Why are these two guys still in office, and another question- - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 12-10-2007, 12:49 PM

My step-son is in the military, serving in his second deployment in a comabt area. It is not in Iraq, he's never served in Iraq. He has a blog where he rants vehemently about the "lying left" who hate America, undermine the troops, want us to "lose in Iraq", would feel unsafe at home, out in public with his family, due to the increased threat of terrorist attacks here in the US, if we "let" the terrorists win", in Iraq.

Here is some of my research, I've posted it before, on other threads. Last night, I offered to email "my research", (I kept it that vague, after offering him seven current news reports of the state of things in Iraq, backing my premise that there is no military solution to be had there, and that half of the 135 detained "foreign fighters" in Iraq are Saudi, and the NIE that says foreign intervention is not a significant factor....) to my stepson if he wants to read it.

Two questions....should I send this post to him?

Why are these two guys still POTUS and VP?

Quote:

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601
By Jim Miklaszewski
Chief Pentagon correspondent
NBC News
March 2, 2004
the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself —but never pulled the trigger. In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide. The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq. “People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone.

Quote:

http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroo....cfm?id=262690
News from Senator Carl Levin of Michigan
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 8, 2006

The President says Saddam had a relationship with Zarqawi.
The Senate Intelligence Committee found that the CIA concluded in 2005 that “the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.”

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070405-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
April 5, 2007

Interview of the Vice President by Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show
Via Telephone

1:07 P.M. EDT

Q It's always a great privilege to have the Vice President, Dick Cheney, with us. Mr. Vice President, welcome once again to our program.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, Rush. It's good to be back on......

.....Q It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08 is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes. But they're going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill -- and, thus, official government language -- of that term. Does that give you any indication of their motivation or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure -- well, it's just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton; I worked closely with Ike when I was Secretary of Defense. He's Chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike is a good man. He's just dead wrong about this, though. Think about -- just to give you one example, Rush, remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, al Qaeda affiliate; ran a training camp in Afghanistan for al Qaeda, then migrated -- after we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the al Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene, and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni. This is al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq. ......

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...061019-10.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
October 19, 2006

Satellite Interview of the Vice President by WSBT-TV, South Bend, Indiana
2nd Congressional District -
Representative Chris Chocola

........Q Are you saying that you believe fighting in Iraq has prevented terrorist attacks on American soil? And if so, why, since there has not been a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq established?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. Mr. Zarqawi, who was the lead terrorist in Iraq for three years, fled there after we went into Afghanistan. He was there before we ever went into Iraq. The sectarian violence that we see now, in part, has been stimulated by the fact of al Qaeda attacks intended to try to create conflict between Shia and Sunni......

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html
Sept. 15, 2006

......MARTHA: Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda.
A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And yet a month ago, you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that?
Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?

BUSH: The point I was making to Ken Herman’s question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror,
and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq
. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan.
I never said there was an operational relationship.....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060912-2.html
Office of the Press Secretary
September 12, 2006

Press Briefing by Tony Snow

...Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?

MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.

Q There was a link --

MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. .. No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.

Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?

MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it.

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 21, 2006

Press Conference by the President
White House Conference Center Briefing Room

......Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which
you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would --who had relations with Zarqawi.....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060320-7.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2006

THE PRESIDENT:..We also did say that Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. .....but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030206-17.html

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 6, 2003

President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment"

.... One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists, who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. The network runs a poison and explosive training center in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. The head of this network traveled to Baghdad for medical treatment and stayed for months. Nearly two dozen associates joined him there and have been operating in Baghdad for more than eight months.

The same terrorist network operating out of Iraq is responsible for the murder, the recent murder, of an American citizen, an American diplomat, Laurence Foley. ......

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030128-19.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 28, 2003

President Delivers "State of the Union"

.....With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.
Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.........

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021014-4.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 14, 2002

Remarks by the President in Michigan Welcome

.....
September the 11th changed the equation, changed our thinking
. It also changed our thinking when we began to realize that one of the most dangerous things that can happen in the modern era is for a deceiving dictator who has gassed his own people, who has weapons of mass destruction to team up with an organization like al Qaeda.

As I said -- I was a little more diplomatic in my speech, but we need to --
we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind.....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 7, 2002

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat

.....Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20020928.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 28, 2002

Radio Address by the President to the Nation

.....The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.
The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq..

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/wo...3qaeda.html?hp
July 13, 2007
Bush Distorts Qaeda Links,
Critics Assert click to hide

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and JIM RUTENBERG

BAGHDAD, July 12 — In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,” he said, “were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”

It is an argument Mr. Bush has been making with frequency in the past few months, as the challenges to the continuation of the war have grown. On Thursday alone, he referred at least 30 times to Al Qaeda or its presence in Iraq.

But his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership.

Supporting Citations at these links:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...24&postcount=3

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=121564

Ustwo · 12-10-2007, 12:55 PM

Thanksgiving must be a hoot.

ottopilot · 12-10-2007, 01:32 PM

Ustwo · 12-10-2007, 01:58 PM

Don't forget the chick in my sig.

Charlatan · 12-10-2007, 02:13 PM

Ustwo, your contempt for this position is clear. However, if you would like to engage host in debate about it, please do so in a manner that offers at least a modicum of respect.

The Thanksgiving shot is not appropriate.

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-10-2007, 02:25 PM

They are still in office because they haven't been indicted on any crimes. You find a law they broke go for it.

Although I personally think you would probably be smart to note that Bush as president is allowed to act in good faith, thus making his actions in Iraq completely legal. Barring that you would never be able to impeach him as a result of politics.

But I suppose fruitlessly pissing and moaning, whilst not working for something actually worth while is the best course of action.

Ustwo · 12-10-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Ustwo, your contempt for this position is clear. However, if you would like to engage host in debate about it, please do so in a manner that offers at least a modicum of respect.

The Thanksgiving shot is not appropriate.

The thread is not a debate thread. Should I send my stepson who stands for nothing I believe in these one sided articles?

Please, where is the debate?

Its just the usual host hates Bush thread.

The_Jazz · 12-10-2007, 02:59 PM

1) I don't know your stepson well enough to begin to gauge his reaction. And it depends on what reaction you're aiming for. If you're willing to live with him being pissed off and incensed at your challenge to his pet ideals, then I don't see where you have anything to lose. However, if family harmony is important, then you may want to phrase the message in a loving way.

2) Why are they still in office? Because the Republicans were never going to vote for impeachment when they controlled Congress and the Democrats didn't and still don't have a good enough hold over their base of power to force impeachment in any sort of successful way. I'm not convinced that impeaching both would be a particularly good idea for the Democrats anyway since it would elevate Pelosi to POTUS and backfire on them in 2008, when they have at least a better than even shot at taking the office legitimately.

j8ear · 12-10-2007, 03:59 PM

MY thoughts on both your questions Host:

1. Of course you should send him your post{s}/research? Why wouldn't you?

2. Impeachment is really only an option when something worthy of impeachment transpires. That bar, obviously has not been surmounted.

-bear

Charlatan · 12-10-2007, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The thread is not a debate thread. Should I send my stepson who stands for nothing I believe in these one sided articles?

Please, where is the debate?

Its just the usual host hates Bush thread.

Then either hit the back button or answer his query. It doesn't have to be a debate. You can state your opinion without getting snide and personal.

Again, the Thanksgiving comment was not cool, regardless of whether or not this is an "I hate Bush thread". The one line comments are not appropriate.

If you don't like what Host is saying and feel the urge to say something about it, engage him as others have done here.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that you agree with him.

Elphaba · 12-10-2007, 04:16 PM

host, your stepson has expressed an interest and I would choose only impeccable sources (if any exist) to make your case. He has quite literally invested his life in the beliefs that he currently holds and I do not think he will reconsider those beliefs easily. Criticism of the CiC is also problematic as it is contrary to the soldier's creed.

I confess that I am pessimistic about your hope to provide information that would cause your stepson to rethink some of his beliefs, but I sincerely wish you success in the attempt. I think it is far more likely that his opinions have been formed by his peers and can only be altered by his peers and the experiences they share.

_______________________

Ustwo, in that a discussion is in progress your opinion of the OP would appear to be irrelevant.

genuinegirly · 12-10-2007, 04:25 PM

I don't think it would be right to send these to your step-son.

Seems as though it would be along the same lines as when my aunt used to send my mother anti-Mormon literature as she was converting to Mormonism. It was something my mother sighed at, then tried to get over. But it hurt.

Telling your step-son, "I can't support you in this," is hurt enough. Sending him literature to back it up, no matter how researched - will most likely not wake him up to the harm around him.

IF he personally asks to see your research, simply because such information has not been made available to him - then, yes, it would be right to send him these things and more. Otherwise, keep mum.

samcol · 12-10-2007, 04:59 PM

I think you should send it to him. When I see someone getting ripped off or lied to I feel like I'm obligated to say something.

It might cause more hurt feelings, but it's the right thing to do imo.

ottopilot · 12-10-2007, 05:33 PM

ShaniFaye · 12-10-2007, 05:43 PM

You know its always amazing to me the stuff I read here from those "against" and the personal conversations I have with people actually serving in the military. I can honestly say I have not talked to one single military person that doesnt think like your son. Im not saying those people arent out there, Im just saying that in the areas of my life where I know military people...they 100% agree that people who think like host are holding them back from accomplishing anything over there

They are the ones in the middle of this, they are the ones that day after day see for themselves what is going on and have to handle the situations that come up. They are the ones sweating and dying for a cause they believe in....do you really think you're going to change his opinion? And even if you were able to, dont you think that would put him in a bad situation?

I really dont think sending him any of that would benefit in anyway at all.

Skutch · 12-10-2007, 06:21 PM

Perhaps you two never got along anyway, but I would advise separating the professional from the personal, for the sake of the family.

dc_dux · 12-10-2007, 07:21 PM

It appears, at least from one recent poll of military families, that many of these families share sentiments that are close to Host's.

Quote:

Families with ties to the military, long a reliable source of support for wartime presidents, disapprove of President Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq, with a majority concluding the invasion was not worth it, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The views of the military community, which includes active-duty service members, veterans and their family members, mirror those of the overall adult population, a sign that the strong military endorsement that the administration often pointed to has dwindled in the war's fifth year.

Nearly six out of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush's job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does.

And among those families with soldiers, sailors and Marines who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60% say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, the same result as all adults surveyed.
...
Patience with the war, which has now lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in World War II, is wearing thin -- particularly among families who have sent a service member to the conflict. One-quarter say American troops should stay "as long as it takes to win." Nearly seven in 10 favor a withdrawal within the coming year or "right away."

Military families are only slightly more patient: 35% are willing to stay until victory; 58% want the troops home within a year or sooner.

Here, too, the military families surveyed are in sync with the general population, 64% of whom call for a withdrawal by the end of next year.
...
Asked about the Bush administration's handling of the needs of active-duty troops, military families and veterans, 57% of the general public disapprove. That number falls only slightly among military families -- 53% give a thumbs-down.

And most military families and others surveyed took no exception to retired officers publicly criticizing the Bush administration's execution of the war. More than half of the respondents in both groups -- 58% -- say such candor is appropriate. Families with someone who had served in the war are about equally supportive at 55%.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...a-news-comment

Willravel · 12-10-2007, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Host

Why are these two guys still POTUS and VP?

It has a lot to do with the Democrats being able to come together to remove them from office because they're scared shitless that a Republican might win in 2009 (despite the fact that it'd probably make their candidates look stronger). There simply aren't enough Kuciniches.

dc_dux · 12-10-2007, 07:33 PM

will (and host)....it has more to do with the Democrats recognizing that they cant remove them from office without significant Republican support. And without a real smoking gun that hasnt yet surfaced, that R support does not exist.

