Roxxxanne wrote:
...
My generation? Are you this clueless on purpose? We did not go in with sufficient force and, thus, created a catastrophe of such proportions that the damage to our prestige and to the region is unimaginable still.
Yes, it is intrinsic to too many of your generation to adopt the superficial and simplistic view of how to solve real problems. We did not create any catastrophe. We are working to solve the problem of prohibiting a catastrophe promoted by terrorist malignancy.
Do you really believe that problem is solvable by mere numbers of USA "boots on the ground?"
Unbelievable!
The peace will be won in Afghanistan and Iraq by Afghan and Iraqi "boots on the ground." It's the USA's job to help train those "boots" to defend themselves and their people, while exterminating as many terrorist malignancy as their and our "boots" are able. This will take time greater than that available in a typical show time.
THE ARCHITECTS OF WAR: WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
President Bush has not fired any of the architects of the Iraq war. In fact, a review of the key planners of the conflict reveals that they have been rewarded - not blamed - for their incompetence.
PAUL WOLFOWITZ
Role In Going To War: Wolfowitz said the U.S. would be greeted as liberators, that Iraqi oil money for pay for the reconstruction, and that Gen. Eric Shinseki's estimate that several hundred thousand troops would be needed was "wildly off the mark." [Washington Post, 12/8/05]
Where He Is Now: Bush promoted Wolfowitz to head the World Bank in March 2005. [Washington Post, 3/17/05]
Key Quote: "We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." [Wolfowitz, 3/27/03]
DOUGLAS FEITH
Role In Going To War: As Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Feith spearheaded two secretive groups at the Pentagon ?- the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans ?- that were instrumental in drawing up documents that explained the supposed ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. The groups were "created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true." Colin Powell referred to Feith's operation as the Gestapo. In Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack, former CentCom Commander Gen. Tommy Franks called Feith the "f***ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth." [LAT, 1/27/05; NYT, 4/28/04; New Yorker, 5/12/03; Plan of Attack, p.281]
Where He Is Now: Feith voluntarily resigned from the Defense Department shortly after Bush's reelection. He is co-chairman of a project at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government to write an academic book on how to fight terrorism. Feith's secretive groups at the Pentagon are under investigation by the Pentagon and the Senate Intelligence Committee for intelligence failures. [Washington Post, 1/27/05, 11/18/05; Washington Times, 3/3/06]
Key Quote: "I am not asserting to you that I know that the answer is ?- we did it right. What I am saying is it's an extremely complex judgment to know whether the course that we chose with its pros and cons was more sensible." [Washington Post, 7/13/05]
STEPHEN HADLEY
Role In Going To War: As then-Deputy National Security Advisor, Hadley disregarded memos from the CIA and a personal phone call from Director George Tenet warning that references to Iraq's pursuit of uranium be dropped from Bush's speeches. The false information ended up in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. [Washington Post, 7/23/03]
Where He Is Now: On January 26, 2005, Stephen Hadley was promoted to National Security Advisor. [White House bio]
Key Quote: "I should have recalled at the time of the State of the Union speech that there was controversy associated with the uranium issue.
