from his initial base in the vast slums of east Baghdad, which were renamed Sadr City after the U.S. invasion in honor of his sainted father, into the small towns of the southern Shiite heartland.

A conflict is therefore brewing between SCIRI, which controls the provincial governments (including that of Baghdad itself), and the Sadr movement, which increasingly represents the current thinking of the electorate. It is widely thought in Iraq that when new provincial elections are held, and they are already overdue, the Sadrists may sweep to power in the southern provinces. That would be a clear political loss for the United States. SCIRI is cosmopolitan, willing to cooperate with the United States and close to Iran. The Sadr movement is nativist, denouncing Iranian influence in Iraqi life, and it demands that the United States and other foreign troops leave on a specific timetable. SCIRI represents the great merchants, landowners and clerics of the shrine cities of Najaf and Karbala, who have dollar signs in their eyes at the prospect of the billions of dollars that the Iranian pilgrimage trade will bring in. The Sadrists represent the little people, who wonder where their next meal is coming from and who suffer from lack of fuel, electricity and services. SCIRI represents the Shiites who can afford their own generators.

But as his popularity has spread, Muqtada al-Sadr has found it difficult to maintain control over his own movement. Unlike the young clerics he appoints to run big mosques in Sadr City, the new crop of Sadrist leaders in the south have local power bases and tenuous ties to Muqtada himself. In July, a Shiite newspaper reported that Sheik Khudayyir al-Ka'bi, a senior member of the Sadr movement, had confirmed "that Muqtada al-Sadr has banned mosque imams from dealing with political issues in Friday prayer sermons in Al-Diwaniyah for a month." It is not easy to find out exactly what goes on in small-town Iraq, but it seems clear that Muqtada was losing control in Diwaniyah and was trying to rein in local preachers who had associated themselves with him but were attacking the provincial government.

In fact, it was apparently the freelance actions of these local Sadrists in Diwaniyah that sparked the worst of this summer's Shiite-on-Shiite bloodshed, an Aug. 28 street battle between the Sadrists and SCIRI that left 81 people dead. It was a skirmish that also revealed where the allegiances of the United States might lie should a wider conflict erupt, since both the United States and the proxy Iraqi army provided support to SCIRI.

A local self-styled leader of the Mahdi army was perceived by SCIRI governor Khalil Jalil Hamzah to be stockpiling arms and engaging in lawlessness. The battle between his forces and the Mahdi army broke out after he had the local leader arrested. The local Iraqi army unit, consisting largely of young rural, tribal Shiite men, came to the governor's aid and proved willing to fight the Mahdi army on behalf of the elected government. But in practical terms, this was a choice by the army to back the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq against a local rogue branch of the Mahdi army. When the U.S. Air Force dropped a 500-pound bomb on a Mahdi army position, it was essentially also backing the local SCIRI government. The bomb -- and direct negotiations between Muqtada al-Sadr and Hamzah in Najaf -- ended the conflict.

Coalition and U.S. troops are in danger of being sucked further into these intra-Shiite struggles. In some places, Sadrist splinter groups compete with one another to see who can be most militant in opposition to the foreign troop presence. Sheik Mahmoud Sarkhi al-Hasani leads a militant Sadrist splinter group in Karbala that has been implicated in the burning of the Iranian Consulate in Basra, as well as in attacks on British troops. The 1.200 Britons at the Abu Naji base near Amara took heavy mortar fire all summer, and their position became so vulnerable by Aug. 25 that they were forced to withdraw abruptly. Their attackers were Mahdi army or local rogue Mahdi elements. When they left the base, Mahdi army fighters looted and stripped it of nearly $300,000 worth of equipment, as a small Iraqi army unit cowered off to one corner. The British plan to turn over security duties in Maysan Province has had to be delayed as a result.

