0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 01:46 pm
All that "evidence" piling up against this administration on their complete incompetence and lying on many fronts doesn't seem to phase righties one bit. Just wondering if they know anything about honesty, good management sunshine laws, and the Constitution?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 02:06 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
ican711nm wrote:
Why did Bush agree to make this PNAC policy his policy too?


Because that was the condition of their support. He never would have been elected, or even chosen as the Republican candidate, without the express backing of this group.

Cycloptichorn

Thank you for answering my questions.

I am confronted with a dilemma. Shall I believe your interpretation of guilt by association: that is, Bush "never would have been elected, or even chosen as the Republican candidate, without the express backing of this group"; AND "it was a condition of their support" that he agreed to invade Iraq?

Or shall I believe the following excerpt from chapter 10 of the bi-partisan (i.e., Democrats and Republicans) 9-11 Commission report emphasis added by me? www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

Quote:
10.2 PLANNING FOR WAR
By late in the evening of September 11, the President had addressed the nation on the terrible events of the day. Vice President Cheney described the President's mood as somber.32The long day was not yet over. When the larger meeting that included his domestic department heads broke up, President Bush chaired a smaller meeting of top advisers, a group he would later call his "war council."33This group usually included Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, General Hugh Shelton, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (later to become chairman) General Myers, DCI Tenet, Attorney General Ashcroft, and FBI Director Robert Mueller. From the White House staff, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and Chief of Staff Card were part of the core group, often joined by their deputies, Stephen Hadley and Joshua Bolten.

In this restricted National Security Council meeting, the President said it was a time for self-defense. The United States would punish not just the perpetrators of the attacks, but also those who harbored them. Secretary Powell said the United States had to make it clear to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Arab states that the time to act was now. He said we would need to build a coalition. The President noted that the attacks provided a great opportunity to engage Russia and China. Secretary Rumsfeld urged the President and the principals to think broadly about who might have harbored the attackers, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, and Iran. He wondered aloud how much evidence the United States would need in order to deal with these countries, pointing out that major strikes could take up to 60 days to assemble.34

President Bush chaired two more meetings of the NSC on September 12. In the first meeting, he stressed that the United States was at war with a new and different kind of enemy. The President tasked principals to go beyond their pre-9/11 work and develop a strategy to eliminate terrorists and punish those who support them. As they worked on defining the goals and objectives of the upcoming campaign, they considered a paper that went beyond al Qaeda to propose the "elimination of terrorism as a threat to our way of life," an aim that would include pursuing other international terrorist organizations in the Middle East.35

Rice chaired a Principals Committee meeting on September 13 in the Situation Room to refine how the fight against al Qaeda would be conducted. The principals agreed that the overall message should be that anyone supporting al Qaeda would risk harm. The United States would need to integrate diplomacy, financial measures, intelligence, and military actions into an overarching strategy. The principals also focused on Pakistan and what it could do to turn the Taliban against al Qaeda. They concluded that if Pakistan decided not to help the United States, it too would be at risk.36

The same day, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage met with the Pakistani ambassador to the United States, Maleeha Lodhi, and the visiting head of Pakistan's military intelligence service, Mahmud Ahmed. Armitage said that the United States wanted Pakistan to take seven steps:

to stop al Qaeda operatives at its border and end all logistical support for Bin Ladin;
to give the United States blanket overflight and landing rights for all necessary military and intelligence operations;
to provide territorial access to U.S. and allied military intelligence and other personnel to conduct operations against al Qaeda;
to provide the United States with intelligence information;
to continue to publicly condemn the terrorist acts;
to cut off all shipments of fuel to the Taliban and stop recruits from going to Afghanistan; and, if the evidence implicated bin Ladin and al Qaeda and the Taliban continued to harbor them, to break relations with the Taliban government.37
Pakistan made its decision swiftly. That afternoon, Secretary of State Powell announced at the beginning of an NSC meeting that Pakistani President Musharraf had agreed to every U.S. request for support in the war on terrorism. The next day, the U.S. embassy in Islamabad confirmed that Musharraf and his top military commanders had agreed to all seven demands. "Pakistan will need full US support as it proceeds with us," the embassy noted. "Musharraf said the GOP [government of Pakistan] was making substantial concessions in allowing use of its territory and that he would pay a domestic price. His standing in Pakistan was certain to suffer. To counterbalance that he needed to show that Pakistan was benefiting from his decisions."38

