on the fabrications that were used to justify invading iraq - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 02-15-2011, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war

• Man codenamed Curveball 'invented' tales of bioweapons
• Iraqi told lies to try to bring down Saddam Hussein regime
• Fabrications used by US as justification for invasion

The defector who convinced the White House that Iraq had a secret biological weapons programme has admitted for the first time that he lied about his story, then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war.

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed Curveball by German and American intelligence officials who dealt with his claims, has told the Guardian that he fabricated tales of mobile bioweapons trucks and clandestine factories in an attempt to bring down the Saddam Hussein regime, from which he had fled in 1995.

"Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right," he said. "They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy."

The admission comes just after the eighth anniversary of Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations in which the then-US secretary of state relied heavily on lies that Janabi had told the German secret service, the BND. It also follows the release of former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld's memoirs, in which he admitted Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction programme.

The careers of both men were seriously damaged by their use of Janabi's claims, which he now says could have been – and were – discredited well before Powell's landmark speech to the UN on 5 February 2003.

The former CIA chief in Europe Tyler Drumheller describes Janabi's admission as "fascinating", and said the emergence of the truth "makes me feel better". "I think there are still a number of people who still thought there was something in that. Even now," said Drumheller.

In the only other at length interview Janabi has given he denied all knowledge of his supposed role in helping the US build a case for invading Saddam's Iraq.

In a series of meetings with the Guardian in Germany where he has been granted asylum, he said he had told a German official, who he identified as Dr Paul, about mobile bioweapons trucks throughout 2000. He said the BND had identified him as a Baghdad-trained chemical engineer and approached him shortly after 13 March of that year, looking for inside information about Saddam's Iraq.

"I had a problem with the Saddam regime," he said. "I wanted to get rid of him and now I had this chance."

He portrays the BND as gullible and so eager to tease details from him that they gave him a Perry's Chemical Engineering Handbook to help communicate. He still has the book in his small, rented flat in Karlsruhe, south-west Germany.

"They were asking me about pumps for filtration, how to make detergent after the reaction," he said. "Any engineer who studied in this field can explain or answer any question they asked."

Janabi claimed he was first exposed as a liar as early as mid-2000, when the BND travelled to a Gulf city, believed to be Dubai, to speak with his former boss at the Military Industries Commission in Iraq, Dr Bassil Latif.

The Guardian has learned separately that British intelligence officials were at that meeting, investigating a claim made by Janabi that Latif's son, who was studying in Britain, was procuring weapons for Saddam.

That claim was proven false, and Latif strongly denied Janabi's claim of mobile bioweapons trucks and another allegation that 12 people had died during an accident at a secret bioweapons facility in south-east Baghdad.

The German officials returned to confront him with Latif's version. "He says, 'There are no trucks,' and I say, 'OK, when [Latif says] there no trucks then [there are none],'" Janabi recalled.

He said the BND did not contact him again until the end of May 2002. But he said it soon became clear that he was still being taken seriously.

He claimed the officials gave him an incentive to speak by implying that his then pregnant Moroccan-born wife may not be able to travel from Spain to join him in Germany if he did not co-operate with them. "He says, you work with us or your wife and child go to Morocco."

The meetings continued throughout 2002 and it became apparent to Janabi that a case for war was being constructed. He said he was not asked again about the bioweapons trucks until a month before Powell's speech.

After the speech, Janabi said he called his handler at the BND and accused the secret service of breaking an agreement that they would not share anything he had told them with another country. He said he was told not to speak and placed in confinement for around 90 days.

With the US now leaving Iraq, Janabi said he was comfortable with what he did, despite the chaos of the past eight years and the civilian death toll in Iraq, which stands at more than 100,000.

"I tell you something when I hear anybody – not just in Iraq but in any war – [is] killed, I am very sad. But give me another solution. Can you give me another solution?

"Believe me, there was no other way to bring about freedom to Iraq. There were no other possibilities."

Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war | World news | The Guardian

if you go to the link there is an interview to be watched as well.

so in part i am posting this because it is the lead story in this morning's guardian. but there's nothing about this in the ny times or the washington post.

and the lead story on cnn starts this way:

Quote:

An IBM supercomputer named Watson finished one round of the TV show "Jeopardy!" on Monday night tied with one of his ...human competitors and $3,000 ahead of the other.

i find it a continual source of amazement the extent to which the american press has refused----just simply refused----to report on anything to do with the problems that the bush people created by lying their way into war in iraq. the uk has had the chilcot commission...but here?

nothing.

why is that?

the united states in neo-liberal land has become a place that cannot manage to find the integrity to address it's own recent past. it cannot find the vision to deal with it's present. it does, however, have an elaborate security-entertainment complex that keeps people amused.

what do you think of this admission?

for me it simply made concrete what everyone knew from jump...it puts a face on the fabrications and attaches to it a lineage. and it makes them even flimsier than was suspected. everyone knew the information was false. the bush administration did not care. it suited the purposes of the signatories of the project for a new american century that constituted the backbone---if you want to call it that----of the bush administration.

shouldn't there be **some** consequences for political figures who undertake a war on patently false pretenses?