And it is now clear to me that I failed in that responsibility in connection with the inclusion of these 16 words in the speech that he gave on the 28th of January." [Hadley, 7/22/03]
RICHARD PERLE
Role In Going To War: Richard Perle, the so-called "Prince of Darkness," was the chairman of Defense Policy Board during the run-up to the Iraq war. He suggested Iraq had a hand in 9-11. In 1996, he authored "Clean Break," a paper that was co-signed by Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, and others that argued for regime change in Iraq. Shortly after the war began, Perle resigned from the Board because he came under fire for having relationships with businesses that stood to profit from the war. [Guardian, 9/3/02, 3/28/03; AFP, 8/9/02]
Where He Is Now: Currently, Perle is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute where he specializes in national security and defense issues. He has been investigated for ethical violations concerning war profiteering and other conflicts of interest. [Washington Post, 9/1/04]
Key Quote: "And a year from now, I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they've been liberated. And it is getting easier every day for Iraqis to express that sense of liberation." [Perle, 9/22/03]
ELLIOT ABRAMS
Role In Going To War: Abrams was one of the defendants in the Iran-Contra Affair, and he pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress. He was appointed Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs during Bush's first term, where he served as Bush's chief advisor on the Middle East. His name surfaced as part of the investigation into who leaked the name of a undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. [Washington Post, 5/27/03, 2/3/05]
Where He Is Now: Abrams was promoted to deputy national security adviser in February of 2005. [Slate, 2/17/05]
Key Quote: "We recognize that military action in Iraq, if necessary, will have adverse humanitarian consequences. We have been planning over the last several months, across all relevant agencies, to limit any such consequences and provide relief quickly." [CNN, 2/25/03]
DAVID WURMSER
Role In Going To War: At the time of the war, Wurmser was a special assistant to John Bolton in the State Department. Wurmser has long advocated the belief that both Syria and Iraq represented threats to the stability of the Middle East. In early 2001, Wurmser had issued a call for air strikes against Iraq and Syria. Along with Perle, he is considered a main author of "Clean Break." [Asia Times, 4/17/03; Guardian, 9/3/02]
Where He Is Now: Wurmser was promoted to Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs; he is in charge of coordinating Middle East strategy. His name has been associated with the Plame Affair and with an FBI investigation into the passing of classified information to Chalabi and AIPAC. [Raw Story, 10/19/05; Washington Post, 9/4/04]
Key Quote: "Syria, Iran, Iraq, the PLO and Sudan are playing a skillful game, but have consistently worked to undermine US interests and influence in the region for years, and certainly will continue to do so now, even if they momentarily, out of fear, seem more forthcoming." [Washington Post, 9/24/01]
ANDREW NATSIOS
Role In Going To War: Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Andrew Natsios, then the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, went on Nightline and claimed that the U.S. contribution to the rebuilding of Iraq would be just $1.7 billion. When it became quickly apparent that Natsios' prediction would fall woefully short of reality, the government came under fire for scrubbing his comments from the USAID Web site. [Washington Post, 12/18/03; ABC News, 4/23/03]
Where He Is Now: Natsios stepped down as the head of USAID in January and is currently teaching at Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh's School of Foreign Service as a Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy and Advisor on International Development. [AP, 2/20/06; Georgetown, 12/2/05]
Key Quote: "[T]he American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this." [Nightline, 4/23/03]
DAN BARTLETT
Role In Going To War: Dan Bartlett was the White House Communications Director at the time of the war and was a mouthpiece in hyping the Iraq threat. Bartlett was also a regular participant in the weekly meetings of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG). The main purpose of the group was the systematic coordination of the "marketing" of going to war with Iraq as well as selling the war here at home. [Washington Post, 8/10/03]
Where He Is Now: Bartlett was promoted to Counselor to the President on January 5, 2005, and is responsible for the formulation of policy and implementation of the President's agenda. [White House]
Key Quote: "President Bush understands that the need to disarm Saddam Hussein is necessary. He has made that case to the United Nations Security Council. He's made that case to the United States Congress. The entire world rallied behind this resolution that gives him one last chance. He has that chance, but time is running out." [CNN, 1/26/03]
MITCH DANIELS
Role In Going To War: Mitch Daniels was the director of the Office of Management and Budget from January 2001 through June of 2003. In this capacity, he was responsible for releasing the initial budget estimates for the Iraq War which he pegged at $50 to $60 billion. The estimated cost of the war, including the full economic ramifications, is approaching $1 trillion. [MSNBC, 3/17/06]