Sadly, not even the man once considered the Shiites' great peacemaker has been able to stop the violence. The decline in influence of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, once a revered voice of calm and unity, underlines the fragmentation of the Shiite south. When his call to stop a Shiite-on-Shiite skirmish in mid-August went unheeded, Sistani was reportedly so discouraged that he was said to be contemplating a complete withdrawal from politics. Sistani had earlier been a key architect of Shiite unity, cobbling the various religious parties into the United Iraqi Alliance, which has more or less won both parliamentary elections. But his influence has waned as he has continued to preach social harmony and avoidance of reprisals against Sunnis, a message the Shiite masses no longer want to hear.

The military position of the United States and Britain in Iraq is already fragile. Coalition forces seem barely able to keep a lid on the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement in Ramadi, Samarra, Mosul and even Baghdad. The Pentagon admitted in its recent quarterly report that violence was up 15 percent in May through July over the previous quarter. July was the most violent month in terms of civilian fatalities since the fall of Saddam. Some 90 percent of the dead are simply found in the street - bullet in the brain, hands tied, signs of torture. For the most part such violence has been a dirty war conducted by Sunni and Shiite militias against one another. If Shiite-on-Shiite violence spreads, at a time when even Grand Ayatollah Sistani has been helpless to intervene, it is difficult to see how the American and British militaries can remain viable in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 06:28 am
For the sake of Iraqis I wish there could be a solution. What if anything does anyone think of the partition solution?

As violence escalates, so does talk of a divided Iraq
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 07:09 am
revel wrote:
For the sake of Iraqis I wish there could be a solution. What if anything does anyone think of the partition solution?

As violence escalates, so does talk of a divided Iraq


I don't think it will work unless the Sunnis are given control of some of the oil revenue. As it stands now all oil revenue is split between the Kurds and Shiites. The Sunnis will never stand for that.

I don't think sharing all oil revenue amongst the three parties will work. Sounds nice but I don't think the Kurds or Shiites will willing give up any of their oil revenue to the Sunnis. There's to much hate for the Sunnis.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 10:37 am
ican711nm wrote:
blatham wrote:

...
Perhaps "belief", "supposition", "misleading information", etc might be more appropriate.


Absence of evidence of the truth of X is not evidence of the falsity of X. (with apologies to Albert Einstein for my paraphrase of his famous statement)
Let X = Osama is dead!
or
Let X = Osama is alive!
But then, there is evidence that Albert Einstein is dead. Confused


Einstein won't likely excuse you. Your logical exercise is irrelevant to the point.

How much "evidence" is there that 9/11 was organized and carried out by Barbara Bush and Barbara Streisand working together covertly? Would "evidence" be the correct term to use here? Probably not, eh?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 10:53 am
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060913/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Quote:
65 bodies found in latest Iraq bloodshed


...

Noone who was pro-invasion wants to discuss the actual situation in Iraq these days.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 12:45 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
No, you are making a false inferrence, because OBL could be acting alive just fine in hiding somewhere.

You guys need to sharpen your rhetoric

Cycloptichorn


WMD's couldn't still be buried in a desert somewhere? Or perhaps been shipped to Syria?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 12:53 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
No, you are making a false inferrence, because OBL could be acting alive just fine in hiding somewhere.

You guys need to sharpen your rhetoric

Cycloptichorn


WMD's couldn't still be buried in a desert somewhere? Or perhaps been shipped to Syria?


Sure, though there hasn't been any evidence presented for either, so there's no reason to make affirmative assertions about the matter.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 01:06 pm
xingu wrote:
revel wrote:
For the sake of Iraqis I wish there could be a solution. What if anything does anyone think of the partition solution?

As violence escalates, so does talk of a divided Iraq


I don't think it will work unless the Sunnis are given control of some of the oil revenue. As it stands now all oil revenue is split between the Kurds and Shiites. The Sunnis will never stand for that.