At the September 13 NSC meeting, when Secretary Powell described Pak-istan's reply, President Bush led a discussion of an appropriate ultimatum to the Taliban. He also ordered Secretary Rumsfeld to develop a military plan against the Taliban. The President wanted the United States to strike the Taliban, step back, wait to see if they got the message, and hit them hard if they did not. He made clear that the military should focus on targets that would influence the Taliban's behavior.39

President Bush also tasked the State Department, which on the following day delivered to the White House a paper titled "Game Plan for a Political-Military Strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan." The paper took it as a given that Bin Ladin would continue to act against the United States even while under Taliban control. It therefore detailed specific U.S. demands for the Taliban: surrender Bin Ladin and his chief lieutenants, including Ayman al Zawahiri; tell the United States what the Taliban knew about al Qaeda and its operations; close all terrorist camps; free all imprisoned foreigners; and comply with all UN Security Council resolutions.40

The State Department proposed delivering an ultimatum to the Taliban: produce Bin Ladin and his deputies and shut down al Qaeda camps within 24 to 48 hours, or the United States will use all necessary means to destroy the terrorist infrastructure. The State Department did not expect the Taliban to comply. Therefore, State and Defense would plan to build an international coalition to go into Afghanistan. Both departments would consult with NATO and other allies and request intelligence, basing, and other support from countries, according to their capabilities and resources. Finally, the plan detailed a public U.S. stance: America would use all its resources to eliminate terrorism as a threat, punish those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, hold states and other actors responsible for providing sanctuary to terrorists, work with a coalition to eliminate terrorist groups and networks, and avoid malice toward any people, religion, or culture.41

President Bush recalled that he quickly realized that the administration would have to invade Afghanistan with ground troops.42 But the early briefings to the President and Secretary Rumsfeld on military options were disappointing.43 Tommy Franks, the commanding general of Central Command (CENTCOM), told us that the President was dissatisfied. The U.S. military, Franks said, did not have an off-the-shelf plan to eliminate the al Qaeda threat in Afghanistan. The existing Infinite Resolve options did not, in his view, amount to such a plan.44

All these diplomatic and military plans were reviewed over the weekend of September 15-16, as President Bush convened his war council at Camp David.45 Present were Vice President Cheney, Rice, Hadley, Powell, Armitage, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Mueller, Tenet, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and Cofer Black, chief of the DCI's Counterterrorist Center.

Tenet described a plan for collecting intelligence and mounting covert operations. He proposed inserting CIA teams into Afghanistan to work with Afghan warlords who would join the fight against al Qaeda.46These CIA teams would act jointly with the military's Special Operations units. President Bush later praised this proposal, saying it had been a turning point in his thinking.47

General Shelton briefed the principals on the preliminary plan for Afghanistan that the military had put together. It drew on the Infinite Resolve "phased campaign" plan the Pentagon had begun developing in November 2000 as an addition to the strike options it had been refining since 1998. But Shelton added a new element-the possible significant use of ground forces- and that is where President Bush reportedly focused his attention.48

After hearing from his senior advisers, President Bush discussed with Rice the contents of the directives he would issue to set all the plans into motion. Rice prepared a paper that President Bush then considered with principals on Monday morning, September 17. "The purpose of this meeting," he recalled saying, "is to assign tasks for the first wave of the war against terrorism. It starts today."49

In a written set of instructions slightly refined during the morning meeting, President Bush charged Ashcroft, Mueller, and Tenet to develop a plan for homeland defense. President Bush directed Secretary of State Powell to deliver an ultimatum to the Taliban along the lines that his department had originally proposed. The State Department was also tasked to develop a plan to stabilize Pakistan and to be prepared to notify Russia and countries near Afghanistan when hostilities were imminent.50

In addition, Bush and his advisers discussed new legal authorities for covert action in Afghanistan, including the administration's first Memorandum of Notification on Bin Ladin. Shortly thereafter, President Bush authorized broad new authorities for the CIA.51