Where He Is Now: In 2004, Daniels was elected Governor of Indiana. [USA Today, 11/3/04]
Key Quote: Mitch Daniels had said the war would be an "affordable endeavor" and rejected an estimate by the chief White House economic adviser that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion as "very, very high." [Christian Science Monitor, 1/10/06]
GEORGE TENET
Role In Going To War: As CIA Director, Tenet was responsible for gathering information on Iraq and the potential threat posted by Saddam Hussein. According to author Bob Woodward, Tenet told President Bush before the war that there was a "slam dunk case" that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. Tenet remained publicly silent while the Bush administration made pre-war statements on Iraq's supposed nuclear program and ties to al Qaeda that were contrary to the CIA's judgments. Tenet issued a statement in July 2003, drafted by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, taking responsibility for Bush's false statements in his State of the Union address. [CNN, 4/19/04; NYT, 7/22/05]
Where He Is Now: Tenet voluntarily resigned from the administration on June 3, 2004. He was later awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom. [Washington Post, 6/3/04]
Key Quote: "It's a slam dunk case." [CNN, 4/19/04]
COLIN POWELL
Role In Going To War: Despite stating in Feb. 2001 that Saddam had not developed "any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction," Powell made the case in front of the United Nations for a United States-led invasion of Iraq, stating that, "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction." [Powell, 2/5/03; Powell, 2/24/01]
Where He Is Now: Shortly after Bush won reelection in 2004, Powell resigned from the administration. Powell now sits on numerous corporate boards. He is poised to succeed Henry Kissinger in May as Chairman of the Eisenhower Fellowship Program at the City College of New York. In September 2005, Powell said of his U.N. speech that it was a "blot" on his record. He went on to say, "It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now." [ABC News, 9/9/05]
Key Quote: "?'You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,' he told the president. ?'You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You'll own it all.' Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it." [Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack]
DONALD RUMSFELD
Role In Going To War: Prior to the war, Rumsfeld repeatedly suggested the war in Iraq would be short and swift. He said, "The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that." He also said, "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." [Rumsfeld, 11/14/02; USA Today, 4/1/03]
Where He Is Now: Despite increased calls for his resignation, Donald Rumsfeld continues to be the most vocal supporter of staying the course in Iraq. Recently, he claimed that an early U.S. pullout would be the equivalent of leaving Germany in the hands of Nazis. [Bill Kristol, Washington Post, 12/15/04; Reuters, 3/19/06]
Key Quote: "You go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." [CNN, 12/9/04]
CONDOLEEZZA RICE
Role In Going To War: As National Security Adviser, Rice disregarded at least two CIA memos and a personal phone call from Director George Tenet stating that the evidence behind Iraq's supposed uranium acquisition was weak. She urged the necessity of war because "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." [Washington Post, 7/27/03; CNN, 9/8/02]
Where She Is Now: In December of 2004, Condoleezza Rice was promoted to Secretary of State and is being widely-mentioned as a possible presidential candidate. [ABC News, 11/16/04]
Key Quote: "We did not know at the time - maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency - but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course it was information that was mistaken." [Meet the Press, 6/8/03]
DICK CHENEY
Role In Going To War: Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney claimed that Iraq may have had a role in 9/11, stating that it was "pretty well confirmed" that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was "in fact reconstituting his nuclear program" and that the U.S. would be "greeted as liberators." [Meet the Press, 12/9/01, 3/16/03]
Where He Is Now: Cheney earned another four years in power when Bush won re-election in 2004. Despite recent calls from conservatives calling for him to be replaced, Cheney has said, "I've now been elected to a second term; I'll serve out my term." [CBS Face the Nation, 3/19/06]
Key Quote: "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." [Larry King Live, 6/20/05]
GEORGE W. BUSH
Role In Going To War: Emphasizing Saddam Hussein's supposed stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, supposed ties to al Qaeda, and supposed nuclear weapons program, Bush led the effort to build public support for an invasion of Iraq. [State of the Union, 1/28/03]
Where He Is Now: In November 2004, Bush won re-election. Since that time, popular support for the war and the President have reached a low point. [Washington Post, 3/7/06]
Transcript: Rumsfeld Called Out On Lies About WMD
QUESTION: So I would like to ask you to be up front with the American people, why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary, that has caused these kinds of casualties? why?