I'm one of the Democrats who doesnt think a show trial is in the best interest of the country. I would rather focus on the achievable.

But Host, I would encourage you to share the LA Times/Bloomberg poll with your stepson as a starting point for discussion and avoid the more strident talk that will only result in a greater chasm between the two of you.

You might also share the 2005 Military Times poll as a reference point for the start of the turn around of military families against Bush and his war policies.

Quote:

Support for President Bush and for the war in Iraq has slipped significantly in the last year among members of the military’s professional core, according to the 2005 Military Times Poll.

Approval of the president’s Iraq policy fell 9 percentage points from 2004; a bare majority, 54 percent, now say they view his performance on Iraq as favorable. Support for his overall performance fell 11 points, to 60 percent, among active-duty readers of the Military Times newspapers. Though support both for President Bush and for the war in Iraq remains significantly higher than in the public as a whole, the drop is likely to add further fuel to the heated debate over Iraq policy. In 2003 and 2004, supporters of the war in Iraq pointed to high approval ratings in the Military Times Poll as a signal that military members were behind President Bush’s the president’s policy.

The poll also found diminished optimism that U.S. goals in Iraq can be accomplished, and a somewhat smaller drop in support for the decision to go to war in 2003.

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2005_main.php

jorgelito · 12-10-2007, 10:34 PM

host, I don't think you should send him anything other than a care package.

It's not your message, it's the way you say it.

Wait for him to get back and talk to him in person. Tell him your views gently and in a civil manner. Treat him with respect. Do not shove pages and pages of quotes and links down his throat. Whatever you do, do NOT do it in the style of your posts here as it will most likely do more harm than good.

Good luck host and please be sure to wish him well and thank him for his service to our country. If you want to debate him, wait until he's safely home. Last thing he needs is that kind of friction and static from here.

In regards to question 2: I don't know. This administration has been such a debacle (my opinion, try not to flame me here folks) and the opposition so incompetent, it's a miracle our government functions at all. Quite frankly, I'm not so sure it is even worth the effort to try and impeach those two or try them for crimes against humanity. My consolation is that there is only one year left. In a perfect world, I would fire the entire government and start over. The potus, vp, everyone, all the impotent Congressmen. It's time for the Dems and Repubs to step down.

host · 12-11-2007, 12:14 PM

I appreciate all of your advice... I'm leaning now to not sharing quotes of president Bush and vice-president Cheney referring to "Zarqawi was in Iraq.... before we got there" with my step-son, along with reports that the "poison camp" located in the "no fly zone", in northern Iraq should be "taken out":

Quote:

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

Quote:

http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=8&gl=us

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, Feb 7, 2003
SHOWDOWN ON IRAQ

Why not hit terrorist camp?

Lawmakers question lack of military action

By GREG MILLER Los Angeles Times

Friday, February 7, 2003

<h3>Washington -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell spent a significant part of his presentation to the United Nations this week describing a terrorist camp in northern Iraq</h3> where al-Qaida affiliates are said to be training to carry out attacks with explosives and poisons.

But neither Powell nor other administration officials answered the question: What is the United States doing about it?

Lawmakers who have attended classified briefings on the camp say that they have been stymied for months in their efforts to get an explanation for why the U.S. has not launched a military strike on the compound near the village of Khurmal. Powell cited its ongoing operation as one of the key reasons for suspecting ties between Baghdad and the al-Qaida terror network.

The lawmakers put new pressure on the Bush administration on Thursday to explain its decision to leave the facility unharmed.

"Why have we not taken it out?" Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) asked Powell during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. "Why have we let it sit there if it's such a dangerous plant producing these toxins?"

Powell declined to answer, saying he could not discuss the matter in open session.

"I can assure you that it is a place that has been very much in our minds. And we have been tracing individuals who have gone in there and come out of there," Powell said.

Absent an explanation from the White House,
some officials suggested <h3>the administration had refrained from striking the compound in part to preserve a key piece of its case against Iraq.

"This is it, this is their compelling evidence for use of force," said one intelligence official, who asked not to be identified. "If you take it out, you can't use it as justification for war."....</h3>

......A White House spokesman said Thursday he had no immediate comment on the matter.

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060910.html

.....Q Then why in the lead-up to the war was there the constant linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's a different issue. Now, there's a question of whether or not al Qaeda -- whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11; separate and apart from that is the issue of whether or not there was a historic relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. The basis for that is probably best captured in George Tenet's testimony before the Senate intel committee in open session, where he said specifically that there was a pattern, a relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and al Qaeda......

........we know that Zarqawi, running a terrorist camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, after we went into 9/11 -- then fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02......

.........Zarqawi was in Baghdad after we took Afghanistan and before we went into Iraq. You had the facility up at Kermal, a poisons facility run by an Ansar al-Islam, an affiliate of al Qaeda......

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20070524.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 24, 2007

Press Conference by the President

...David.

Q Mr. President, after the mistakes that have been made in this war, when you do as you did yesterday, where you raised two-year-old intelligence, talking about the threat posed by al Qaeda, it's met with increasing skepticism. The majority in the public, a growing number of Republicans, appear not to trust you any longer to be able to carry out this policy successfully. Can you explain why you believe you're still a credible messenger on the war?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm credible because I read the intelligence, David, and make it abundantly clear in plain terms that if we let up, we'll be attacked. And I firmly believe that....

...Failure in Iraq will cause generations to suffer, in my judgment. Al Qaeda will be emboldened. They will say, yes, once again, we've driven the great soft America out of a part of the region. It will cause them to be able to recruit more. It will give them safe haven. They are a direct threat to the United States.

And I'm going to keep talking about it. That's my job as the President, is to tell people the threats we face and what we're doing about it. And what we've done about it is we've strengthened our homeland defenses, we've got new techniques that we use that enable us to better determine their motives and their plans and plots. We're working with nations around the world to deal with these radicals and extremists. But they're dangerous, and I can't put it any more plainly they're dangerous. And I can't put it any more plainly to the American people and to them, we will stay on the offense.

It's better to fight them there than here. And this concept about, well, maybe let's just kind of just leave them alone and maybe they'll be all right is naive. These people attacked us before we were in Iraq. They viciously attacked us before we were in Iraq, and they've been attacking ever since. They are a threat to your children, David, and whoever is in that Oval Office better understand it and take measures necessary to protect the American people.....

<h3>Considering the following, does what the president said, above, make any sense?</h3>

Quote:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...s-release.html
Brian Ross and Rehab El-Buri Report:

Saudi Arabia has released 1,500 prisoners suspected of belonging to a radical Islamic group after the prisoners underwent what was described as a five-week counseling program, according to Middle Eastern newspapers.

Critics of the prisoner reform program worry it does nothing to seriously combat Islamic radicalism and releases dangerous extremists back into society.

"This is the sort of failure to recognize the threat and deal with it seriously that has characterized the Saudis for years," said former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant.

Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.

The released prisoners are described as followers of the rigid Takfir ideology and considered by many U.S. intelligence officials to be prime recruiting material for al Qaeda groups.

According to a Saudi newspaper, the Takfir group calls for establishing an Islamic state, kicking non-Muslims out of the Arabian Peninsula and considers other Muslim leaders, scholars and the general Muslim public disbelievers.

The Saudi newspaper, Al-Watan, publicized the massive prisoner release on Sunday, saying the Saudi Ministry of Interior spearheaded the effort in 2005 by holding 5,000 meetings with about 3,200 suspected Takfir members. The New York Sun first reported the development in the United States.

The Saudi Embassy and Ministry of Interior did not respond to repeated attempts for comment.

The committee charged with reforming Takfir suspects told Al-Watan it uses 100 Islamic law specialists and 30 social and psychological experts to counsel the prisoners. After the suspects met in groups of 20 for five weeks and completed an exam, the committee awarded the prisoners certificates -- and their freedom.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?hp
Foreign Fighters in Iraq Are Tied to Allies of U.S.

By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
Published: November 22, 2007

BAGHDAD — Saudi Arabia and Libya, both considered allies by the United States in its fight against terrorism, were the source of about 60 percent of the foreign fighters who came to Iraq in the past year to serve as suicide bombers or to facilitate other attacks, according to senior American military officials.....

...The most significant discovery was a collection of biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for more than 700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006.

The records also underscore how the insurgency in Iraq remains both overwhelmingly Iraqi and Sunni. American officials now estimate that the flow of foreign fighters was 80 to 110 per month during the first half of this year and about 60 per month during the summer. The numbers fell sharply in October to no more than 40, partly as a result of the Sinjar raid, the American officials say.

Saudis accounted for the largest number of fighters listed on the records by far — 305, or 41 percent — American intelligence officers found as they combed through documents and computers in the weeks after the raid. The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through....

...In contrast to the comparatively small number of foreigners, more than 25,000 inmates are in American detention centers in Iraq. Of those, only about 290, or some 1.2 percent, are foreigners, military officials say....

Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/200707181...97,print.story
<br>Saudis' role in Iraq insurgency outlined Sunni extremists from Saudi Arabia make up half the foreign fighters in Iraq, many suicide bombers, a U.S. official says.
By Ned Parker
Times Staff Writer

July 15, 2007

BAGHDAD — Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.

<h3>About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia</h3>; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer. Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.....

But....I have to ask...if the information above does not rise to a high enough level to cause concern grave enough to risk putting it in front of my step-son, <h3>what information would be grave enough</h3> a contradiction to what he believes, vs. what actually seems to be happening, to risk the possible repercussions from exposing him to it?

This issue of whether to show him this information, or not, would not even exist if it were not for the fact that he vehemently blogs about the "traitorous left"....that criticism of the war in Iraq is (from his blog):

Quote:

The agenda of the anti-war crowd is to bring down the Bush administration and leave the accountability for the war's failure at his hands and those who supported it. Instead of going on the record and ending the war outright, they will do everything possible to make it impossible to win and even wage war. The bottom line is that they do not want to be responsible for losing the war. If they vote to bring the troops and end the war, it will all be on them.

When I say that they hate America I firmly mean that. I do question their patriotism. We are not debating whether or not we should have gone into Iraq. We are debating what to do right now, as we are there. To cut off support for the mission and therefore the troops and make them bleed a slow death until President Bush is forced to bring them back because Congress has so handcuffed our generals puts our troops in more danger. This is anti-American. America stands for freedom and liberty and honor. To cut and run and leave an ally is against all of those principles. To force an end to a war in this manner that would sacrifice more lives in order to achieve political advantage (by not being responsible for ultimately pulling the troops out when making achieving victory impossible) is evil.

The posts of Mojo and ottopilot have been most persuasive in confirming to me that people who believe what my step-son articulated above, are probably beyond persuasion, no matter how persuasive I believe the information I can offer them, is or isn't.

Elphaba · 12-11-2007, 06:57 PM

It would appear from your stepson's blog that he is unwilling to discuss how we came to be in Iraq, but rather what is to be done now that we are there. I would concentrate the discussion to this current state, not that any easy answers are there to be given.

ottopilot · 12-11-2007, 09:22 PM

Plan9 · 12-11-2007, 09:27 PM

As someone who's been deployed twice: There is no truth in the desert. Only the need for hope that going home will be better than being in the wastes.

ottopilot · 12-11-2007, 09:39 PM

blktour · 12-11-2007, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

You know its always amazing to me the stuff I read here from those "against" and the personal conversations I have with people actually serving in the military. I can honestly say I have not talked to one single military person that doesnt think like your son. Im not saying those people arent out there, Im just saying that in the areas of my life where I know military people...they 100% agree that people who think like host are holding them back from accomplishing anything over there

They are the ones in the middle of this, they are the ones that day after day see for themselves what is going on and have to handle the situations that come up. They are the ones sweating and dying for a cause they believe in....do you really think you're going to change his opinion? And even if you were able to, dont you think that would put him in a bad situation?