President Bush instructed Rumsfeld and Shelton to develop further the Camp David military plan to attack the Taliban and al Qaeda if the Taliban rejected the ultimatum. The President also tasked Rumsfeld to ensure that robust measures to protect American military forces against terrorist attack were implemented worldwide. Finally, he directed Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill to craft a plan to target al Qaeda's funding and seize its assets.52 NSC staff members had begun leading meetings on terrorist fund-raising by September 18.53

Also by September 18, Powell had contacted 58 of his foreign counterparts and received offers of general aid, search-and-rescue equipment and personnel, and medical assistance teams.54 On the same day, Deputy Secretary of State Armitage was called by Mahmud Ahmed regarding a two-day visit to Afghanistan during which the Pakistani intelligence chief had met with Mullah Omar and conveyed the U.S. demands. Omar's response was "not negative on all these points."55 But the administration knew that the Taliban was unlikely to turn over Bin Ladin.56

The pre-9/11 draft presidential directive on al Qaeda evolved into a new directive, National Security Presidential Directive 9, now titled "Defeating the Terrorist Threat to the United States." The directive would now extend to a global war on terrorism, not just on al Qaeda. It also incorporated the President's determination not to distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them. It included a determination to use military force if necessary to end al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan. The new directive-formally signed on October 25, after the fighting in Afghanistan had already begun-included new material followed by annexes discussing each targeted terrorist group. The old draft directive on al Qaeda became, in effect, the first annex.57 The United States would strive to eliminate all terrorist networks, dry up their financial support, and prevent them from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The goal was the "elimination of terrorism as a threat to our way of life."58


10.3 "PHASE TWO" AND THE QUESTION OF IRAQ
President Bush had wondered immediately after the attack whether Saddam Hussein's regime might have had a hand in it. Iraq had been an enemy of the United States for 11 years, and was the only place in the world where the United States was engaged in ongoing combat operations. As a former pilot, the President was struck by the apparent sophistication of the operation and some of the piloting, especially Hanjour's high-speed dive into the Pentagon. He told us he recalled Iraqi support for Palestinian suicide terrorists as well. Speculating about other possible states that could be involved, the President told us he also thought about Iran.59

Clarke has written that on the evening of September 12, President Bush told him and some of his staff to explore possible Iraqi links to 9/11. "See if Sad-dam did this," Clarke recalls the President telling them. "See if he's linked in any way."60 While he believed the details of Clarke's account to be incorrect, President Bush acknowledged that he might well have spoken to Clarke at some point, asking him about Iraq.61

Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke's office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled "Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks." Rice's chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda. The memo found no "compelling case" that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.62

On the afternoon of 9/11, according to contemporaneous notes, Secretary Rumsfeld instructed General Myers to obtain quickly as much information as possible. The notes indicate that he also told Myers that he was not simply interested in striking empty training sites. He thought the U.S. response should consider a wide range of options and possibilities. The secretary said his instinct was to hit Saddam Hussein at the same time-not only Bin Ladin. Secretary Rumsfeld later explained that at the time, he had been considering either one of them, or perhaps someone else, as the responsible party.63

According to Rice, the issue of what, if anything, to do about Iraq was really engaged at Camp David. Briefing papers on Iraq, along with many others, were in briefing materials for the participants. Rice told us the administration was concerned that Iraq would take advantage of the 9/11 attacks. She recalled that in the first Camp David session chaired by the President, Rumsfeld asked what the administration should do about Iraq. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz made the case for striking Iraq during "this round" of the war on terrorism.64

A Defense Department paper for the Camp David briefing book on the strategic concept for the war on terrorism specified three priority targets for initial action: al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iraq. It argued that of the three, al Qaeda and Iraq posed a strategic threat to the United States. Iraq's long-standing involvement in terrorism was cited, along with its interest in weapons of mass destruction.65

Secretary Powell recalled that Wolfowitz-not Rumsfeld-argued that Iraq was ultimately the source of the terrorist problem and should therefore be attacked.66 Powell said that Wolfowitz was not able to justify his belief that Iraq was behind 9/11. "Paul was always of the view that Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with," Powell told us. "And he saw this as one way of using this event as a way to deal with the Iraq problem." Powell said that President Bush did not give Wolfowitz's argument "much weight."67 Though continuing to worry about Iraq in the following week, Powell said, President Bush saw Afghanistan as the priority.68