I don't think sharing all oil revenue amongst the three parties will work. Sounds nice but I don't think the Kurds or Shiites will willing give up any of their oil revenue to the Sunnis. There's to much hate for the Sunnis.


I suppose your right, I wish there was an answer though.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 02:36 pm
revel wrote:
xingu wrote:
revel wrote:
For the sake of Iraqis I wish there could be a solution. What if anything does anyone think of the partition solution?

As violence escalates, so does talk of a divided Iraq


I don't think it will work unless the Sunnis are given control of some of the oil revenue. As it stands now all oil revenue is split between the Kurds and Shiites. The Sunnis will never stand for that.

I don't think sharing all oil revenue amongst the three parties will work. Sounds nice but I don't think the Kurds or Shiites will willing give up any of their oil revenue to the Sunnis. There's to much hate for the Sunnis.


I suppose your right, I wish there was an answer though.


The situation in Iraq is such a mess that no one can predict what the outcome will be in the future. There will be a lot of speculation but I think we can be sure of one thing, Bush's invasion opened up a Pandora's Box of warfare and instability that will last for many years. Many Americans will die in the future because this country elected, at least once, an incompetant idiot who was ignorant and driven by ideology.

And if Bush is dumb enough to attack Iran, it will get far worse.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 02:39 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
No, you are making a false inferrence, because OBL could be acting alive just fine in hiding somewhere.

You guys need to sharpen your rhetoric

Cycloptichorn


WMD's couldn't still be buried in a desert somewhere? Or perhaps been shipped to Syria?


Sure, though there hasn't been any evidence presented for either, so there's no reason to make affirmative assertions about the matter.

Cycloptichorn


You mean negative assertions.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 03:01 pm
Hahah, the old 'black swan' argument. You probably won't get far with that one.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 06:45 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
Let's talk about policy! Question: What is the best possible outcome that you can realisitically see for Iraq at this point? And where do we go from there in the WoT?

Cycloptichorn


First, I wish to establish the context of my assertions.

ican711nm wrote:
IT = Islamo Totalitarians (e.g., Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Baathists, et al).

IT are waging war against non-combatants. Protectors of non-combatants are waging war against IT to end IT's war against non-combatants.

IT are waging war against Israeli, Iraqi and Afghan non-combatants. Israeli, Iraqi, and Afghan protectors of non-combatants are waging war against IT to end IT's war against Israeli, Iraqi, and Afghan non-combatants.

IT are waging war against American non-combatants. American protectors of Israeli, Iraqi, Afghan, and American non-combatants are waging war against IT to end IT's war against Israeli, Iraqi, Afghan, and American non-combatants.


Second, I prefer Assumption II over Assumption I and oppose Assumption III .

Assumption I: The Executive Branch of the USA government will continue its current way of waging war on IT, changing that way only to increase efficiency in achieving the current rate of accomplishment.

Assumption II: The Executive Branch of the USA government will change its way of waging war on IT, to a ruthless effort to sufficiently cripple IT to that level the people of Afghanistan and Iraq can themselves then proceed without USA help to exterminate IT.

Assumption III: The Executive Branch of the USA government will withdraw all USA troops from the middle east after the USA negotiates a peaceful withdrawal with IT.

Third, I predict that if Assumption I is true, then the extermination of IT will take a maximum of 78 years. But if Assumption II is true, then the extermination of IT will take a maximum of 13 years.

Fourth, the number of non-combatants who do not allow the harboring of IT that will be killed if Assumption I were true, will be at least 6 times the number of non-combatants who do not allow the harboring of IT that will be killed were Assumption II true.

Fifth, the number of non-combatants who do not allow the harboring of IT that will be killed if Assumption III were true, is at least 12 times the number of non-combatants who do not allow the harboring of IT that will be killed over the next 78 years were Assumption II true.

What do I consider a ruthless effort to sufficiently cripple IT to that level the people of Afghanistan and Iraq can themselves then proceed without USA help to exterminate IT?