I really dont think sending him any of that would benefit in anyway at all.

me being in the military (army) and being deployed, we do not look that deep into it.

we dont look at the cause or that stuff. we look at it, as we are all in "shit" together, so we all make the best of it. we all take care of eachother.
how to make our lives easier in that place.

the only ones that really felt that they were "doing great things." were the younger troops, the ignorant troops, that took all that the higher ups told them. not having a mind thier own.

i NEVER saw any of my fellow troops that said, "man it feels good to be here" or "man i liked helping this haji." "we are doing great things here."

they wanted to do their time. that was it. everyone i know in the military doesnt believe what we are over there for, but we understand that we signed that paper that says they can do with us, what they want. so we try to make the best of it.

it has nothing to do with him going over there or not. it has to do with his opened mind. if he is stubborn, (like most military men are.) then do not show him. it will just get him mad.

what the ones that got sent over there hate the most is when someone that didnt see what they saw, tell them anything about what they think about it.

we have a right to say things about what we saw and did and how we felt about being over there. why? because we had to suffer through it.
we dont want anything but to know you respect our way of seeing it. thats it.

we are not better than the next man. we made a choice and we made the best of it.

Elphaba · 12-12-2007, 02:55 PM

Great post, blktour. I won't forget it.

host · 12-13-2007, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blktour

me being in the military (army) and being deployed, we do not look that deep into it.

we dont look at the cause or that stuff. we look at it, as we are all in "shit" together, so we all make the best of it. we all take care of eachother.
how to make our lives easier in that place.

the only ones that really felt that they were "doing great things." were the younger troops, the ignorant troops, that took all that the higher ups told them. not having a mind thier own.

i NEVER saw any of my fellow troops that said, "man it feels good to be here" or "man i liked helping this haji." "we are doing great things here."

they wanted to do their time. that was it. everyone i know in the military doesnt believe what we are over there for, but we understand that we signed that paper that says they can do with us, what they want. so we try to make the best of it.

it has nothing to do with him going over there or not. it has to do with his opened mind. if he is stubborn, (like most military men are.) then do not show him. it will just get him mad.

what the ones that got sent over there hate the most is when someone that didnt see what they saw, tell them anything about what they think about it.

we have a right to say things about what we saw and did and how we felt about being over there. why? because we had to suffer through it.
we dont want anything but to know you respect our way of seeing it. thats it.

we are not better than the next man. we made a choice and we made the best of it.

Thank you, blktour. I think I am going to take your advice.

You met your obligations in your enlistment contract, and you supported the people who you served with.

I respect your inclination to sign up to "serve your country", your discipline and accomplishments during training and in your subsequent service, just as I do that of my stepson. His mother (my wife) and I are extremely proud of him and what he accomplished during his 30 months of training.

I hope that you have not let your experience make you too cynical to go out of your way to offer what you described in your post to a wider audience.

I cannot accept that there is not more outrage in our country in reaction to the info posted below, and the quotes in my earlier posts that "our leaders" so brazenly maintain, to this day. on our government websites.

Could this be why nothing has happened?

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...ice/index.html
We are the Thought Police
Orwell's Big Brother never showed up. Instead of centralized Iraq war propaganda, we have an America in which the public and the press jointly impose their own controls.

Editor's note: This essay is excerpted from the anthology <a href="http://www.thereyougoagain.org/book.html">"What Orwell Didn't Know: Propaganda and the New Face of American Politics,"</a> edited by András Szántó. A related <a href="http://www.thereyougoagain.org/conference.html">conference on journalism and public discourse takes place at the New York Public Library on Nov. 7.</a>

By Michael Massing

Nov. 06, 2007 | At first glance, the war in Iraq would seem to represent the realization of George Orwell's darkest fears. In "Politics and the English Language," he expressed alarm over how political speech and language, degraded by euphemism, vagueness, and cliché, <h3>was used to defend the indefensible, to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.</h3> Three years later, in "1984," Orwell offered an even grimmer vision, one in which an all-powerful Party, working through an all-seeing Ministry of Truth, manipulates and intimidates the public by pelting it with an endless series of distorted and fabricated messages.

The Bush administration, in pushing for the war in Iraq, seems to have done much the same. It concocted lurid images to stir fear ("weapons of mass destruction," the prospect that the "smoking gun" could become a "mushroom cloud"). It asserted as fact information known to be false (the purported ties between Iraq and al Qaeda). It clipped and cropped intelligence data to fit its policy goals (dropping important qualifiers from the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq). It worked up snippets and scraps of unsubstantiated evidence into a slick package of deception and misrepresentation <h3>(Colin Powell's speech at the United Nations).</h3> And it created a whole glossary of diversionary terms -- "preemptive war" for unprovoked aggression, "shock and awe" for a devastating bombing campaign, "coalition" for an invading force that was overwhelmingly American -- all of which helped win the White House broad domestic support for a war that most of the rest of the world had decisively rejected.

Yet in many key respects, the Iraq war has diverged from Orwell's dystopic vision. Orwell had expected advances in technology to allow the ruling elite to monopolize the flow of information and through it to control the minds of the masses. In reality, though, those advances have set off an explosion in the number and diversity of news sources, making efforts at control all the harder to achieve. The 24-hour cable news channels, the constantly updated news Web sites, news aggregators like Google News, post-it-yourself sites such as YouTube, ezines, blogs, and digital cameras have all helped feed an avalanche of information about world affairs. In Iraq, reporters embedded with troops have been able via the Internet to file copy directly from the field. Through "milblogs," soldiers have been able to share with the outside world their impressions about their experiences on the ground. Even as the war has dragged on, it has given rise to a shelf-full of revealing books, written by not only generals and journalists but also captains, lieutenants, privates, national guardsmen, and even deserters.

In short, no war has been more fully chronicled or minutely analyzed than this one. <h3>And, as a result, the Bush administration has been unable to spin it as it would like.</h3> The spreading insurgency, the surging violence, the descent into chaos -- all have been thoroughly documented by journalists and others, and public support for the war has steadily ebbed as a result.

Yet even amid this information glut, the public remains ill-informed about many key aspects of the war. This is due less to any restrictions imposed by the government, or to any official management of language or image, <h3>than to controls imposed by the public itself. Americans -- reluctant to confront certain raw realities of the war -- have placed strong filters and screens on the facts and images they receive..... so it sets limits on what it is willing to hear about them.</h3> The Press -- ever attuned to public sensitivities -- will, on occasion, test those limits, but generally respects them. The result is an unstated, unconscious, but nonetheless potent co-conspiracy between the public and the press to muffle some important truths about the war. In a disturbing twist on the Orwellian nightmare, the American people have become their own thought police, purging the news of unwanted and unwelcome features with an efficiency that government censors and military flacks can only envy.

Sometimes the public defines its limits by expressing outrage. The running of a story that seems too unsettling, or the airing of an image that seems too graphic, can set off a storm of protest -- from Fox News and the Weekly Standard, bloggers and radio talk-show hosts, military families and enraged citizens -- all denouncing the messenger as unpatriotic, un-American, even treasonous. In this swirl of menace and hate, even the most determined journalist can feel cowed..

..In the Arab news media, this ongoing slaughter receives constant coverage. In the American media, it receives very little. One can watch the evening news shows for nights on end, one can scour U.S. papers week after week, and not find any acknowledgment of the many civilians who have been killed by GIs. Writing in the Washington Post in July 2006, Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of international relations at Boston University and the author of two highly regarded studies of U.S. foreign policy, expressed dismay at the indifference shown by both the military and the American public toward the ongoing slaughter of Iraqi noncombatants by U.S. soldiers. Observing that nobody has even bothered to keep a tally of the victims, Bacevich surmised from his own readings that the number "almost certainly runs in the tens of thousands." Aside from the obvious moral questions this raises, he went on, the violence against civilians has undermined America's policies in Iraq and the Mideast generally by "suggesting to Iraqis and Americans alike that Iraqi civilians -- and perhaps Arabs and Muslims more generally -- are expendable."

How can such a critical feature of the U.S. occupation remain so hidden from view? Because most Americans don't want to know about it. <h3>The books by Iraqi vets are filled with expressions of disbelief and rage at the lack of interest ordinary Americans show for what they've had to endure on the battlefield.</h3> In "Operation Homecoming," one returning Marine, who takes to drinking heavily in an effort to cope with the crushing guilt and revulsion he feels over how many people he's seen killed, fumes about how "you can't talk to them [ordinary Americans] about the horror of a dead child's lifeless mutilated body staring back at you from the void, knowing you took part in that end." <h3>Writing of her return home, Kayla Williams notes that the things most people seemed interested in were "beyond my comprehension. Who cared about Jennifer Lopez?</h3> How was it that I was watching CNN one morning and there was a story about freaking ducklings being fished out of a damn sewer drain -- while the story of soldiers getting killed in Iraq got relegated to this little banner across the bottom of the screen?" In "Generation Kill," by the journalist Evan Wright, a Marine corporal confides his anguish and anger over all the killings he has seen: "I think it's bullshit how these fucking civilians are dying! They're worse off than the guys that are shooting at us. They don't even have a chance. Do you think people at home are going to see this -- all these women and children we're killing? Fuck no. Back home they're glorifying this motherfucker, I guarantee you."

"Generation Kill" recounts Wright's experiences traveling with a Marine platoon during the initial invasion. The platoon was at the very tip of the spear of the invasion force, and Wright got a uniquely close-up view of the fighting. In most U.S. news accounts, the invasion was portrayed as a relatively bloodless affair, with few American casualties and not many more civilian ones. Wright offers a starkly different tale. While expressing admiration for the Marines' many acts of valor and displays of compassion, he marvels at the U.S. military's ferocious fire-power and shudders at the startling number of civilians who fell victim to it. He writes of neighborhoods being leveled by mortar rounds, of villages being flattened by air strikes, of innocent men, women, and children being mowed down in free-fire zones. At first, Wright notes, the Marines found it easy, even exciting, to kill, but as the invasion progressed and the civilian toll mounted, many began to recoil, and some even broke down. "Do you realize the shit we've done here, the people we've killed?" one Marine agonizes. "Back home in the civilian world, if we did this, we would go to prison."

In an interview he gave soon after the publication of his book, Wright said that his main aim in writing it was to deglamorize the war -- and war in general. The problem with American society, he said, "is we don't really understand what war is. Our understanding of it is too sanitized." For the past decade, he explained, "we've been steeped in the lore of The Greatest Generation" -- Tom Brokaw's book about the men who fought in World War II -- "and a lot of people have developed this romanticism about that war. They tend to remember it from the Life magazine images of the sailor coming home and kissing his fiancée. They've forgotten that war is about killing." In "Generation Kill," he noted, he wanted to show how soldiers kill and wound civilians. In some cases, he said, the U.S. military justified such killings by the presence of Iraqi fedayeen fighters among the civilian population, but, he added, "when you see a little girl in pretty clothes that someone dressed her in, and she's smushed on the road with her legs cut off, you don't think, 'Well, you know, there were Fedayeen nearby and this is collateral damage. They're just civilians.'" The "real rule of war that you learn -- and this was true in World War II -- is that people who suffer the most are civilians," Wright said. "You're safest if you're a soldier. I'm haunted by the images of people that I saw killed by my country."

As Wright suggests, the sanitizing of news in wartime is nothing new. In most wars, nations that send their men and women off to fight in distant lands don't want to learn too much about the violence being committed in their name. Facing up to this would cause too much shame, would deal too great a blow to national self-esteem. If people were to become too aware of the butchery wars entail, they would become much less willing to fight them..