President Bush told Bob Woodward that the decision not to invade Iraq was made at the morning session on September 15. Iraq was not even on the table during the September 15 afternoon session, which dealt solely with Afghanistan.69 Rice said that when President Bush called her on Sunday, September 16, he said the focus would be on Afghanistan, although he still wanted plans for Iraq should the country take some action or the administration eventually determine that it had been involved in the 9/11 attacks.70

At the September 17 NSC meeting, there was some further discussion of "phase two" of the war on terrorism.71 President Bush ordered the Defense Department to be ready to deal with Iraq if Baghdad acted against U.S. interests, with plans to include possibly occupying Iraqi oil fields.72

Within the Pentagon, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz continued to press the case for dealing with Iraq. Writing to Rumsfeld on September 17 in a memo headlined "Preventing More Events," he argued that if there was even a 10 percent chance that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack, maximum priority should be placed on eliminating that threat. Wolfowitz contended that the odds were "far more" than 1 in 10, citing Saddam's praise for the attack, his long record of involvement in terrorism, and theories that Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi agent and Iraq was behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.73 The next day, Wolfowitz renewed the argument, writing to Rumsfeld about the interest of Yousef's co-conspirator in the 1995 Manila air plot in crashing an explosives-laden plane into CIA headquarters, and about information from a foreign government regarding Iraqis' involvement in the attempted hijacking of a Gulf Air flight. Given this background, he wondered why so little thought had been devoted to the danger of suicide pilots, seeing a "failure of imagination" and a mind-set that dismissed possibilities.74

On September 19, Rumsfeld offered several thoughts for his commanders as they worked on their contingency plans. Though he emphasized the worldwide nature of the conflict, the references to specific enemies or regions named only the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Afghanistan.75 Shelton told us the administration reviewed all the Pentagon's war plans and challenged certain assumptions underlying them, as any prudent organization or leader should do.76

General Tommy Franks, the commanding general of Central Command, recalled receiving Rumsfeld's guidance that each regional commander should assess what these plans meant for his area of responsibility. He knew he would soon be striking the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But, he told us, he now wondered how that action was connected to what might need to be done in Somalia, Yemen, or Iraq.77

On September 20, President Bush met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the two leaders discussed the global conflict ahead. When Blair asked about Iraq, the President replied that Iraq was not the immediate problem. Some members of his administration, he commented, had expressed a different view, but he was the one responsible for making the decisions.78

Franks told us that he was pushing independently to do more robust planning on military responses in Iraq during the summer before 9/11-a request President Bush denied, arguing that the time was not right. (CENTCOM also began dusting off plans for a full invasion of Iraq during this period, Franks said.) The CENTCOM commander told us he renewed his appeal for further military planning to respond to Iraqi moves shortly after 9/11, both because he personally felt that Iraq and al Qaeda might be engaged in some form of collusion and because he worried that Saddam might take advantage of the attacks to move against his internal enemies in the northern or southern parts of Iraq, where the United States was flying regular missions to enforce Iraqi no-fly zones. Franks said that President Bush again turned down the request.79

* * *

Having issued directives to guide his administration's preparations for war, on Thursday, September 20, President Bush addressed the nation before a joint session of Congress. "Tonight," he said, "we are a country awakened to danger."80 The President blamed al Qaeda for 9/11 and the 1998 embassy bombings and, for the first time, declared that al Qaeda was "responsible for bombing the USS Cole."81 He reiterated the ultimatum that had already been conveyed privately. "The Taliban must act, and act immediately," he said. "They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate."82 The President added that America's quarrel was not with Islam: "The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them." Other regimes faced hard choices, he pointed out: "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."83

President Bush argued that the new war went beyond Bin Ladin. "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there," he said. "It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated." The President had a message for the Pentagon: "The hour is coming when America will act, and you will make us proud." He also had a message for those outside the United States. "This is civilization's fight," he said. "We ask every nation to join us."84

President Bush approved military plans to attack Afghanistan in meetings with Central Command's General Franks and other advisers on September 21 and October 2. Originally titled "Infinite Justice," the operation's code word was changed-to avoid the sensibilities of Muslims who associate the power of infinite justice with God alone-to the operational name still used for operations in Afghanistan: "Enduring Freedom."85

The plan had four phases.

