Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
SIGH
Where is the proof for anything?
There's certainly no proof that you are safer.
Everything is relative.
Mr Mephisto
|
Mr. Mephisto, for myself and the 40+ percent of Americans who know why
you "SIGH", it is time to accept that we can not persuade the other side with
"facts". If William Safire's syndicated column, dated January 28, 2003,
(SOB's contribution) contained "facts", would Bush not have cited that
informatiom when he was questioned by the press, just three days later?
(See first quote box below). Would the Bushco not have used Safire's "facts"
for the last 24 months. to justify their Iraqi operations, if there was any
merit in them ?
The "facts" are all there, Mr. Mephisto, for those who do not rely on Bushco
shills like Safire and Richard Miniter for reliable information. The Bush quote
below on the Iraq Al Queda connection, or lack of connection, is from the
white house website, and the Powell quote regarding Saddam's lack of WDM
in 2001 is from the Dept. of State website. Dr. Rice is quoted from a CNN
program transcript. It is much more convenient to leave it to Safire and
Miniter to edit and consolidate what you then use to frame your "informed
opinion", than to do your own research and attempt to seperate the facts
from the spin of columnists and the Bushco's massive psy-ops.
Trouble for me is, I just can't do it, and you, obviously, can't either. We will
convince Bushco apologists and supporters of nothing. They are the enablers
of this scary, disfunctional, destructive, administration, because they are
misinformed and quite content to remain so. They find their resolve in their
own ignorance. They react to those who compare them to the citizens of
Germany in the late 1930's by calling us "fringe" or "X-file" groups.
They have refused to accept the determination of U.S. and U.N. weapons
inspectors that there no WMD found in Iraq that legitimized statements made
by Bush and his appointees making a case for an invasion of Iraq on grounds
that Saddam posed an "imminent threat" to the security of the United States.
They have refused to accept the determination by the 9/11 commission and
of former CIA director George Tenent that no reliable intelligence exists to
legitimize the claim that Saddam was a supporter of and a conspirator with al queda.
Quote:
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html</a>
THE PRIME MINISTER: Adam.
Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
|
They have refused to accept that the insurgents fighting against U.S. troops
in Iraq are nearly all Iraqis, or that Bush's claim that we are fighting them
"there" so that we won't have to fight them "here", has no basis in fact.
Quote:
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-detainees-usat_x.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-detainees-usat_x.htm</a>
Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700 captives being held as security threats in Iraq, a strong indication that Iraqis are largely responsible for the stubborn insurgency.
|
Quote:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1501802&postcount=5">http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1501802&postcount=5</a>
But according to top U.S. military officers in Iraq, the threat posed by foreign fighters is far less significant than American and Iraqi politicians portray. Instead, commanders said, loyalists of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime — who have swelled their ranks in recent months as ordinary Iraqis bristle at the U.S. military presence in Iraq — represent the far greater threat to the country's fragile 3-month-old government.
"The vast majority of the insurgents in Iraq are local and not foreign fighters," said Captain Ben Connable, the intelligence deputy for the US 1st Marine Division, in charge of the western al-Anbar province.
|
They ignore the fact that senior Bush administration officials Powell and
Rice made public statements before 9/11 that directly contradicted the
Bushco post 9/11 propaganda attempt to justify invading Iraq:
Quote:
<a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm">http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm</a>
We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose.<h4> That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq,</h4> and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."
|
Quote:
<a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html">http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html</a>
National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice, date July 29, '01:
"(Larry) KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?
(Dr. Condoleeza) RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.
We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.
<h4>
But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.</h4>
This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that."
|
Finally, there is this in your recent "Economist Article on Iraq" thread:
Quote:
|
In bold contrast to his masters in Washington, General George W. Casey Jr, the commander-in-chief of coalition forces in Iraq, credits foreigners with a minimal role in the insurgency. Of over 2,000 men detained during the fighting in Fallujah, fewer than 30 turned out to be non-Iraqi. In Ramadi, the marines have detained a smaller number of foreigners, including a 25-year-old Briton two weeks ago, who claimed to be pursuing "peace work" but whose hands were coated with explosives. Pleased to find an enemy who understood English, marines say they queued up to taunt him; one told him he would be gang-raped in Abu Ghraib.
|