...In his reflections on politics and language, Orwell operated on the assumption that people want to know the truth. Often, though, they don't. In the case of Iraq, the many instruments Orwell felt would be needed to keep people passive and uninformed -- the nonstop propaganda messages, the memory holes, the rewriting of history, Room 101 -- have proved unnecessary. The public has become its own collective Ministry of Truth -- a reality that, in many ways, is even more chilling than the one Orwell envisioned.

<h3>So what do we make of the following information, fellow members? Should I stop, now, should I give it up? </h3>

Quote:

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/bios/zarqawi_bio.html
(Near the top of the page..)
....Long before the Iraq war, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell was aware of a poisons and explosives training center in

northeastern Iraq that the al-Zarqawi network was running....

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=130169
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130169&page=1

<h3>Bush Calls Off Attack on Poison Gas Lab
Calls Off Operation to Take Out Al Qaeda-Sponsored Poison Gas Lab</h3>
By John McWethy

W A S H I N G T O N, Aug. 20 (2002)

President Bush called off a planned covert raid into northern Iraq late last week that was aimed at a small group of al Qaeda

operatives who U.S. intelligence officials believed were experimenting with poison gas and deadly toxins, according to

administration officials.

The experiments were being run under orders from a senior al Qaeda official who was providing money and guidance from elsewhere in

the region.

U.S. officials familiar with the joint CIA and Pentagon operation said they were concerned they might be dealing with what could

have been a budding chemical weapons laboratory.

Intelligence sources said the al Qaeda operatives were under the protection of a small radical Kurdish group called Ansar al

Islam. It is a radical Islamic faction closely allied with al Qaeda that operates in a part of northern Iraq controlled by Kurds.

Since the Persian Gulf War, the United States has operated a so-called no-fly zone over much of northern Iraq to protect the Kurds

from Saddam Hussein's periodic crackdowns. <h3>U.S. officials say they have no evidence Saddam's government had any knowledge of the

al Qaeda operation.</h3>

Most of the experiments, sources say, involved a poison called ricin, a byproduct of the widely available castor bean plant.

"It is quite toxic, probably seven times more toxic than phosgene, which was a chemical weapon used in World War I," said Jonathan

Tucker, director of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Program at the Monterrey Institute of International

Studies.

Once a person is exposed to sufficient quantities, by inhalation or ingestion, ricin is deadly. "There is currently no treatment

and no vaccine for ricin exposure," Tucker explained.

It is especially appealing to a terrorist group because it is relatively easy to make, easy to handle and is not expensive.

As a potential weapon of terror, ricin is considered most deadly in a closed room or building, where nearly everyone could die.

In World War I, the British experimented by putting ricin in artillery shells and bombs, but they never used it on the

battlefield.

Tested on a Man

Intelligence sources told ABCNEWS there is evidence the terrorists tested ricin in water, as a powder and as an aerosol. They used

it to kill donkeys, chickens and at one point allegedly exposed a man in an Iraqi market.

They then followed him home and watched him die several days later, sources said.

As U.S. surveillance intensified, officials concluded the operation was not a major threat to the United States and definitely not

a sophisticated laboratory.

Instead, it appeared to be a few terrorists with relatively small amounts of poisons who were being encouraged to experiment by al

Qaeda managers elsewhere in the region.

<h3>In the final analysis, the White House, Pentagon and CIA concluded it was not worth risking American lives to go after these

people and not worth the adverse publicity that would surely follow any U.S. operation inside Iraq.</h3>

But as part of this operation, intelligence analysts did discover that al Qaeda money was again flowing, that new people had

stepped in to manage and encourage far-flung projects like this one offering glimpses of a terrorist network trying to put

itself back together again.

Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/200308060...on/6082423.htm

Posted on Sun, Oct. 27, 2002
Some in Bush administration have misgivings about Iraq policy
by Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott
Knight Ridder

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon and the CIA are waging a bitter feud over secret intelligence that is being used to shape U.S. policy

toward Iraq, according to current and former U.S. officials.

The dispute has been fueled by the creation within the Pentagon of a special unit that provides senior policymakers with alternate

assessments of Iraq intelligence.

Administration hawks who have been leading proponents of invading Iraq oversee the Pentagon unit, which is producing its own

analyses of raw intelligence reports obtained from the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and other agencies, the officials said.

The dispute pits hardliners long distrustful of the U.S. intelligence community against professional military and intelligence

officers who fear the hawks are shaping intelligence analyses to support their case for invading Iraq.

A major source of contention is the Pentagon's heavy reliance on data supplied by the Iraqi National Congress. The INC, the

largest group within the divided Iraqi opposition, has a mixed reputation in Washington and a huge stake in whether President Bush

makes good on his threat to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam by force. Its leader, Ahmed Chalabi, sees himself as a potential successor.

At issue in the battle are the most basic questions behind Bush's threatened invasion.

They include whether Iraq is linked to the al-Qaida terrorist network; whether Iraqi troops would fight or surrender; and under

what conditions Saddam would use chemical and biological weapons.

The feud also reveals long-standing divisions over U.S. intelligence capabilities.....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
U.S. Effort to Link Terrorists To Iraq Focuses on Jordanian

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
February 5, 2003; Page A17

Abu Musab Zarqawi, a 36-year-old, Jordanian-born Palestinian terrorist, has become the focus of the Bush administration's

allegations of a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.

When Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presents his case against Saddam Hussein before the United Nations Security Council this

morning, "one small section on terrorists" will contain intelligence on links between the Iraqi leader and terrorists and will

feature Zarqawi, according to a senior administration official.

On Oct. 20, 2002, President Bush gave a major speech in Cincinnati outlining the Iraqi threat. His example of high-level contacts

between Iraqi and al Qaeda leaders was "one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and

who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks." He was referring to Zarqawi, according to background

information provided by White House officials.

<h3>U.S. intelligence officials have said up to now that they had no direct evidence that Zarqawi met with Iraqi leaders, but last

October when that question was raised, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters that it was "unrealistic" to assume that

Iraqi authorities did not know of Zarqawi's presence in Baghdad.</h3>

In his State of the Union speech last month, Bush said "evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements

by people now in custody" reveals that "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." That

reference, too, was to Zarqawi, officials said.

Last Thursday, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage was asked

for evidence "about direct connections between Saddam and al Qaeda." He replied by describing a person "resident in Baghdad" who

"apparently orchestrated" the killing of Laurence Foley, a U.S. diplomat who was shot in Amman, Jordan, on Oct. 28. That, too, was

a reference to Zarqawi.

On Dec. 3, two suspects in the Foley killing were arrested by Jordanian police. Jordanian officials said the two, one a Jordanian

and the other a Libyan, confessed to killing Foley and belonging to al Qaeda. According to a senior administration official, the

two said they were "followers" of Zarqawi. Jordanian sources told reporters in Amman that the two said Zarqawi supplied them with

guns, explosives and money to carry out attacks on embassies and foreign diplomats.

Before the senators, Armitage implied that Saddam through Zarqawi was involved in the Foley killing by talking about "our belief

that if Saddam Hussein can pass them [weapons of mass destruction] to people who will do us ill without being caught, he will do

it."

Armitage added that Zarqawi "will be part of the information that Secretary Powell is going to impart in some more detail."

Zarqawi "is a significant bad guy in the al Qaeda network," a senior intelligence official said recently. But the Jordanian

appears to be the only individual named so far to make the link to Iraq after more than a year of major investigations in which "a

good deal of attention has been paid to what extent a connection may exist between al Qaeda and Iraq," another administration

official said yesterday.

Zarqawi, who was trained in Afghanistan when the fight was still against the Russians, emerged in 1999 when he was linked to a

foiled attempt by al Qaeda to bomb the Radisson SAS Hotel in Amman as part of a millennium bombing plot. He was eventually

convicted in absentia and placed on Jordan's most-wanted list.

In 2001 he reportedly was wounded in the leg in Afghanistan while fighting against U.S. and Northern Alliance forces and sought

sanctuary in Iran. By that time, U.S. intelligence began describing him as an expert in chemical and biological weapons.

In March 2002, Israeli and U.S. intelligence sources described meetings in Lebanon at which al Qaeda leaders talked with

representatives of the Islamic Resistance Movement and Hezbollah, two groups that carried out terrorist operations against Israel.

Israeli sources have identified Zarqawi as an al Qaeda leader who was in Iran under the protection of Iranian security forces.

In June, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld accused Iran of being "a haven for some terrorists leaving Afghanistan." U.S.

officials cited Zarqawi as an example of the people Rumsfeld said were being permitted to stay in Iran.

In August 2002, Jordan learned that Zarqawi was in Baghdad, where his wounded leg was amputated and replaced with an artificial

one, according to U.S. intelligence sources. When Jordan asked Baghdad to turn Zarqawi over as a wanted criminal, the al Qaeda

leader left the country, the official said. U.S. intelligence does not know where he went, sources said.

Since that time, Zarqawi has been identified by Kurds in Northern Iraq as someone who had met with the Ansar el-Islam terrorist

groups in that area that were developing biological weapons such as ricin. In January, after the arrests in London of suspected

terrorists also turned up traces of ricin, investigators said there appeared to be links to Zarqawi.

The chief of the German Federal Intelligence Service's terrorism section in November described Zarqawi as "a man to take note of

if it concerns Germany and Europe."

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030205-1.html
For Immediate Release
February 5, 2003

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the U.N. Security Council

.... My friends, the information I have presented to you about these terrible weapons and about Iraq's continued flaunting of its

obligations under Security Council Resolution 1441 links to a subject I now want to spend a little bit of time on. And that has to

do with terrorism.
Colin Powell slide 38
Slide 38

Our concern is not just about these elicit weapons. It's the way that these elicit weapons can be connected to terrorists and

terrorist organizations that have no compunction about using such devices against innocent people around the world.

Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam uses

the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the Intifada. And

it's no secret that Saddam's own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s.

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida

terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly

terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants.

Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he

oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialities and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition

ousted the Taliban, the Zarqaqi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is

located in northeastern Iraq.
Colin Powell slide 39
Slide 39

POWELL: You see a picture of this camp.

The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a

pinch--image a pinch of salt--less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock followed by

circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure. It is fatal.
Colin Powell slide 40
Slide 40

Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled

Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of

Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered Al Qaida safe haven in the region. After we swept Al Qaida from Afghanistan, some of its members

accepted this safe haven. They remain their today.

Zarqawi's activities are not confined to this small corner of north east Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical

treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another

day click to show

With this track record, Iraqi denials of supporting terrorism take the place alongside the other Iraqi denials of weapons of mass

destruction. It is all a web of lies.

When we confront a regime that harbors ambitions for regional domination, hides weapons of mass destruction and provides haven and

active support for terrorists, we are not confronting the past, we are confronting the present. And unless we act, we are

confronting an even more frightening future........

Quote:

http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=8&gl=us
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, Feb 7, 2003 by GREG MILLER

SHOWDOWN ON IRAQ

Why not hit terrorist camp?

Lawmakers question lack of military action

By GREG MILLER Los Angeles Times

Friday, February 7, 2003

Washington -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell spent a significant part of his presentation to the United Nations this week

describing a terrorist camp in northern Iraq where al-Qaida affiliates are said to be training to carry out attacks with

explosives and poisons.

But neither Powell nor other administration officials answered the question: What is the United States doing about it?

Lawmakers who have attended classified briefings on the camp say that they have been stymied for months in their efforts to get

an explanation for why the U.S. has not launched a military strike on the compound near the village of Khurmal. Powell cited its

ongoing operation as one of the key reasons for suspecting ties between Baghdad and the al-Qaida terror network.

The lawmakers put new pressure on the Bush administration on Thursday to explain its decision to leave the facility unharmed.

"Why have we not taken it out?" Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) asked Powell during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. "Why

have we let it sit there if it's such a dangerous plant producing these toxins?"

Powell declined to answer, saying he could not discuss the matter in open session.