RUMSFELD: Well, first of all, I haven't lied. I did not lie then. Colin Powell didn't lie. He spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence Agency people and prepared a presentation that I know he believed was accurate, and he presented that to the United Nations. the president spent weeks and weeks with the central intelligence people and he went to the american people and made a presentation. i'm not in the intelligence business. they gave the world their honest opinion. it appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.
QUESTION: You said you knew where they were.
RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were and -
QUESTION: You said you knew where they were Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words.
RUMSFELD: My words ?- my words were that ?- no, no, wait a minute, wait a minute. Let him stay one second. Just a second.
QUESTION: This is America.
RUMSFELD: You're getting plenty of play, sir.
QUESTION: I'd just like an honest answer.
RUMSFELD: I'm giving it to you.
QUESTION: Well we're talking about lies and your allegation there was bulletproof evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq.
RUMSFELD: Zarqawi was in Baghdad during the prewar period. That is a fact.
QUESTION: Zarqawi? He was in the north of Iraq in a place where Saddam Hussein had no rule. That's also
RUMSFELD: He was also in Baghdad.
QUESTION: Yes, when he needed to go to the hospital.
Come on, these people aren't idiots. They know the story.
(PROTESTER INTERRUPTS)
RUMSFELD: Let me give you an example.
It's easy for you to make a charge, but why do you think that the men and women in uniform every day, when they came out of Kuwait and went into Iraq, put on chemical weapon protective suits? Because they liked the style?
(LAUGHTER)
They honestly believed that there were chemical weapons.
(APPLAUSE)
Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons on his own people previously. He'd used them on his neighbor (AUDIO GAP) the Iranians, and they believed he had those weapons.
We believed he had those weapons.
QUESTION: That's what we call a non sequitur. It doesn't matter what the troops believe; it matters what you believe.
MODERATOR: I think, Mr. Secretary, the debate is over. We have other questions, courtesy to the audience.
I hope Hadley's name doesn't disappear from people's radar screens, or the press.
Supporting opposition groups is hardly the same as invasion and war.
Of the
23 reasons (numbered in the quote below by me) given by the USA Congress in its October 2002 resolution in the form of
whereases,
13 (shown in the quote below by me with boldface numbers: 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23) have been proven
true. The remaining
10 are not proven
lies, but have been proven
false in one or more respects. Please note, that reasons (10) and (11) are each independently, sufficient and proven reasons for invading Iraq.
www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Congress wrote:Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002 (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq
(1) Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
(2) Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
(3) Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
(4) Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
(5) Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
(6) Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
(7) Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
(8) Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
(9) Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
(10) Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
(11) Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
(12) Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
(13) Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
(14) Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
(15) Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;
(16) Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
(17) Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
(18) Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
(19) Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
(20) Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
(21) Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
(22) Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and,
(23) Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now therefore be it, Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.
In this their resolution, did Congress lie and knowingly state falsities, or did Congress not lie and not knowingly state falsities?
I cannot find any evidence that in this their resolution Congress lied and knowingly stated falsities. Therefore, in this their resolution, I believe Congress did not lie and did not knowingly state falsities.
I would hate to be married to you, ican. There is no living with individuals with your personality traits.
First: Facts.
After 9/11/2001, and before the USA invaded Afghanistan, the Bush administration demanded that the government of Afghanistan remove al-Qaeda from its country. The government of Afghanistan did not reply to our demand. The USA subsequently invaded Afghanistan.
After the USA invaded Afghanistan, the Bush adinistration demanded that the governments of Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria remove al Qaeda from their countries. The governments of Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria agreed to our demand. The governent of Iraq did not reply to our demand. The USA subsequently invaded Iraq.
At the time we invaded Iraq, al-Qaeda was in control of 12 villages in northeastern Iraq. USA Special Forces and Special Mission Operators, leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters invaded these al-Qaeda camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted, except, unfortunately, those who escaped.
Also at the time we invaded Iraq, several hundred foreign fighters from Egypt, Sudan, Syria, and Libya were being trained in a camp south of Baghdad. After the USA invaded Iraq, USA marines killed them all. Fortunately, none escaped.