In Phase One, the United States and its allies would move forces into the region and arrange to operate from or over neighboring countries such as Uzbekistan and Pakistan.This occurred in the weeks following 9/11, aided by overwhelming international sympathy for the United States.
In Phase Two, air strikes and Special Operations attacks would hit key al Qaeda and Taliban targets. In an innovative joint effort, CIA and Special Operations forces would be deployed to work together with each major Afghan faction opposed to the Taliban. The Phase Two strikes and raids began on October 7.The basing arrangements contemplated for Phase One were substantially secured-after arduous effort-by the end of that month.
In Phase Three, the United States would carry out "decisive operations" using all elements of national power, including ground troops, to topple the Taliban regime and eliminate al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan. Mazar-e-Sharif, in northern Afghanistan, fell to a coalition assault by Afghan and U.S. forces on November 9. Four days later the Taliban had fled from Kabul. By early December, all major cities had fallen to the coalition. On December 22, Hamid Karzai, a Pashtun leader from Kandahar, was installed as the chairman of Afghanistan's interim administration. Afghanistan had been liberated from the rule of the Taliban.
In December 2001, Afghan forces, with limited U.S. support, engaged al Qaeda elements in a cave complex called Tora Bora. In March 2002, the largest engagement of the war was fought, in the mountainous Shah-i-Kot area south of Gardez, against a large force of al Qaeda jihadists. The three-week battle was substantially successful, and almost all remaining al Qaeda forces took refuge in Pakistan's equally mountainous and lightly governed frontier provinces. As of July 2004, Bin Ladin and Zawahiri are still believed to be at large.

In Phase Four, civilian and military operations turned to the indefinite task of what the armed forces call "security and stability operations."
Within about two months of the start of combat operations, several hundred CIA operatives and Special Forces soldiers, backed by the striking power of U.S. aircraft and a much larger infrastructure of intelligence and support efforts, had combined with Afghan militias and a small number of other coalition soldiers to destroy the Taliban regime and disrupt al Qaeda. They had killed or captured about a quarter of the enemy's known leaders. Mohammed Atef, al Qaeda's military commander and a principal figure in the 9/11 plot, had been killed by a U.S. air strike. According to a senior CIA officer who helped devise the overall strategy, the CIA provided intelligence, experience, cash, covert action capabilities, and entrée to tribal allies. In turn, the U.S. military offered combat expertise, firepower, logistics, and communications.86 With these initial victories won by the middle of 2002, the global conflict against Islamist terrorism became a different kind of struggle.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 02:14 pm
By Rumsfeld's Standards, Mission Accomplished

By Al Kamen
Monday, March 27, 2006; Page A13

P resident Bush 's comment last week that U.S. troops would be in Iraq three more years provoked some consternation. Bush had always said the troops would be there until "the job is done and not a day longer," but few assumed that the troops would remain through his presidency.

Actually, Bush is being way too pessimistic. On April 9, 2003, three weeks after the invasion of Iraq, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld clearly set out the 10 objectives to be achieved "before victory can be declared."


· "Baghdad is in the process of being liberated" and the Hussein regime must be run out of there and other cities, he said. Check -- been run out of just about everywhere at least once.


· "We still must capture [or] account for . . . Saddam Hussein and his sons and the senior Iraqi leadership." Check.


· "We still must find and ensure the safe return of prisoners of war . . . in this war as well as any still held from the last Gulf War." Check -- save for one missing soldier.


· "We still must secure the northern oil fields." Check -- although the pipelines keep getting hit.


· "We still need to find and secure Iraq's weapons of mass destruction facilities. . . ." Check -- they are tightly secured.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 02:37 pm
All the noise about what Bush did or did not intend to do about Iraq and why he did or did not intend to do it, completely misses the fundamental question.

Should we have invaded Iraq?