<h3>"I can assure you that it is a place that has been very much in our minds. And we have been tracing individuals who have gone in

there and come out of there," Powell said.

Absent an explanation from the White House, some officials suggested the administration had refrained from striking the compound

in part to preserve a key piece of its case against Iraq.

"This is it, this is their compelling evidence for use of force," said one intelligence official, who asked not to be identified. </h3>

"If you take it out, you can't use it as justification for war."....

Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/200304012...?bid=3&pid=371
Capital Games By David Corn
Powell's One Good Reason To Bomb Iraq--UPDATED
02/06/2003 @ 12:12am

.....But here's the first question that struck me after Powell's presentation: <h3>why hasn't the United States bombed the so-called Zarqawi camp shown in the slide? The administration obviously knows where it is, and Powell spoke of it in the present tense.</h3> If it is an outpost of chemical weapons and explosives development for al Qaeda, why not take it out, especially since it is situated within a part of Iraq uncontrolled by any national government? The United States has fighter jets patrolling the northern no-fly zone in Iraq. Cruise missiles can easily reach the area. This part of Powell's briefing reinforced a crucial point: al Qaeda is the pressing danger at the moment. The most direct way to strike al Qaeda would be to hit this camp, rather than invade Iraq. So bombs away, but only for this target--regardless of what the French might say.

[UPDATE: After Powell's presentation, it seemed that his information on the Iraq-Zarqawi-al Qaeda nexus indeed was slim. The Washington Post interviewed "a number of European officials and U.S. terrorism experts and reported that "Powell's description" of this link "appeared to have been carefully drawn to imply more than it actually said. 'You're left to just hear the nouns, and put them together,' said Judith S. Yaphe, a senior felow at the National Defense University who worked for 20 years as a a CIA analyst." The newspaper noted, "A senior administration official with knowledge of the intelligence information said that evidence had not yet established that Baghdad had any operational control over Zarqawi's netowork, or over any transfer of funds or materiel to it." And days following Powell's address, Ansar al Islam allowed reporters to visit the camp that Powell had connected to Zarqawi and described as a poisons and explosives factory. The New York Times' C.J.Chivers, one of the journalists permitted into the camp, reported that he and his colleagues "found a wholly unimpressive place--a small and largely undeveloped cluster of buildings that appeared to lack substantial industrial capacity. For example, the structures did not have plumbing and had only the limited electricity supplied by a generator." The State Department stuck by Powell's description. But could it be that the reason the United States has not bombed this camp is that it's not worth bombing? ]

Powell, for his purposes, made good use of the material he had. He demonstrated that Saddam was defying the United Nations. He described patterns of behavior that would allow a reasonable person to assume that Iraq has been trying to hide some kinds of chemical and biological weapons. But he shared no hard data confirming Iraq has these evil goods in dangerous supplies. (He did note that four defectors have said Saddam has developed mobile bio-weapons labs in trucks that cannot be easily detected. Defector testimony is traditionally iffy, but this claim deserves further investigation.) Powell suggested but did not substantiate the existence of an al Qaeda-Iraq collaboration. .Such a presentation should have been the start of a debate over what to do, <h3>rather than the initiation of an endgame that seems predetermined.</h3>

Quote:

http://drezner.blogspot.com/2003_03_...r_archive.html
March 12, 2003

Posted by Daniel
IRAQ, AL QAEDA, AND A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR THE SECURITY COUNCIL: This <a href="
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12762-2003Mar11?language=printer">Washington Post story</a> provides some excellent detail on the precise link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The first few grafs:

"Most of the estimated 100 Arab extremists reported to have found a haven in this rocky corner of northern Iraq began arriving early last year, a few weeks after losing their camps in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

The Halabja Valley, their destination, is one of the more obscure places in the world, about 35 miles southeast of Sulaymaniyah and close to the mountainous border with Iran. A U-shaped enclave just inside Iraq had been taken over by radical Islamic Kurds, the Ansar al-Islam, who fielded an estimated 900 fighters and regarded the two secular Kurdish organizations who run the rest of northern Iraq as their enemies.

The Ansar-run pocket, although only 10 to 15 square miles, was the ideal place to hide out. Residents at nearby Anab, just north of Halabja on the road to Sulaymaniyah, noticed how intently their new neighbors guarded their privacy but did nothing to disturb it. The newcomers, they say, kept to a village reserved for Arabs, appeared in the market only to buy provisions and buried their dead in their own cemetery.

Since then...Colin L. Powell and other Bush administration officials have highlighted the foreign fighters' presence in the Ansar enclave in an effort to link Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization and the government of President Saddam Hussein, which controls Iraq south of the Kurdish-administered zone but has little influence here. Citing interrogations of Ansar members who were taken prisoner, Kurdish political officials confirm that the group sent a steady stream of trainees to the camps that al Qaeda operated in Afghanistan until U.S. forces ended Taliban rule there at the end of 2001."

Now, this piece makes two things clear. First, contrary to many skeptics' assertions, there is an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. Second, it's also clear that Saddam Hussein has little to do with this presence. At worst, Hussein's policy on Al Qaeda might be characterized as benign neglect -- he's not helping them but he doesn't mind them being in parts of Iraq he can't control. There might be other reasons to support regime change in Iraq, but the Al Qaeda connection is a weak reed.

However, there's military action short of regime change. At a minimum, the Post story would seem to justify an offensive to knock out Ansar al-Islam and retake the Halabja Valley. This leads to an intriguing question. <h3>Given the obvious link between achieving this objective and the war on terror, and given the assertions by France and others that credible evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda would justify use of force, would the Security Council be willing to approve U.S. military action in this area?</h3> [So you think this would be an acceptable substitute to a whole-scale invasion?--ed. No, I still support an invasion. But securing Security Council support for this phase of operations might be an good stop-gap proposal].

This would be an excellent test of where exactly the French and Germans stand. Is their opposition to Iraq based on a blind determination to counter U.S. power, or is there some nuance to their stance?

<h3>So what did Powell's Feb., 2003 UN presentation to the entire world, to justify invading Iraq, contain that was accurate?</h3>

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/
Former aide: Powell WMD speech 'lowest point in my life'

August 23, 2005

(CNN) -- A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.

"I wish I had not been involved in it," says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life."...

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...awi/index.html

..A U.S. official said Tuesday that al-Zarqawi traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for treatment of a leg injury but, contrary to previous reports, appears not to have had a leg amputated. The official would not discuss the reason for the change in assessment.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...641717320.html
Who killed Nick Berg?
May 29, 2004

....Also, the US Secretary of State, Powell, has said that al-Zarqawi was fitted with a prosthetic leg in a Baghdad hospital, yet the tape shows no evidence of a limp. CNN staff familiar with al-Zarqawi's voice have been quoted as saying the voice does not sound like his....

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FJ15Ak02.html
Oct 15, 2004

Zarqawi - Bush's man for all seasons
By Pepe Escobar

.......Cheney also insisted that Zarqawi could not have had his leg treated in a Baghdad hospital without Saddam's Mukhabarat (secret service) knowing it. But the leg story is a mess. US intelligence thought that Zarqawi had lost a leg in Afghanistan in 2002. But then, last May, they concluded that he still had both legs. The Bush administration's "evidence" of an al-Qaeda-Saddam link via Zarqawi may be an intercepted phone call by Zarqawi from a Baghdad hospital in 2002, while his leg was being attended to. But then "Zarqawi" shows up in a video with both legs in the 2004 beheading of hostage Nick Berg.

The truth is more straightforward. Zarqawi had no connection either with bin Laden or with Saddam. Secular Saddam hosting an Islamic radical, of all people, at a time when the American campaign against the "axis of evil" had reached a fever-pitch is a ludicrous proposition. A newspaper editor in the Sunni triangle says Zarqawi may have gone on an underground trip to Baghdad to have his leg operated on before scurrying back to Kurdistan. And sources in Peshawar confirm to Asia Times Online that Zarqawi never took the all-significant bayat (oath of allegiance) and so never struck a formal alliance with bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership...

Are we all dead inside? Where are the demands to bring Bush and Cheney to justice?

n0nsensical · 12-13-2007, 05:11 AM

I dunno man, in Berkeley you can't walk down the street without seeing an Impeach Bush and Cheney sign, or even better on a good day, someone ranting about Bush and Cheney. It's the rest of the country that's the problem. They all live in some alternate Fox News reality where the Iraq war is NOT a scheme to funnel tax money to Halliburton & co. while using the time-honored political tradition of boosting approval and power through war. The suits rule this country and the sheeple go along because I guess it makes no real difference to them. Its like how the kings used to rule Europe and fight little wars amongst themselves because they had nothing better to do. With professional armies too, the knights. The peasants? Shit, it don't matter to them, they're only concerned with not starving this winter, and if some of them happen to get raped and/or pillaged what are they gonna do about it anyway?

ottopilot · 12-13-2007, 07:34 AM

Ustwo · 12-13-2007, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n0nsensical

I dunno man, in Berkeley you can't walk down the street without seeing an Impeach Bush and Cheney sign, or even better on a good day, someone ranting about Bush and Cheney. It's the rest of the country that's the problem. They all live in some alternate Fox News reality where the Iraq war is NOT a scheme to funnel tax money to Halliburton & co. while using the time-honored political tradition of boosting approval and power through war. The suits rule this country and the sheeple go along because I guess it makes no real difference to them. Its like how the kings used to rule Europe and fight little wars amongst themselves because they had nothing better to do. With professional armies too, the knights. The peasants? Shit, it don't matter to them, they're only concerned with not starving this winter, and if some of them happen to get raped and/or pillaged what are they gonna do about it anyway?

When only Berkeley is doing it, perhaps the problem isn't the rest of the country.

I applaud you for not using Faux news but I take three points away for using sheeple.

I think what people like you fail to realize is that highly educated, self aware, independently thinking people like me, just do not agree with you . You have no monopoly on truth or reason.

roachboy · 12-13-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

I think what people like you fail to realize is that highly educated, self aware, independently thinking people like me, just do not agree with you . You have no monopoly on truth or reason.

this is funny.
what does it mean?
let's think about it for a few minutes, shall we?

when it suits a conservative purpose, some folk on the right are all about notions like "objectivity" and "responsibility" from which you would assume follows a commitment to accurate information and a willingness to admit mistakes and/or problems and/or even bigger dysfunctions---but then, when it suits a conservative purpose, you see these same folk defending absolute relativism, a kind of "my premises are my premises and because they are my premises they are mine and you can't falsify them."

the maintenance tool is a kind of hydra that springs from the usage of the term "liberal biais" which operates as a mechanism that enables the dismissal of information you dont like. "the liberal" is a perverse being that follows the conservative around, negating whatever is said, just by standing it on its head. so a conservative will argue "x" and at the same instant, somewhere in space, "the liberal" will argue "-x"....the timing is amazing---it's like "the liberal" is everywhere and takes what conservatives say as his or her sole objects of attention. every conservative is a world-historical figure, so every conservative draws down the zeitgeist upon themselves, the positivities and their negation, all at once. it is, i imagine, a burden.

and "the liberal" is assumed to flourish best in particular, controlled hives. one of these is named berkeley.

so nonsensical was doomed from the beginning.

anyway, you see this in the above--the claim here is that conservatives have their own special type of "truth and reason" when it is convenient to have such things, and the validity of this special type rests on the claim which precedes it in the sentence:

"I think what people like you fail to realize is that highly educated, self aware, independently thinking people like me.."

so what holds this together is the self-image of the believer.

when it is convenient, one's "independently thinking"-ness is demonstrated by simply refusing to acknowledge dissonance. in this way, such operators maintain consistency of worldview in the face of mountains of evidence that, if admitted, would trigger a movement like "self-awareness" (in the sense that checking for errors in a proof is not the same operation as you see deployed in the proof). this is a form of independence, i guess....but i think of it as independence in the sense that a balloon has it when you let float into space.

investment in this machinery is not uniform, though, even amongst folk who identify as conservative. because any coalition encompasses a range of people, there are necessarily a range of meanings attached to the characterization "highly educated, self aware, independently thinking people" and not all of them believe that there are at least two separate types of reason, one for conservatives and another for everyone else, that is, for "the liberal"....no, this is a particular understanding of how one goes about being conservative.

it doesn't do justice to the tradition of conservative thinking.
but that is a topic for another post someday.

host · 12-13-2007, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

When only Berkeley is doing it, perhaps the problem isn't the rest of the country. ....