Baraka_Guru · 02-15-2011, 07:23 AM

I did a quick sampling as well. The Guardian lists the story as an exclusive, but that shouldn't stop other news sources from reporting on it in due time, so I suppose it's a matter of waiting and seeing how this story breaks and develops.

I couldn't find it in headline news on the BBC or the CBC either. They are focusing on the Berlusconi prostitution probe.

I see that CNN has made prominent the Iranian lawmakers' call to execute opposition leaders in the face of protests.

It will be interesting to see if U.S. media overlooks or undervalues this Iraq war revelation and instead focuses on the usual kind of extremism going on in the Middle East. You know, always looking outward instead of inward to find a source of the problems in the world.

If anything, this isn't quite the case of a fascinating summary of media coverage. I think at this point this makes for a great media audit over the next few days to see if American media decides to cover more stuff about what's wrong with Iraq both past and present.

Cimarron29414 · 02-15-2011, 07:50 AM

As my personal politics have evolved over the years, I started at "right battle, wrong time" and arrived at "wrong battle." What I cannot understand is how the words of one man seemed to carry so much weight? This happens to all of us, we hear what we want to hear and we look no further. For most of us, the consequence is ignorance. In this case, the consequences were lives and treasure lost.

Seeing the uprisings around that region now, one must ask: had the battle of Iraq not occurred, would the Iraqis now be in the streets? Undoubtedly. Would it be like Egypt? Like Iran? Would they trade the past 8 years away for 8 more years of Saddam and a homegrown revolution now?

ottopilot · 02-15-2011, 03:35 PM

Quote:

I find it a continual source of amazement the extent to which the american press has refused----just simply refused----to report on anything to do with the problems that the bush people created by lying their way into war in iraq.

The best answer to this statrment comes from a beautiful quote by one of my favorite philosophers... Frank Zappa

Quote:

"Look here, brother, who you jivin' with that cosmik debris?"

Soo... all you Mystery Men... are we seriously going "there"? Yes, Bush did this all by his lonesome. So what about all the documented words and actions by dem, repub, and numerous world leaders who also orchestrated the Iraq war? It all went to shit and they are still ALL complicit. It may be inconvenient to remind everyone of these facts, but oh well. Back to the freakshow. Perhaps we can start a new Obama is not an American thread.

Charlatan · 02-15-2011, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

As my personal politics have evolved over the years, I started at "right battle, wrong time" and arrived at "wrong battle." What I cannot understand is how the words of one man seemed to carry so much weight? This happens to all of us, we hear what we want to hear and we look no further. For most of us, the consequence is ignorance. In this case, the consequences were lives and treasure lost.

It's always been my belief that the Bush administration *wanted* to invade Iraq (and wanted to do so, even prior to September 11, 2001). This defector was just used to lend some legitimacy to their actions.

roachboy · 02-15-2011, 04:25 PM

good zappa song tho.
reminds me of others.
st. alfonzo's pancake breakfast.
brown shoes don't make it.
plastic people.
but i digress.

the bush people were simply looking for an pretext to invade iraq. the rationale was the neo-con geopolitical nonsense put out by the project for a new american century. the theater of justification was as cynical as i've ever seen.

the chilcot commission demolished any remaining pretense of credibility to **any** of the claims that were presented at the time. and the strong-arming done by the bush people to force acquiescence to their little war is documented.

this is a matter of record, otto.
not opinion.

but the chilcot commission got almost no press in the united states either.

ASU2003 · 02-15-2011, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

It's always been my belief that the Bush administration *wanted* to invade Iraq (and wanted to do so, even prior to September 11, 2001). This defector was just used to lend some legitimacy to their actions.

I think they wanted to rebuild the military and use them.

I would also hope that there is more info that is classified from other sources that would back them up.

As for why the US media isn't reporting on it, I don't know. They give way too much time to certain stories and overlook others.