Here is the definition I advocate.

(1) Publically order USA military to kill IT wherever they can be found without regard to limiting the deaths of non-combatants tolerating IT in their midst who are also killed.

(2) Publically order the USA military to train the Afghanistan and Iraq people to kill IT wherever they can be found without regard to limiting the deaths of non-combatants tolerating IT in their midst who are also killed.

(3) Publically order the incarderation of only those IT for only that time it is anticipated they will be capable of aiding (1) and (2), then kill them.

(4) Publically order an unconditional surrender of IT to be the only way then alive IT will not be killed.


Once all IT in Afghanistan and Iraq are killed, surrender unconditionally, or flee those countries, the war on terror can be reduced to police actions by the individual governments throughout the world who do not choose to allow sanctuary to IT remnants. Those states whose governments do choose to allow sanctuary to IT remnants shall be militarily removed along with their IT.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 02:34 pm
Quote:
Published on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 by TomDispatch.com
The Real Link Between 9/11 and Iraq (Finally) Revealed
by Tom Engelhardt

You've heard the President and Vice President say it over and over in various ways: There was a connection between the events of September 11, 2001 and Iraq. Let's take this seriously and consider some of the links between the two.

Numbers and comparisons

*At least 3,438 Iraqis died by violent means during July (roughly similar numbers died in June and August), significantly more than the 2,973 people who died in the attacks of September 11, 2001.

*1,536 Iraqis died in Baghdad alone in August, according to revised figures from the Baghdad morgue. That's over half the 9/11 casualties in one city in one increasingly typical month. According to the Washington Post, this figure does not include suicide-bombing victims and others taken to the city's hospitals, nor does it include deaths in towns near the capital.

*By the beginning of September, 2,974 U.S. military service members had died in Iraq and in the Bush administration's Global War on Terror, more than died in the attacks of 9/11. (Twenty-two more American soldiers died in Iraq in the first 9 days of September; at least 3 in Afghanistan.)

*Five years later, according to Emily Gosden and David Randall of the British newspaper, the Independent, the Bush administration's Global War on Terror has resulted in, at a minimum, 20 times the deaths of 9/11; at a maximum, 60 times. It has "directly killed a minimum of 62,006 people, created 4.5 million refugees and cost the US more than the sum needed to pay off the debts of every poor nation on earth. If estimates of other, unquantified, deaths -- of insurgents, the Iraq military during the 2003 invasion, those not recorded individually by Western media, and those dying from wounds -- are included, then the toll could reach as high as 180,000." According to Australian journalist Paul McGeough, Iraqi officials (and others) estimate that that country's death toll since 2003 "stands at 50,000 or more -- the proportional equivalent of about 570,000 Americans."

*Last week, the U.S. Senate agreed to appropriate another $63 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, where costs have been averaging $10 billion a month so far this year. This brings the (taxpayer) cost for Bush's wars so far to about $469 billion and climbing. That's the equivalent of 469 Ground Zero memorials at full cost-overrun estimates, double that if the memorial comes in at the recently revised budget of $500 million. (Keep in mind that the estimated cost of these two wars doesn't include various perfectly real future payouts like those for the care of veterans and could rise into the trillions.)

*In 2003, with its invasion of Iraq over, the Bush administration had about 150,000 troops in Iraq. Just under three and a half years later, almost as long as it took to win World War II in the Pacific, and despite much media coverage about coming force "draw-downs," U.S. troop levels are actually rising -- by 15,000 in the last month. They now stand at 145,000, just 5,000 short of the initial occupation figure. (Pre-invasion, top administration officials like Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz took it for granted that American troop levels would be drawn down to the 30,000 range within three months of the taking of Baghdad.)