Not Bush's or anyone else's behavior or motives before or after invasion of Iraq, is relevant to the answer to that question.

We should have invaded Iraq if it provided sanctuary to malignancy.

We should not have invaded Iraq if it did not provide sanctuary to malignancy.

ican711nm wrote:
THE WAR ON MALIGNANCY

Mass murderers of civilians, their abettors, their advocates and their tolerators are a malignancy.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is a necessary war on that malignancy.

The malignancy forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are mass murdering civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is Evil!

The anti-malignancy forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are mass murdering malignancy forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is Good!

Malignancy must be exterminated before it infects more humans and exterminates all the rest of the human race.


If there be a better way to combat malignancy, let's discuss it.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 04:33 pm
The Shiites in Power Accuse the US of "Organized Crime"
Le Figaro with AFP

Monday 27 March 2006

Argument swells in Baghdad the day after a raid conducted against Shiites that left twenty of them dead. While the American Army denies any involvement, the Governor of Baghdad announces the suspension of his cooperation with the United States. The Shiite alliance in power demands a transfer of responsibility for the maintenance of order in the country.
The bloody raid conducted Sunday in north Baghdad against Shiites assembled in a mosque in the country's capital continues to elicit reactions. Shiite leaders, who suggest there were around twenty deaths, denounce an American bungle. The Unified Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite coalition in power, describes that operation as a "massacre" and demands that the American government cede responsibility for the maintenance of order to the Iraqi government.

"American forces and Iraqi Special Forces committed an odious crime when they attacked the Al-Mustapha Mosque in the Ur neighborhood," the Shiite bloc asserts in a communiqué. "It's an organized crime with serious political and security implications. It aims to incite a civil war," the Shiites insist. "To kill such a great number of the faithful of the family of the Prophet after handcuffing and torturing them is indefensible. It's an attack on the dignity of Iraqis that strips away any credibility from the slogans of freedom, democracy and pluralism flaunted by the American administration," the communiqué concludes.

For his part, the Governor of Baghdad announced his intention of suspending all cooperation with American forces until an independent investigation is opened to determine what really happened. "We have decided today to cease all political and logistical cooperation with American forces," declared Hussein al Tahan, adding that the United States embassy and the Iraqi Defense Ministry should be associated with the investigation, but not the American military.

As for the Minister of the Interior, he described the raid as "unjustified aggression against the faithful as they prayed in a mosque."

US Army Denies

Giving an account of the operation that elicited such intense reactions, including an indignant one from Jawad al-Maliki, an intimate of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari, the American Army denied all responsibility. According to the United States, the operation was planned and executed by Iraqi Special Forces. The role of American Special Forces was limited to "advising Iraqi forces," an American Army communiqué emphasized.

The American Army is accused of repeated foul-ups, including a recent one to the north of Baghdad and another in November to the west of Baghdad, in which civilians were killed.

Deadly Attack Against Iraqi Recruits

40 dead, 20 wounded. The suicide attack committed Monday morning against the American-Iraqi Tamara base, close to Mosul, is the bloodiest against recruits for the Iraqi security forces since January, when a suicide bomber killed 70 in Ramadi.

Strengthening Iraqi security forces is at the center of both Iraqi and American authorities' policy. They see it as the best way to face the rebellion and prepare for the departure of foreign forces. But these forces and their recruitment centers are periodically targeted by the rebels, who thus seek to dissuade Iraqis from joining the ranks of the police and the army.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 04:55 pm
It's funny how the US pays for propoganda in Iraq, but they just can't seem to win their hearts and minds. Bushco is losing here in the US and in Iraq (and possibly in many parts of this world).
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 05:45 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
The Shiites in Power Accuse the US of "Organized Crime"
Le Figaro with AFP

Monday 27 March 2006
...
The Unified Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite coalition in power, describes that operation as a "massacre" and demands that the American government cede responsibility for the maintenance of order to the Iraqi government.
...

When the demand to "cede responsibility for the maintenance of order to the Iraqi government" is made by the true Iraqi government, the American government should grant it, and leave Iraq.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 05:50 pm
ican711nm wrote:
blueflame1 wrote:
The Shiites in Power Accuse the US of "Organized Crime"
Le Figaro with AFP

Monday 27 March 2006
...
The Unified Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite coalition in power, describes that operation as a "massacre" and demands that the American government cede responsibility for the maintenance of order to the Iraqi government.
...