.....I think what people like you fail to realize is that highly educated, self aware, independently thinking people like me, just do not agree with you . You have no monopoly on truth or reason.

Ustwo, below is a timeline of news reports and quotes in chronological order. The question is, what would a reasonable person believe, after reading them?

I just did the following, and considering the information contained in the timeline, if it is all accurate, and I have no reason to believe that it isn't...please point me to contrary info of the same or similar standing, what I did is reasonable. Can the same be said for the last sentence in your post?

I just sent this email to ABC News:

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/BrianRoss/page?id=3247430
Considering ABC news reporting of August 20, 2002

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=130169
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130169&page=1

Bush Calls Off Attack on Poison Gas Lab
Calls Off Operation to Take Out Al Qaeda-Sponsored Poison Gas Lab

By John McWethy

W A S H I N G T O N, Aug. 20 (2002)

President Bush called off a planned covert raid into northern Iraq late last week that was aimed at a small group of al Qaeda

operatives who U.S. intelligence officials believed were experimenting with poison gas and deadly toxins, according to administration officials....

and your reporter, Martha Raddatz's September 15, 2006 questioning of president Bush,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html
Sept. 15, 2006

......MARTHA: Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda.
A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And yet a month ago, you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that?
Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?

BUSH: The point I was making to Ken Herman’s question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror,
and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq
. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan.
I never said there was an operational relationship.....

<h3>why hasn't ABC news gone to the lengths of "filling in the gaps", as I have in this forum post displayed here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...85#post2361885

Martha Raddatz has unusual access to the president during a series of lengthy interviews she is currently doing with him, it has been reported. </h3>

In view of the information displayed at my link, would it not be appropriate for her to ask the president why, in view of the loss of life in Iraq of both Americans and Iraqis, and the decision to invade that country predicated on the statements, before and after, of both the president and vice president Cheney, and the damage their statements and Colin Powell's February, 2003 presentation to the UN have done to their own credibility and to the credibility of the US among the community of nations, it would not be appropriate to demand that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney immediately resign from office?

Thank you,
Real Name
tel# xxx-xxx-xxxx

Quote:

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/bios/zarqawi_bio.html
(Near the top of the page..)
....Long before the Iraq war, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell was aware of a poisons and explosives training center in

northeastern Iraq that the al-Zarqawi network was running....

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=130169
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130169&page=1

Bush Calls Off Attack on Poison Gas Lab
Calls Off Operation to Take Out Al Qaeda-Sponsored Poison Gas Lab

By John McWethy

W A S H I N G T O N, Aug. 20 (2002)

President Bush called off a planned covert raid into northern Iraq late last week that was aimed at a small group of al Qaeda

operatives who U.S. intelligence officials believed were experimenting with poison gas and deadly toxins, according to

administration officials....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20020928.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 28, 2002

Radio Address by the President to the Nation

.....The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.
The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq..

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 7, 2002

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat

.....Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030128-19.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 28, 2003

President Delivers "State of the Union"

.....With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.
Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.........

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
U.S. Effort to Link Terrorists To Iraq Focuses on Jordanian

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
February 5, 2003; Page A17

Abu Musab Zarqawi, a 36-year-old, Jordanian-born Palestinian terrorist, has become the focus of the Bush administration's

allegations of a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.

....U.S. intelligence officials have said up to now that they had no direct evidence that Zarqawi met with Iraqi leaders, but last

October when that question was raised, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters that it was "unrealistic" to assume that

Iraqi authorities did not know of Zarqawi's presence in Baghdad....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030205-1.html
For Immediate Release
February 5, 2003

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the U.N. Security Council

.... My friends, the information I have presented to you about these terrible weapons and about Iraq's continued flaunting of its

obligations under Security Council Resolution 1441 links to a subject I now want to spend a little bit of time on. And that has to

do with terrorism.....

....Iraq today harbors a deadly

terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants.

Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he

oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialities and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition

ousted the Taliban, the Zarqaqi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is

located in northeastern Iraq.
Colin Powell slide 39
Slide 39

POWELL: You see a picture of this camp.

The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a

pinch--image a pinch of salt--less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock followed by

circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure. It is fatal.
Colin Powell slide 40
Slide 40

Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled

Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of

Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered Al Qaida safe haven in the region. After we swept Al Qaida from Afghanistan, some of its members

accepted this safe haven. They remain their today.....

Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/200304012...?bid=3&pid=371
Capital Games By David Corn
Powell's One Good Reason To Bomb Iraq--UPDATED
02/06/2003 @ 12:12am

.....But here's the first question that struck me after Powell's presentation:
why hasn't the United States bombed the so-called Zarqawi camp shown in the slide? The administration obviously knows where it is, and Powell spoke of it in the present tense.

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030206-17.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 6, 2003

President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment"

.... One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists, who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. The network runs a poison and explosive training center in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. The head of this network traveled to Baghdad for medical treatment and stayed for months. Nearly two dozen associates joined him there and have been operating in Baghdad for more than eight months.

The same terrorist network operating out of Iraq is responsible for the murder, the recent murder, of an American citizen, an American diplomat, Laurence Foley. ......

Quote:

http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=8&gl=us
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, Feb 7, 2003 by GREG MILLER

SHOWDOWN ON IRAQ

Why not hit terrorist camp?

Lawmakers question lack of military action

By GREG MILLER Los Angeles Times

Friday, February 7, 2003

Washington -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell spent a significant part of his presentation to the United Nations this week

describing a terrorist camp in northern Iraq where al-Qaida affiliates are said to be training to carry out attacks with

explosives and poisons.

<h3>"Why have we not taken it out?" Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) asked Powell during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. "Why

have we let it sit there if it's such a dangerous plant producing these toxins?"

Powell declined to answer, saying he could not discuss the matter in open session.

"I can assure you that it is a place that has been very much in our minds. And we have been tracing individuals who have gone in

there and come out of there," Powell said.

Absent an explanation from the White House, some officials suggested the administration had refrained from striking the compound

in part to preserve a key piece of its case against Iraq.

"This is it, this is their compelling evidence for use of force," said one intelligence official, who asked not to be identified. </h3>

But neither Powell nor other administration officials answered the question: What is the United States doing about it?....

Quote:

http://drezner.blogspot.com/2003_03_...r_archive.html

March 12, 2003

Posted by Daniel
IRAQ, AL QAEDA, AND A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR THE SECURITY COUNCIL: This <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/%3Cbr%20/%3Ehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12762-2003Mar11?language=printer">Washington Post story</a> provides some excellent detail on the precise link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The first few grafs:

"Most of the estimated 100 Arab extremists reported to have found a haven in this rocky corner of northern Iraq began arriving early last year, a few weeks after losing their camps in Afghanistan under the Taliban....

....Since then...Colin L. Powell and other Bush administration officials have highlighted the foreign fighters' presence in the Ansar enclave in an effort to link Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization and the government of President Saddam Hussein, which controls Iraq south of the Kurdish-administered zone but has little influence here. Citing interrogations of Ansar members who were taken prisoner, Kurdish political officials confirm that the group sent a steady stream of trainees to the camps that al Qaeda operated in Afghanistan until U.S. forces ended Taliban rule there at the end of 2001."

Now, this piece makes two things clear. First, contrary to many skeptics' assertions, there is an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. Second, it's also clear that Saddam Hussein has little to do with this presence. At worst, Hussein's policy on Al Qaeda might be characterized as benign neglect -- he's not helping them but he doesn't mind them being in parts of Iraq he can't control. There might be other reasons to support regime change in Iraq, but the Al Qaeda connection is a weak reed.

<h3>However, there's military action short of regime change.</h3> At a minimum, the Post story would seem to justify an offensive to knock out Ansar al-Islam and retake the Halabja Valley. This leads to an intriguing question....

.....Given the obvious link between achieving this objective and the war on terror, and given the assertions by France and others that credible evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda would justify use of force, would the Security Council be willing to approve U.S. military action in this area?
[So you think this would be an acceptable substitute to a whole-scale invasion?--ed. No, I still support an invasion. But securing Security Council support for this phase of operations might be an good stop-gap proposal].

This would be an excellent test of where exactly the French and Germans stand. Is their opposition to Iraq based on a blind determination to counter U.S. power, or is there some nuance to their stance?....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060320-7.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2006

THE PRESIDENT:..We also did say that Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. .....but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 21, 2006

Press Conference by the President
White House Conference Center Briefing Room

......Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which
you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would --who had relations with Zarqawi.....

Quote:

http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroo....cfm?id=262690
News from Senator Carl Levin of Michigan
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 8, 2006

The President says Saddam had a relationship with Zarqawi.
The Senate Intelligence Committee found that the CIA concluded in 2005 that “the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.”

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060910.html
September 10, 2006

.....Q Then why in the lead-up to the war was there the constant linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's a different issue. Now, there's a question of whether or not al Qaeda -- whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11; separate and apart from that is the issue of whether or not there was a historic relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. The basis for that is probably best captured in George Tenet's testimony before the Senate intel committee in open session, where he said specifically that there was a pattern, a relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and al Qaeda......

........we know that Zarqawi, running a terrorist camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, after we went into 9/11 -- then fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02......

.........Zarqawi was in Baghdad after we took Afghanistan and before we went into Iraq. You had the facility up at Kermal, a poisons facility run by an Ansar al-Islam, an affiliate of al Qaeda......

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060912-2.html
Office of the Press Secretary
September 12, 2006

Press Briefing by Tony Snow

...Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?

MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.

Q There was a link --

MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. .. No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.

Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?

MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it.

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html
Sept. 15, 2006

......MARTHA: Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda.
A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And yet a month ago, you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that?
Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?

BUSH: The point I was making to Ken Herman’s question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror,
and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq
. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan.
I never said there was an operational relationship.....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...061019-10.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
October 19, 2006

Satellite Interview of the Vice President by WSBT-TV, South Bend, Indiana
2nd Congressional District -
Representative Chris Chocola

........Q Are you saying that you believe fighting in Iraq has prevented terrorist attacks on American soil? And if so, why, since there has not been a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq established?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. Mr. Zarqawi, who was the lead terrorist in Iraq for three years, fled there after we went into Afghanistan. He was there before we ever went into Iraq. The sectarian violence that we see now, in part, has been stimulated by the fact of al Qaeda attacks intended to try to create conflict between Shia and Sunni......

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070405-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
April 5, 2007

Interview of the Vice President by Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show
Via Telephone

1:07 P.M. EDT

Q It's always a great privilege to have the Vice President, Dick Cheney, with us. Mr. Vice President, welcome once again to our program.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, Rush. It's good to be back on......

.....Q It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08 is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes. But they're going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill -- and, thus, official government language -- of that term. Does that give you any indication of their motivation or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure -- well, it's just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton; I worked closely with Ike when I was Secretary of Defense. He's Chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike is a good man. He's just dead wrong about this, though. Think about -- just to give you one example, Rush, remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, al Qaeda affiliate; ran a training camp in Afghanistan for al Qaeda, then migrated -- after we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the al Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene, and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni. This is al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq....