Reconstruction

While Americans are planning to remember 9/11 with four vast towers and a huge, extremely costly memorial sunk into Manhattan's Ground Zero, Baghdadis have been thinking a bit more practically. They are putting scarce funds into constructing two new branch morgues (with refrigeration units) in the capital for what's now most plentiful in their country: dead bodies. They plan to raise the city's morgue capacity to 250 bodies a day. If fully used, that would be about 7,500 bodies a month. Think of it as a hedge against ever more probable futures.

While the various New York memorial constructions can't get off (or into) the ground, due to disputes and cost estimate overruns, what could be thought of as the real American memorial to Ground Zero is going up in the very heart of Baghdad; and unlike the prospective structures in Manhattan or seemingly just about any other construction project in Iraq, it's on schedule. According to Paul McGeough, the $787 million "embassy," a 21-building, heavily fortified complex (not reliant on the capital's hopeless electricity or water systems) will pack significant bang for the bucks -- its own built-in surface-to-air missile emplacements as well as Starbucks and Krispy Kreme outlets, a beauty parlor, a swimming pool, and a sports center. As essentially a "suburb of Washington," with a predicted modest staff of 3,500, it is a project that says, with all the hubris the Bush administration can muster: We're not leaving. Never.

Record-breaking Months

*Roadside bombs (or IEDs), "the leading killer of U.S. troops," rose to record numbers this summer -- 1,200 in August, quadrupling the January 2004 figures according to the Washington Post, while bomb and attack tips from Iraqi citizens fell drastically. They plummeted from 5,900 in April to 3,700 in July. ("It will improve once it's not so darn lethal to go out on the street," was the optimistic observation of retired Army Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs, director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.)

*According to a recently released quarterly assessment the Pentagon is mandated to do for Congress, Iraqi casualties have soared by a record 51% in recent months, quadrupling in just two years.

*From the same report, monthly attacks on U.S. and allied Iraqi forces rose to about 800, doubling since early 2004. In Anbar Province, the heartland of the Sunni insurgency (where a "very pessimistic" secret Marine Corps assessment indicates that "we haven't been defeated militarily but we have been defeated politically -- and that's where wars are won and lost…"), attacks averaged 30 a day.

*A sideline record in the War on Terror: Afghanistan's already sizeable opium crop is projected to increase by at least 50% this year and would then make up a startling 92% of the global supply. According to Antonio Maria Costa, the global executive director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, those supplies would exceed global consumption by 30% -- so other records loom. (Meanwhile, according to the Washington Post, the investigation into the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden has hit a record low. His trail has gone "stone cold… U.S. commandos whose job is to capture or kill Osama bin Laden have not received a credible lead in more than two years.")

The Iraqi Condition

Along with civil war, the ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods, the still-strengthening insurgency, and the security situation from hell, Iraqis are also experiencing soaring inflation, possibly reaching 70% this year (which would more than double last year's 32% rise); stagnant salaries (where they even exist); an "inert" banking system; gas and electricity prices up in a year by 270%; massive corruption ("An audit sponsored by the United Nations last week found hundreds of millions of dollars of Iraq's oil revenue had been wrongly tallied last year or had gone missing altogether"); lack of adequate electricity or potable water supplies; tenaciously high unemployment, ranging -- depending upon the estimate -- from 15-50/60% (the recent Pentagon report to Congress offers Iraqi government figures of 18% unemployment and 34% underemployment); acute shortages of gasoline, kerosene, and cooking gas in the country with the planet's third largest oil reserves, forcing the Iraqi government to devote $800 million in scarce funds to importing refined oil products from neighboring countries and making endless gas lines and overnight waits the essence of normal life ("Filling up now requires several days' pay, monastic patience or both…"); an oil industry, already ragged at the time of the invasion, which has since gone steadily downhill (its three main oil refineries are now functioning at half-capacity and processing only half the number of barrels of oil as before the invasion, while the biggest refinery in Baiji sometimes operates at as little as 7.5% of capacity); government gas subsidies severely cut (at the urging of the International Monetary Fund); malnutrition on the rise and, according to that Pentagon report to Congress, 25.9% of Iraqi children are stunted in their growth.