When the demand to "cede responsibility for the maintenance of order to the Iraqi government" is made by the true Iraqi government, the American government should grant it, and leave Iraq.


maybe for once in this whole shebang, we should do the smart thing and "take the hint".

no wmd. no nukes. no saddam. there is a new government.

mission accomplished. so long, wish we could say it's been fun...
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 06:00 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:

...
maybe for once in this whole shebang, we should do the smart thing and "take the hint".

no wmd. no nukes. no saddam. there is a new government.
no new government yet, and yes al-Qaeda sanctuary.

mission accomplished. so long, wish we could say it's been fun...
mission not accomplished until the new Iraq government demands we leave. ... and it sure as hell ain't no fun.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 06:16 pm
This Mosque massacre seems to be some kind point. "U.S. troops defend raid, say Iraqis faked "massacre"
27 Mar 2006 22:50:30 GMT

Source: Reuters

By Alastair Macdonald

BAGHDAD, March 27 (Reuters) - U.S. commanders in Iraq on Monday accused powerful Shi'ite groups of moving the corpses of gunmen killed in battle to encourage accusations that U.S.-led troops massacred unarmed worshippers in a mosque.

"After the fact, someone went in and made the scene look different from what it was. There's been huge misinformation," Lieutenant General Peter Chiarelli, the second-ranking U.S. commander in Iraq, said.

He rejected the accusations of a massacre that prompted the Shi'ite-led government to demand U.S. forces cede control of security but declined to spell out which group he believed moved the bodies.

Government-run television has shown footage of bodies lying without weapons in what Shi'ite ministers say is a mosque compound run by radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The security minister accused Iraqi and U.S. troops of killing 37 unarmed men. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/MAC479911.htm
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 09:48 pm
ican711nm wrote:

Without knowing why you believe this, I nevertheless assume you truly believe this is truly true.

What was the PNAC policy objective that was set long before Bush came into office, and Bush sought to fulfill? Who are the individuals that lead PNAC and set this policy? When did Bush agree to make this PNAC policy his policy too? Why did Bush agree to make this PNAC policy his policy too?



Ican, have you ever read anything in your life other than Faux Spews sound bytes?

Do a Google on PNAC and read for yourself the answers to your questions. For starters Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle & Jeb Bush were signers of PNAC..... Hell they posted the entire thing including recent letters written to your idiot king telling him what they wanted done.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 09:50 pm
McGentrix wrote:
If that's what they actually wish, to keep Americans ignorant, then they should be proud of the success they are having as many lefties on A2K demonstrate daily!



Gosh it's too bad McG, that your conservative goal to dumb down the entire country is not working. But don't cry too hard... there are still too many like you hanging on to king george's shirt tails.

You deserve whatever he has in store for you.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 11:22 pm
Tyrant kings in a "real" democracy are defeated in good time. If Iraqis are really seeking democracy, you can bet your bottom dollar, most real Americans aren't going to let king George take away theirs.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 12:36 am
Heres a perspective that is mind-boggling. Before Bushco started this war in Iraq, he and his henchmen tried to convince us that Saddam had WMDs. Now that Iraq is in a civil war, they're telling us it's not a civil war.

What's wrong with this picture?
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 01:20 am
ican711nm wrote:
All the noise about what Bush did or did not intend to do about Iraq and why he did or did not intend to do it, completely misses the fundamental question.

Should we have invaded Iraq?


No. It was a crime, unjustifiable in law or on moral grounds. To justify it, a tissue of lies had to be concocted, some of which are still being peddled now. It is a major and continuing blot on the history of western civilisation.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 01:26 am
Why does this thread keep starting over? Didn't Craven make it clear a long, long time ago that the pages load no slower and that there is no benefit whatsoever in doing so... and further that in so doing you deny A2K the record for the most hit thread of all time?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 01:40 am
Magginkat wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

Without knowing why you believe this, I nevertheless assume you truly believe this is truly true.