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/wo...3qaeda.html?hp
July 13, 2007
Bush Distorts Qaeda Links,
Critics Assert click to hide

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and JIM RUTENBERG

BAGHDAD, July 12 — In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,” he said, “were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”

It is an argument Mr. Bush has been making with frequency in the past few months, as the challenges to the continuation of the war have grown. On Thursday alone, he referred at least 30 times to Al Qaeda or its presence in Iraq.

But his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership...

Ustwo · 12-13-2007, 01:03 PM

Quote:

this is funny.
what does it mean?
let's think about it for a few minutes, shall we?

I'm going to show why I'm superior to Ustwo

Quote:

when it suits a conservative purpose, some folk on the right are all about notions like "objectivity" and "responsibility" from which you would assume follows a commitment to accurate information and a willingness to admit mistakes and/or problems and/or even bigger dysfunctions---but then, when it suits a conservative purpose, you see these same folk defending absolute relativism, a kind of "my premises are my premises and because they are my premises they are mine and you can't falsify them."

Conservatives will demand the truth unless it doesn't suit their purposes.

Quote:

the maintenance tool is a kind of hydra that springs from the usage of the term "liberal biais" which operates as a mechanism that enables the dismissal of information you dont like. "the liberal" is a perverse being that follows the conservative around, negating whatever is said, just by standing it on its head. so a conservative will argue "x" and at the same instant, somewhere in space, "the liberal" will argue "-x"....the timing is amazing---it's like "the liberal" is everywhere and takes what conservatives say as his or her sole objects of attention. every conservative is a world-historical figure, so every conservative draws down the zeitgeist upon themselves, the positivities and their negation, all at once. it is, i imagine, a burden.

Liberal bias is just what conservatives claim when they don't like something, and you can see just how silly they are, I also used the word zeitgeist, its in vogue these days.

Quote:

and "the liberal" is assumed to flourish best in particular, controlled hives. one of these is named berkeley.

self evident

Quote:

so nonsensical was doomed from the beginning.

Ustwo was going to use the conservative tricks to dismiss nonsensical.

Quote:

anyway, you see this in the above--the claim here is that conservatives have their own special type of "truth and reason" when it is convenient to have such things, and the validity of this special type rests on the claim which precedes it in the sentence:

Conservatives are illogical.

Quote:

"I think what people like you fail to realize is that highly educated, self aware, independently thinking people like me.."

so what holds this together is the self-image of the believer.

when it is convenient, one's "independently thinking"-ness is demonstrated by simply refusing to acknowledge dissonance. in this way, such operators maintain consistency of worldview in the face of mountains of evidence that, if admitted, would trigger a movement like "self-awareness" (in the sense that checking for errors in a proof is not the same operation as you see deployed in the proof). this is a form of independence, i guess....but i think of it as independence in the sense that a balloon has it when you let float into space.

Ustwo just ignores all the great evidence against his point of view because he conflicts with his own version of the world.

Quote:

investment in this machinery is not uniform, though, even amongst folk who identify as conservative. because any coalition encompasses a range of people, there are necessarily a range of meanings attached to the characterization "highly educated, self aware, independently thinking people" and not all of them believe that there are at least two separate types of reason, one for conservatives and another for everyone else, that is, for "the liberal"....no, this is a particular understanding of how one goes about being conservative.

Not everyone thinks there are just two ways of looking at an issue, the last line is unclear and most likely condescending.

Quote:

it doesn't do justice to the tradition of conservative thinking.
but that is a topic for another post someday.

Ustwo is a doodyhead.

roachy - First a couple of things, if you want responses to your posts I'd really recommend finding that shift key, it makes your sentences easier to read. Secondly quite writing like you are posting on a socialist web site. I know the style of such places is to use the biggest words and most convoluted way to make your point, but franky it shouldn't be a chore to read your posts and they are. You spend a lot of time and effort writing them, it would be nice if they were read. I can't be held accountable for misinterpreting what you say when you don't say it clearly and I'm sure we have missed many opportunities for discourse where I felt I didn't have the desire to dissect your posts.

Now for what I assume was the meat of your post. You misinterpreted my statement but understandably from your perspective. When someone states that perhaps the most notoriously liberal mecca in the US is one way and its everyone else who is wrong, they have already shown they do not accept other view points as valid, this is reinforced by calling them 'sheeple'. Its a dismissal of their motivations and intelligence. I was simply reinforcing that people like me are not 'sheeple'.

Now for your second point. I am surprised that me as a hard science guy need to remind someone in humanities that there is more than one way to interpret data. Its not ignoring its taking what is observed and coming to a different conclusion. For example.

Haliburton gets a no-bid contract in Iraq :
Liberal - Its because of Dick Cheney helping his friends line their pockets with blood money.
Conservative - Its because Haliburton has a very long and proven track record doing such tasks.

See same data, different conclusions.

I do get annoyed as much as anyone when the facts are the source of contention, but its the interpretation where real discourse can take place.

roachboy · 12-13-2007, 01:23 PM

thanks for translating the post, in your own way, ustwo.
it does less now.
good work.

================

on to the comments at the bottom of your post:

if what you say is true, and the matter at hand differences of interpretation of the same data, then why dont your posts reflect that?

generally, the way things work with your posts is either (a) stubborn restatement of the position that you started with or (b) substitution of other data that will then enable a restatement of the position you started with.

but if you're thinking behind the scenes is different than this, then why not write in ways that are closer to that---it'd be more interesting to have actual dialogue than the charade that we find ourselves playing--mutually--over and over and over.

it'd probably help the environment.
less gas emitted from two major sources (that would be yourself and me) can't be a bad thing.

======================
caveats, corrections:

like it or not, ustwo, i write too fast to worry about what you might make of my word choices. most of what i write is in shorthand, so it tends to get a bit abstract--but the words i use are technically correct, so i dont worry about that.
believe it or not, i talk like this.
worse still, i write like this.

so chalk it up to a quirk, like i chalk up your willingness to talk about yourself as part of some Elite Cadre within the bigger space of human beings.

just one of those irritatants in the world.
=======================

the posts that take longer to write are those that i'm not sure i ought to put up at all. most of them, i vaporize.

=======================

information as to usage: i use tfp politics mostly as a differentially engaging form of procrastination.
if it took me too long to write here, it wouldn't be functional.
so it doesn't take anywhere near the amount of time that you might imagine.

========================
on the capitals:
it's an aesthetic choice on my part and i'll stick with it for now.

here's why:
at the moment, i'm writing something for a conference.
what concerns me is that if i start writing here in a more formal mode, i'll start letting things bleed from my more formal stuff into here.

it's probably neurotic, but this is where it comes from.
well that and i dont like how caps look.

but i'll take it under advisement, and see what happens after this stupid project is done. maybe the choice has outlived its utility.

========================

another caveat: somewhere along the line, i blurred this thread into the "iran is developing nuclear weapons" thread....the post you react to probably should have been there. i blame not having yet had enough coffee.

=========================

o yeah--the notions of "world-historical figure" zeitgeist, positivity and negativity are all from hegel.
i didn't know that hegel was hip these days.
i must travel in the wrong circles.

n0nsensical · 12-13-2007, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

When only Berkeley is doing it, perhaps the problem isn't the rest of the country.

I applaud you for not using Faux news but I take three points away for using sheeple.

I think what people like you fail to realize is that highly educated, self aware, independently thinking people like me, just do not agree with you . You have no monopoly on truth or reason.

I realize you don't agree. That's why I'm here and you're there. Some people believe the world was created in 7 days. Who am I to argue? I wasn't there either.

The preponderance of evidence shows the Iraq war was planned from the beginning. Did Bush really believe it was the right thing, or was it just a scheme, or both? I don't know. I think both. These guys aren't so callous to simply plot to steal tax money, at least I don't think so, but they will do anything in the name of right and the war was, shall we say, convenient.

superposition · 12-13-2007, 07:33 PM

The original question was whether to send these articles.

No article can compare to what the troops see and hear in theater. The troops see the slow but steady progress in both Afghanistan and Iraq that the media fails to report. They also experience the frustration when progress is halted because suddenly the money stops.

Maybe you should listen to what he is saying on his blog (minus the hateful comments) - he knows what he is seeing with his own eyes.

dc_dux · 12-13-2007, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superposition

The original question was whether to send these articles.

No article can compare to what the troops see and hear in theater. The troops see the slow but steady progress in both Afghanistan and Iraq that the media fails to report. They also experience the frustration when progress is halted because suddenly the money stops.

Maybe you should listen to what he is saying on his blog (minus the hateful comments) - he knows what he is seeing with his own eyes.

When has the money ever stopped?

FY03 - $77 billion
FY04 - $72 billion
FY05 - $103 billion
FY06 - $117 billion
FY07 - $164 billion
FY08 - $188 billion (requested)
(The above figures are DoD war funding only; other war-related funding, like State Dept/AID, VA, not included)

Perhaps the frustration comes from lack of progress, a sense of futility, and no end in sight.

superposition · 12-13-2007, 08:16 PM

I saw plenty of progress.

In Iraq, I saw an environmental disaster caused by Saddams having dammed up a river to create a pretty lake completely reversed. I saw water restored to a place that had been dried out and dead. I saw Shia poeple who had been denied any sort of human dignity under that regime given the opportunity to go to school, to receive health care and hold positions in a democratically elected government. I saw sewage treatment facilities which hadn't functioned for 20 years begin cleaning the water again.

In Afghanistan, I saw girls go to school. I saw the first class of female nurses graduate in Kandahar City in more than 10 years. I saw the first working stoplight go in. I know that 50% of women now see a health professional at some point in their pregnancy when only 5% had before we went there. I drove on the ring road - you can go from Kandahar to Kabul in 8 hours now - before it took 3 days or more.

I also heard every October - everyone stays put until congress approves more funding - and sat on my hands for a month or more, watching while people needed our help.

Every soldier knows these things take time - look at Bosnia, or has everyone forgotten? It took 10 years to get that country straight, and they were in better shape than Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no quick fix.

dc_dux · 12-13-2007, 08:26 PM

I appreciate your service and your anectdotal experiences about schools and stoplights, etc., particularly since I have no first-hand knowledge. And I acknowledge the democratic elections as a good thing, although sharia law has much greater influence under the new Constitution in Iraq than ever before. The various extremist Shia religious leaders have far greater power and influence and the central government has been dysfunctional since its inception.

However reports from the Iraq Health Ministry, UN, Red Crescent and NGO relief organizations are pretty clear that the health conditions, particularly of children, are worse than during the Saddam regime. As are the water and sewer infrastructure (which explains in part the deteriorating health conditions) although they are slowly improving despite the massive corruption and fraud of US contractors and Iraqi government officials, at least according to reports from the DoD SIGIR.

The money has NEVER stopped, regardless of what you heard every October. There has been a continuous flow, mostly through emergency appropriations and continuing resolutions, rather than the annual (October) budget process. I may not have served in Iraq, but I am pretty well tuned in to the workings of Capitol Hill. If you had to "sit on your hands for a month or more," it was not because of a lack of authorized and appropriated funding, but rather because DoD has been a total fuck-up in providing the troops what they needed.

And Bosnia was "fixed" because of the Dayton Accords, not by maintaining a long-term massive US military presence. (Clinton forced the various parties in the sectarian conflict to negotiate a workable political solution unlike Bush who agreed to impose political benchmarks on the Iraqis then lowered the bar when they were not met) And like Bosnia, the "fix" in Iraq can only come about through political reconciliation among the Iraqis, not through long-term occupation by an unwanted foreign power.

12-10-2007, 12:55 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Thanksgiving must be a hoot. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-10-2007, 01:32 PM	#3 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 12:08 PM..