Subseqent to the USA invasion of Iraq, Iran and Syria reneged on their agreement to remove al-Qaeda from their countries.
Second: What If?
But what if none of the governments of these countries had replied to our demand to remove al-Qaeda. In that case, would it have been wise not to invade any of them, because we lacked the means to invade them all? Or would it have been wiser to invade those countries in which al-Qaeda was most actively training terrorist fighters? In that regard, Afghanistan and Iraq were the best candidates for invasion until Syria and Iran reneged on their agreement to meet our demand to remove al-Qaeda.
Sanchez defends his adherence to Geneva Conventions in
Posted on Fri, May. 05, 2006
U.S. general defends his adherence to Geneva Conventions in Iraq
By Joseph L. Galloway
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The U.S. general who commanded coalition forces in Iraq at the time of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal said Friday that he drew the line on what was allowed by the Geneva Conventions when he briefed military interrogators at the prison in August 2003.
Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez said that a news release this week by the American Civil Liberties Union, which said that the general told interrogators they could "go to the outer limits" in getting information from Iraqi prisoners, got it wrong.
In an exclusive interview with Knight Ridder Newspapers, Sanchez said that the guidance he gave to the interrogators "was that we should be conducting our interrogations to the limits of our authority - I never used the term `to the outer limits' - and making sure that we never crossed beyond what was authorized by the Geneva Convention and the Laws of War."
Sanchez said he gave the guidance to the interrogators and Army military intelligence officials during his first visit to Abu Ghraib, the prison near Baghdad, in mid-August 2003. At that time, the prison population had grown to a point where "I realized we had a detainee and an interrogation problem that had not been faced by our military in over 50 years," he said.
He said he grilled the prison personnel on what training they'd received, how they were supervising interrogations, who was approving interrogation plans and what safeguards were in place to prevent any violation of the Geneva Conventions, which govern the treatment of war prisoners.
"It was my duty to ensure that we were using everything that was allowed by the Geneva Convention to get the intelligence needed to save my soldiers' lives on that battlefield," Sanchez added. "Every document and discussion that was held in Iraq about interrogations highlighted the fact that we were bound by the Conventions."
Sanchez said the ACLU "is a bunch of sensationalist liars, I mean lawyers, that will distort any and all information that they get to draw attention to their positions."
So how did it all go terribly wrong when he'd given orders to work within the limits of the Geneva Conventions? Sanchez blamed the military police brigade assigned to guard the prison.
"Other than the MP escort that was with us as we walked through the prison, there were no MPs when I talked to the interrogators" and military intelligence personnel. "The problem is a catastrophic failure in leadership within the MP brigade, beginning with the brigadier general," he said.
That was Army Reserve Brig. Gen. Janice L. Karpinski, the commander at Abu Ghraib, who was officially reprimanded for her failure to command her troops properly.
Sanchez's description of his instructions, however, leaves many unanswered questions about how harsher interrogation techniques migrated to Abu Ghraib from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, when the abuse was first discovered and why it wasn't ended and the perpetrators punished immediately.
It also remains unclear whether any higher-ranking military officers or civilian officials at the U.S. Central Command, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Department of the Army, the office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld or the White House may have given interrogators greater leeway than Sanchez did.
Sanchez told Knight Ridder that no one on his small staff was experienced in detention and strategic and operation intelligence gathering. He said that only some had field experience in tactical interrogation but no formal training.
"When I met the interrogators it immediately became crystal clear to me that they had not been trained properly, they had no mechanism for providing oversight of the interrogations . . . and they were desperate for higher headquarters guidance," Sanchez added.
That was when Sanchez said he gave them his guidance on going to the limit but no further and began the process of publishing the September and October 2003 Interrogation Rules of Engagement memos.
Sanchez, who transferred to duty in Germany as a corps commander in July 2004 after 14 months in command in Iraq, has seen the fallout from the prisoner abuse scandal halt a rapid rise in his career.