What was the PNAC policy objective that was set long before Bush came into office, and Bush sought to fulfill? Who are the individuals that lead PNAC and set this policy? When did Bush agree to make this PNAC policy his policy too? Why did Bush agree to make this PNAC policy his policy too?



Ican, have you ever read anything in your life other than Faux Spews sound bytes?

Do a Google on PNAC and read for yourself the answers to your questions. For starters Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle & Jeb Bush were signers of PNAC..... Hell they posted the entire thing including recent letters written to your idiot king telling him what they wanted done.


wastin' your time, mags. Laughing
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 06:31 am
Same posters around the water cooler - and pretty much the same posts. Sigh.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 07:28 am
DontTreadOnMe wrote:


Ican, have you ever read anything in your life other than Faux Spews sound bytes?

Do a Google on PNAC and read for yourself the answers to your questions. For starters Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle & Jeb Bush were signers of PNAC..... Hell they posted the entire thing including recent letters written to your idiot king telling him what they wanted done.


wastin' your time, mags. Laughing[/quote]

Yeah, I know. Ole Iccan types those mile long spews, repeating the same crap over and over. After reading a couple of them I just give him a guick scan and continue on my way. I may lead a boring life but it's not so desperate as to read all that gibberish.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 08:02 am
VIDEO - Hardball Rips Bush, Blair & Cheney Over Pre-Iraq Memo

Prompted by a new report in The New York Times, MSNBC's Hardball takes a fresh look at a history of the Iraq war through the lens of a January 31, 2003 memo detailing a White House meeting between Bush and Blair.

This video begins with a report by David Shuster that weighs possible repercussions of the DSM against the increasing violence in Iraq and President Bush's low standing in the polls.

Chris Matthews interviews writer Phillippe Sands whose recent book, "Lawless World", exposes more pre-war lies. According to The Times, Mr. Sands "is a professor of international law at University College of London and the founding member of the Matrix law office in London, where the prime minister's wife, Cherie Blair, is a partner."

Matthews and Sands take the opportunity to pile on The President. Even Matthews' questions to Sands appear to be clear indictments of The Presidents actions:

MATTHEWSWhat struck me in the memorandum again today was that the President George W. Bush had decided to go to war with Iraq before completing the inspections. Had decided to do so before sending Secretary of State--and a skeptic, I must say--Colin Powell to the United Nations.

What is the significance of that? That he made the decision--as recorded by David Manning who was working for the Prime Minister at the time--before either of those events occurred . The U.N. presentation which was apparently to sell Europe of the fact that there were weapons of mass destruction and the completion of the weapons inspections themselves. Both were not waited for. The President decided before then. So did Tony Blair apparently.


The January 31, 2003 memo is consistent with the July 2002 "Downing Street" Memos where British officials expressed concern that Bush had already decided to go to invade Iraq and that "intelligence was being fixed around the policy" to meet that goal.


Phillippe Sands describes yet another memo that recorded a meeting between Colin Powell and his British counterpart Jack Straw. In this memo, Colin Powell explains that, in his view, "if there wasn't enough evidence for a second [U.N.] Security Council resolution then there wasn't enough evidence to justify the U.S. going it alone."

In an attempt to find the earliest hints of a desire among the Bush team to attack Iraq, Matthews references a new book, "Cobra II", by Bernard Trainer:


Matthews: [Bernard Trainer] describes a phone call from then Vice President elect Dick Cheney to then Defense Secretary William Cohen regarding Iraq. This came, this phone call, right after [or] soon after the debate by the Supreme Court when they gave the election to President Bush after the Florida dispute.

Ok, here's what Cohen received: a call from the Vice President [elect], Cheney. Here's what he said: He said that [Cheney] wanted to see one thing. He did not want to see a tour of the world and all of the potential threats to our country. He wanted to get a briefing for the new President, his partner George W. Bush, on one topic. Iraq. That's all he wanted.

And I talked to Bill Cohen a number of times on this and he said that it was breathtaking. All the Vice President wanted to know about -- he didn't care about the world; all around the globe -- the only thing he cared about was Iraq. He was already honing in on that decision in December of 2000. What does that tell you? http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002612.htm
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.22 seconds on 01/22/2025 at 02:11:02