In other words, economically speaking, Iraq has essentially been deconstructed.

Diving into Iraq

. On December 9, 2001, Vice President Cheney began publicly arguing on Meet the Press that there were Iraqi connections to the 9/11 attacks. It was "pretty well confirmed," he told Tim Russert, that Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker, had met the previous April in Prague with a "senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service." On September 8, 2002, he returned to the program and reaffirmed this supposed fact even more strongly. ("[Atta] did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center.") All of this -- and there was much more of it from Cheney, the President, and other top officials, always leaving Iraq and 9/11, or Saddam and al-Qaeda, or Saddam and Zarqawi in the same rhetorical neighborhood with the final linking usually left to the listener -- was quite literally so much Bushwa

These were claims debunked within the intelligence community and elsewhere before, during, and after the invasion of Iraq. We learned only the other day from a belated partial report by the Senate Intelligence Committee that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq. We learned as well that our intelligence people knew Saddam Hussein had actually tried to capture Zarqawi and that the claim that Zarqawi and he were somehow in cahoots was utterly repudiated last fall by the CIA. None of this stopped the Vice President or President -- who as late as this August 21 insisted that Saddam "had relations with Zarqawi" -- from continuing to make such implicit or explicit linkages even as they also backtracked from the claims.

As is often the case, under such lies and manipulations lurks a deeper truth. In this case, let's call it the truth of wish fulfillment. The link between 9/11 and Iraq is unfortunately all too real. The Bush administration made it so in the heat of the post-9/11 shock.

Think of that link this way: In the immediate wake of 9/11, our President and Vice President hijacked our country, using the low-tech rhetorical equivalents of box cutters and mace; then, with most passengers on board and not quite enough of the spirit of United Flight 93 to spare, after a brief Afghan overflight, they crashed the plane of state directly into Iraq, causing the equivalent of a Katrina that never ends and turning that country -- from Basra in the south to the border of Kurdistan -- into the global equivalent of Ground Zero.

Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com ("a regular antidote to the mainstream media"), is the co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of American triumphalism in the Cold War, The Last Days of Publishing, a novel, and in the fall, Mission Unaccomplished (Nation Books), the first collection of Tomdispatch interviews.
SOURCE
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 02:42 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Here is the definition I advocate.


... ... ...


In the original, historic version, people got a yellow star attached before all that happened ...
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 05:42 pm
xingu wrote:
Quote:
Published on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 by TomDispatch.com
The Real Link Between 9/11 and Iraq (Finally) Revealed
by Tom Engelhardt

You've heard the President and Vice President say it over and over in various ways: There was a connection between the events of September 11, 2001 and Iraq. Let's take this seriously and consider some of the links between the two.

...

Xingu, this article is an often repeated, stinking rotten, pseudology (i.e., falsities or lies).

Neither the President or the Vice President ever said, "There was a connection between the events of September 11, 2001 and Iraq."

What they said prior to the invasion of Iraq, March 20, 2003, implied Iraq possessed ready-to-use WMD.

That was false! They subsequently admitted that was false.

Colin Powell stated to the UN February 5, 2003, -- after September 11, 2001 -- "But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants."

Powell's statement was subsequently proven true when US special forces aiding Kurd forces invaded northeast Iraq where they found the al-Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Islam that they knew were allowed sanctuary there since December 2001 -- after September 11, 2001.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 05:44 pm
Quote:

Powell's statement was subsequently proven true when US special forces aiding Kurd forces invaded northeast Iraq where they found the al-Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Islam that they knew were allowed sanctuary there since December 2001 -- after September 11, 2001..


Except, it has been concluded that Saddam didn't allow sanctuary to Ansar al-Islam in northern Iraq. Which you of course know, but claim isn't true.

Cycloptichorn
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 0.17 seconds on 07/19/2025 at 02:52:36