Although he's been exonerated in official investigations of the prison scandal by the Army and the Department of Defense, his nomination for a fourth star and command of the U.S. Southern Command in Miami was quietly withdrawn when it became apparent that hearings on Capitol Hill on his promotion would dissolve into a firestorm over Pentagon and White House interrogation policies. Sanchez is now expected to retire at the end of this summer and move to San Antonio in his native Texas.
He would have been only the second Hispanic to reach four-star rank in the Army. The first was retired Gen. Richard Cavazos, a south Texas native like Sanchez.
PERSPECTIVE ON THE PROBLEMS THE USA MUST SOLVE
Listed in priority order
1. The terrorist malignancy's war on American civilians.
2. The terrorist malignancy's war on non-Muslim civilians throughout the world.
3. Intelligence gathering
4. Child molestation.
5. Price of oil.
6. Federal spending.
7. Illegal immigrants.
8. Tort awards.
9. Illegal voting.
10. Campaign finance.
11. Political fraud.
12. Federal taxes.
13. Abuse of terrorist malignancy prisoners.
<snicker>
The USDA on Iraq: Everything's Coming Up Rosy
Read more of this farce at above source.
"Career appointees at the Department of Agriculture were stunned last week to receive e-mailed instructions that include Bush administration "talking points" -- saying things such as "President Bush has a clear strategy for victory in Iraq" -- in every speech they give for the department.
"The President has requested that all members of his cabinet and sub-cabinet incorporate message points on the Global War on Terror into speeches, including specific examples of what each agency is doing to aid the reconstruction of Iraq," the May 2 e-mail from USDA speechwriter Heather Vaughn began.
The e-mail, sent to about 60 undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and other political appointees, was also sent to "a few people to whom it should not have gone," said the department's communications director, Terri Teuber . The career people, we are assured, are not being asked to spread the great news on Iraq in their talks to food stamp recipients, disadvantaged farmers, enviros or other folks.
The e-mail provided language "being used by Secretary [Michael O.] Johanns and deputy secretary [Charles F.] Conner in all of their remarks and is being sent to you for inclusion in your speeches."
Another attachment "contains specific examples of GWOT messages within agriculture speeches. Please use these message points as often as possible and send Harry Phillips , USDA's director of speechwriting, a weekly email summarizing the event, date and location of each speech incorporating the attached language. Your responses will be included in a weekly account sent to the White House."
This scoreboard, of course, will ensure you give it your best shot.
Now, you might still be scratching your heads, trying to figure out how this is going to work when people expect a talk about agriculture issues. Not to worry. The attachments -- which can be viewed at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/fedpage -- show how easy it is to work a little Iraq happy talk into just about anything."
And so, it continues.....
The number of non-combatant civilians killed by violence since 01/01/2000, as of:
12/31/2002 (1096 days) -- total = 60,636 -- approximate average monthly rate / daily rate = 1,684.3 / 55.3;
The number of non-combatant civilians killed by violence since 01/01/2003, as of:
12/31/2005 (1095 days) -- total = 31,319 -- approximate average monthly rate / daily rate = 870.0 / 28.6;
01/31/2006 (1126 days) -- total = 31,928 -- approximate average monthly rate / daily rate = 862.9 / 28.4;
02/28/2006 (1154 days) -- total = 32,506 -- approximate average monthly rate / daily rate = 855.4 / 28.2;
03/31/2006 (1185 days) -- total = 38,161 -- approximate average monthly rate / daily rate = 978.5 / 32.2;
04/30/2006 (1215 days) -- total = 39,024 -- approximate average monthly rate / daily rate = 975.6 / 32.1.
What point (s) are you implying within the context of the same, repetitive postings from your clipboard of the same citations (with dates), and statistics about cumulative and average killings?
There are those within this administration who obviously are adherents of the position that if you say something with conviction often enough, then you can make a great number of people believe that it is true. Or worse, then you can actually make it true in reality.
Is that your position?