12-10-2007, 01:58 PM	#4 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Don't forget the chick in my sig. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-10-2007, 02:13 PM	#5 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Ustwo, your contempt for this position is clear. However, if you would like to engage host in debate about it, please do so in a manner that offers at least a modicum of respect. The Thanksgiving shot is not appropriate. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

12-10-2007, 02:25 PM	#6 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	They are still in office because they haven't been indicted on any crimes. You find a law they broke go for it. Although I personally think you would probably be smart to note that Bush as president is allowed to act in good faith, thus making his actions in Iraq completely legal. Barring that you would never be able to impeach him as a result of politics. But I suppose fruitlessly pissing and moaning, whilst not working for something actually worth while is the best course of action. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

12-10-2007, 02:59 PM	#8 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	1) I don't know your stepson well enough to begin to gauge his reaction. And it depends on what reaction you're aiming for. If you're willing to live with him being pissed off and incensed at your challenge to his pet ideals, then I don't see where you have anything to lose. However, if family harmony is important, then you may want to phrase the message in a loving way. 2) Why are they still in office? Because the Republicans were never going to vote for impeachment when they controlled Congress and the Democrats didn't and still don't have a good enough hold over their base of power to force impeachment in any sort of successful way. I'm not convinced that impeaching both would be a particularly good idea for the Democrats anyway since it would elevate Pelosi to POTUS and backfire on them in 2008, when they have at least a better than even shot at taking the office legitimately. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

12-10-2007, 03:59 PM	#9 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	MY thoughts on both your questions Host: 1. Of course you should send him your post{s}/research? Why wouldn't you? 2. Impeachment is really only an option when something worthy of impeachment transpires. That bar, obviously has not been surmounted. -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

12-10-2007, 04:16 PM	#11 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	host, your stepson has expressed an interest and I would choose only impeccable sources (if any exist) to make your case. He has quite literally invested his life in the beliefs that he currently holds and I do not think he will reconsider those beliefs easily. Criticism of the CiC is also problematic as it is contrary to the soldier's creed. I confess that I am pessimistic about your hope to provide information that would cause your stepson to rethink some of his beliefs, but I sincerely wish you success in the attempt. I think it is far more likely that his opinions have been formed by his peers and can only be altered by his peers and the experiences they share. _______________________ Ustwo, in that a discussion is in progress your opinion of the OP would appear to be irrelevant. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

12-10-2007, 04:25 PM	#12 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	I don't think it would be right to send these to your step-son. Seems as though it would be along the same lines as when my aunt used to send my mother anti-Mormon literature as she was converting to Mormonism. It was something my mother sighed at, then tried to get over. But it hurt. Telling your step-son, "I can't support you in this," is hurt enough. Sending him literature to back it up, no matter how researched - will most likely not wake him up to the harm around him. IF he personally asks to see your research, simply because such information has not been made available to him - then, yes, it would be right to send him these things and more. Otherwise, keep mum. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy Last edited by genuinegirly; 12-10-2007 at 06:15 PM..

12-10-2007, 04:59 PM	#13 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	I think you should send it to him. When I see someone getting ripped off or lied to I feel like I'm obligated to say something. It might cause more hurt feelings, but it's the right thing to do imo. __________________ It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

12-10-2007, 05:33 PM	#14 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 12:07 PM..

12-10-2007, 05:43 PM	#15 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	You know its always amazing to me the stuff I read here from those "against" and the personal conversations I have with people actually serving in the military. I can honestly say I have not talked to one single military person that doesnt think like your son. Im not saying those people arent out there, Im just saying that in the areas of my life where I know military people...they 100% agree that people who think like host are holding them back from accomplishing anything over there They are the ones in the middle of this, they are the ones that day after day see for themselves what is going on and have to handle the situations that come up. They are the ones sweating and dying for a cause they believe in....do you really think you're going to change his opinion? And even if you were able to, dont you think that would put him in a bad situation? I really dont think sending him any of that would benefit in anyway at all. __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

12-10-2007, 06:21 PM	#16 (permalink)
Skutch Crazy	Perhaps you two never got along anyway, but I would advise separating the professional from the personal, for the sake of the family.

12-10-2007, 10:34 PM	#20 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	host, I don't think you should send him anything other than a care package. It's not your message, it's the way you say it. Wait for him to get back and talk to him in person. Tell him your views gently and in a civil manner. Treat him with respect. Do not shove pages and pages of quotes and links down his throat. Whatever you do, do NOT do it in the style of your posts here as it will most likely do more harm than good. Good luck host and please be sure to wish him well and thank him for his service to our country. If you want to debate him, wait until he's safely home. Last thing he needs is that kind of friction and static from here. In regards to question 2: I don't know. This administration has been such a debacle (my opinion, try not to flame me here folks) and the opposition so incompetent, it's a miracle our government functions at all. Quite frankly, I'm not so sure it is even worth the effort to try and impeach those two or try them for crimes against humanity. My consolation is that there is only one year left. In a perfect world, I would fire the entire government and start over. The potus, vp, everyone, all the impotent Congressmen. It's time for the Dems and Repubs to step down.

12-11-2007, 06:57 PM	#22 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	It would appear from your stepson's blog that he is unwilling to discuss how we came to be in Iraq, but rather what is to be done now that we are there. I would concentrate the discussion to this current state, not that any easy answers are there to be given. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

12-11-2007, 09:22 PM	#23 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 12:07 PM..

12-11-2007, 09:27 PM	#24 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	As someone who's been deployed twice: There is no truth in the desert. Only the need for hope that going home will be better than being in the wastes. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

12-11-2007, 09:39 PM	#25 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 12:06 PM..

12-12-2007, 02:55 PM	#27 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Great post, blktour. I won't forget it. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

12-13-2007, 05:11 AM	#29 (permalink)
n0nsensical Junkie Location: San Francisco	I dunno man, in Berkeley you can't walk down the street without seeing an Impeach Bush and Cheney sign, or even better on a good day, someone ranting about Bush and Cheney. It's the rest of the country that's the problem. They all live in some alternate Fox News reality where the Iraq war is NOT a scheme to funnel tax money to Halliburton & co. while using the time-honored political tradition of boosting approval and power through war. The suits rule this country and the sheeple go along because I guess it makes no real difference to them. Its like how the kings used to rule Europe and fight little wars amongst themselves because they had nothing better to do. With professional armies too, the knights. The peasants? Shit, it don't matter to them, they're only concerned with not starving this winter, and if some of them happen to get raped and/or pillaged what are they gonna do about it anyway? __________________ "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln Last edited by n0nsensical; 12-13-2007 at 05:14 AM..

12-13-2007, 07:34 AM	#30 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 12:05 PM..

12-13-2007, 01:23 PM	#35 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	thanks for translating the post, in your own way, ustwo. it does less now. good work. ================ on to the comments at the bottom of your post: if what you say is true, and the matter at hand differences of interpretation of the same data, then why dont your posts reflect that? generally, the way things work with your posts is either (a) stubborn restatement of the position that you started with or (b) substitution of other data that will then enable a restatement of the position you started with. but if you're thinking behind the scenes is different than this, then why not write in ways that are closer to that---it'd be more interesting to have actual dialogue than the charade that we find ourselves playing--mutually--over and over and over. it'd probably help the environment. less gas emitted from two major sources (that would be yourself and me) can't be a bad thing. ====================== caveats, corrections: like it or not, ustwo, i write too fast to worry about what you might make of my word choices. most of what i write is in shorthand, so it tends to get a bit abstract--but the words i use are technically correct, so i dont worry about that. believe it or not, i talk like this. worse still, i write like this. so chalk it up to a quirk, like i chalk up your willingness to talk about yourself as part of some Elite Cadre within the bigger space of human beings. just one of those irritatants in the world. ======================= the posts that take longer to write are those that i'm not sure i ought to put up at all. most of them, i vaporize. ======================= information as to usage: i use tfp politics mostly as a differentially engaging form of procrastination. if it took me too long to write here, it wouldn't be functional. so it doesn't take anywhere near the amount of time that you might imagine. ======================== on the capitals: it's an aesthetic choice on my part and i'll stick with it for now. here's why: at the moment, i'm writing something for a conference. what concerns me is that if i start writing here in a more formal mode, i'll start letting things bleed from my more formal stuff into here. it's probably neurotic, but this is where it comes from. well that and i dont like how caps look. but i'll take it under advisement, and see what happens after this stupid project is done. maybe the choice has outlived its utility. ======================== another caveat: somewhere along the line, i blurred this thread into the "iran is developing nuclear weapons" thread....the post you react to probably should have been there. i blame not having yet had enough coffee. ========================= o yeah--the notions of "world-historical figure" zeitgeist, positivity and negativity are all from hegel. i didn't know that hegel was hip these days. i must travel in the wrong circles. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-13-2007 at 01:28 PM..

12-13-2007, 07:33 PM	#37 (permalink)
superposition Upright	The original question was whether to send these articles. No article can compare to what the troops see and hear in theater. The troops see the slow but steady progress in both Afghanistan and Iraq that the media fails to report. They also experience the frustration when progress is halted because suddenly the money stops. Maybe you should listen to what he is saying on his blog (minus the hateful comments) - he knows what he is seeing with his own eyes.

12-13-2007, 08:16 PM	#39 (permalink)
superposition Upright	I saw plenty of progress. In Iraq, I saw an environmental disaster caused by Saddams having dammed up a river to create a pretty lake completely reversed. I saw water restored to a place that had been dried out and dead. I saw Shia poeple who had been denied any sort of human dignity under that regime given the opportunity to go to school, to receive health care and hold positions in a democratically elected government. I saw sewage treatment facilities which hadn't functioned for 20 years begin cleaning the water again. In Afghanistan, I saw girls go to school. I saw the first class of female nurses graduate in Kandahar City in more than 10 years. I saw the first working stoplight go in. I know that 50% of women now see a health professional at some point in their pregnancy when only 5% had before we went there. I drove on the ring road - you can go from Kandahar to Kabul in 8 hours now - before it took 3 days or more. I also heard every October - everyone stays put until congress approves more funding - and sat on my hands for a month or more, watching while people needed our help. Every soldier knows these things take time - look at Bosnia, or has everyone forgotten? It took 10 years to get that country straight, and they were in better shape than Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no quick fix.

12-13-2007, 08:26 PM	#40 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I appreciate your service and your anectdotal experiences about schools and stoplights, etc., particularly since I have no first-hand knowledge. And I acknowledge the democratic elections as a good thing, although sharia law has much greater influence under the new Constitution in Iraq than ever before. The various extremist Shia religious leaders have far greater power and influence and the central government has been dysfunctional since its inception. However reports from the Iraq Health Ministry, UN, Red Crescent and NGO relief organizations are pretty clear that the health conditions, particularly of children, are worse than during the Saddam regime. As are the water and sewer infrastructure (which explains in part the deteriorating health conditions) although they are slowly improving despite the massive corruption and fraud of US contractors and Iraqi government officials, at least according to reports from the DoD SIGIR. The money has NEVER stopped, regardless of what you heard every October. There has been a continuous flow, mostly through emergency appropriations and continuing resolutions, rather than the annual (October) budget process. I may not have served in Iraq, but I am pretty well tuned in to the workings of Capitol Hill. If you had to "sit on your hands for a month or more," it was not because of a lack of authorized and appropriated funding, but rather because DoD has been a total fuck-up in providing the troops what they needed. And Bosnia was "fixed" because of the Dayton Accords, not by maintaining a long-term massive US military presence. (Clinton forced the various parties in the sectarian conflict to negotiate a workable political solution unlike Bush who agreed to impose political benchmarks on the Iraqis then lowered the bar when they were not met) And like Bosnia, the "fix" in Iraq can only come about through political reconciliation among the Iraqis, not through long-term occupation by an unwanted foreign power. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 12-13-2007 at 10:06 PM..