Your right Ican in that it is a plus that some decisions on who gets what were able to be made. There are still some decision left to make and it remains to be seen what effect having a formed government will have on stemming the killings carried out among the factions. I am hopeful that at some point these differences can be worked out for the good of Iraqis. Personally I think the divisions among the Kurds, Sunnis and the Shiite's is too strong to be able to really work together.
Key Obstacle in Forming Iraq Govt Resolved
Quote:BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's prime minister-designate said Tuesday the main stumbling blocks to forming a new Cabinet have been overcome and he expects to present his team to parliament for approval by the end of the week.
Nouri al-Maliki said representatives of the country's political parties had agreed on what factions would hold the "main posts" but were still discussing the distribution of "a few" of them. Those included the ministries of oil, trade and transportation, he said.
The incoming prime minister declined to spell out the distribution of ministries, including key posts of interior, which controls police, and defense, which runs the army. U.S. and British officials have insisted those posts go to people without ties to sectarian militias, believed responsible for many of the revenge killings of Sunnis and Shiites.
"The direction we took, and which was agreed upon by the political groups, was that the two who will occupy these posts be independent and unaffiliated with a party or a militia," he said at a news conference.
Al-Maliki, a Shiite, said he hoped to present the Cabinet to parliament by the end of the week. Parliament must approve each minister by a majority vote.
Since he was nominated prime minister last month, Al-Maliki has struggled to complete the final step in establishing the new Iraqi government.
U.S. officials hope the formation of a unity government will help calm sectarian tensions, lure Sunni Arabs away from the insurgency and eventually allow the withdrawal of some American forces.
But the process has been plagued by ethnic and sectarian tension and deadly attacks by insurgents, and al-Maliki has been working to balance the conflicting interests of Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish legislators.
The Interior Ministry, currently headed by Bayan Jabr, a Shiite, has come under criticism from Sunnis who say that Shiite "death squads" are routinely targeting their community.
Sunni Arabs also have jockeyed for key ministries such as oil and finance. But those posts had largely been allocated to the United Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite bloc with the largest number of seats in the parliament.
As for the prominent Foreign Ministry, lawmakers have repeatedly said that this portfolio will remain in the hands of the Kurds, who also hold the presidency.
Meanwhile, the Committee to Protect Journalists condemned the killing of an Iraqi reporter and a media worker whose bodies were discovered south of Baghdad on Monday. Violence continued in the volatile area with the discovery of the headless corpses of three Iraqi soldiers floating in the Tigris River, apparently the latest victims of death squads that had kidnapped and killed hundreds of Sunnis and Shiites in recent months.
Laith al-Dulaimi, a reporter for the privately owned TV station Al-Nahrain, and Muazaz Ahmed Barood, a telephone operator for the station, were kidnapped by men disguised as police officers while driving home to Madain, a town 12 miles southeast of Baghdad, said Abdulkarim al-Mehdawi, the station's general manager.
Their bodies were discovered at al-Wihda district, 20 miles south of Baghdad. Both men, in their late 20s, had been shot in the chest, al-Mehdawi said.
In the last year alone, at least 35 Iraqis have been killed in and around Madain, a tense Shiite-Sunni area, according to an Associated Press count.
"We are saddened by the loss of our colleagues Laith al-Dulaimi and Muazaz Barood," said Ann Cooper, executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists. "Their senseless murder reflects the continuing dangers for journalists working in Iraq.
Al-Dulaimi became a reporter for Al-Nahrain four months ago. Barood had been working at the station since it was established just over a year and a half ago.
Al-Mehdawi told the committee that neither the station nor the journalists had ever received threats, and the motive behind the killings was unclear.
The New York-based organization said 69 journalists and 25 media support workers have been killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003, making it the deadliest conflict for the media in recent history.
In other violence reported by police Tuesday,
Two drive-by shootings killed three Iraqis in Baghdad.
The tortured bodies of 12 Iraqis were found, four in the capital, one in northern Iraq, and seven in a river 30 miles south of Baghdad.
A roadside bomb hit a police car in Baghdad, killing one officer and wounding two.