What I'm not sure about is why their weren't congressional hearings two years ago on this.

powerclown · 02-15-2011, 08:10 PM

Quote:

It's always been my belief that the Bush administration *wanted* to invade Iraq (and wanted to do so, even prior to September 11, 2001).

Right and do you remember what one of the main reasons Bush2 gave for doing so? Because he wanted to Spread Democracy...give them democracy he said...give them hope, give them a future, give them rule of law and representative government and theyll run out of reasons for blaming everything on the Juice and on the West and good golly miss molly look whats happening all over the middle east right now. They said the Arabs don't want democracy, they cant function in a democracy, they need a dictator to contain them and control their savage impulses. All this we're seeing right now...can be traced back to the fall of Hussein if you ask me.

Willravel · 02-15-2011, 08:11 PM

With all due respect, everyone intellectually capable of understanding that we were lied to in order to go to war has already long since figured it out. Those among us even with the most basic deductive skills cracked the code and the only people left who are unconvinced are suffering from a cognitive dissonance so strong it deserves it's own diagnostic criteria under the delusion section of the DSM-4. "Iraq War Rationalization Syndrome" has a nice ring to it.

We were lied to flagrantly and ad nauseum. This is just the hundred and fiftieth example that's come out in the past 7 years.

Baraka_Guru · 02-15-2011, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Right and do you remember what one of the main reasons Bush2 gave for doing so? Because he wanted to Spread Democracy...give them democracy he said...give them hope, give them a future, give them rule of law and representative government and theyll run out of reasons for blaming everything on the Juice and on the West and good golly miss molly look whats happening all over the middle east right now. They said the Arabs don't want democracy, they cant function in a democracy, they need a dictator to contain them and control their savage impulses. All this we're seeing right now...can be traced back to the fall of Hussein if you ask me.

Um, it traces much further back than that. Do you honestly think Arab democracy was invented by the U.S. in Iraq?

And if this were really the case, why is the U.S. so afraid of Arab democracy now?

Oh, wait, maybe because the U.S. brand of export democracy is thinly veiled imperialism. And now that Arabs are fighting for and getting their own reforms, the U.S. doesn't know what the fuck to do. Imagine that...the U.S. not being able to exert their influence to ensure the game is played their way.

Charlatan · 02-15-2011, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Right and do you remember what one of the main reasons Bush2 gave for doing so? Because he wanted to Spread Democracy...give them democracy he said...give them hope, give them a future, give them rule of law and representative government and theyll run out of reasons for blaming everything on the Juice and on the West and good golly miss molly look whats happening all over the middle east right now. They said the Arabs don't want democracy, they cant function in a democracy, they need a dictator to contain them and control their savage impulses. All this we're seeing right now...can be traced back to the fall of Hussein if you ask me.

It's a nice story but I don't think it really stands up with what is happening on the ground in Iraq vs what is happening in Egypt.

I tend to side with the OP in the suggestion that Iraq would have eventually fallen of it's own accord.

Besides which, I don't believe that Bush 2's pronouncement of Spreading Democracy was anything but post-rationalization. As roachboy has pointed out, this was cooked up by the New American Century folks for lots of other reasons.

powerclown · 02-16-2011, 04:28 AM

Be that as it may...I would only point out that there were no mass revolutions going on before Hussein took the fall. Now why is that, I would ask? I think these protests would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. There was no momentum towards reform, there was no momentum towards challenging one's dictator...the people across the region were asleep, the idea of democracy was dormant. There was the same old same old of local repression and dictatorship. Bush2 comes along with this outrageous idea of Democracy in the Middle East as a solution to another potential 9/11. Go back and read the transcripts...this was his vision of a cure to what ailed 'em. I think we can all agree the region has been in need of reform for a long time; I would posit that - ironically enough - no one put forth the example of civil rights, representative government and everything else the arab street are demanding right this minute moreso than Bush2.

Charlatan · 02-16-2011, 04:39 AM

You are right. There was no momentum. I don't disagree that Iraq may have played a part in the mix. I am not, however, convinced that it wouldn't have happened regardless of the invasion of Iraq. I would say that consecutive US administrations, including Bush and Obama, have done more over the years to squash reform in the middle east by helping to prop up these dictatorships. Bush paid a lot of lip service to democracy, but I don't think it was anything more than window dressing.

roachboy · 02-16-2011, 04:55 AM

i saw this line taking shape in conservativeland--the one that tries to exploit egypt and tunisian (and libya and bahrain and iran and algeria and morocco and jordan and yemen) as justifications of bush 2 policy.

in reality, the bush people were to the language of democracy what stalin was to the language of socialism.

if there is a connection it follows from the magnitude of the disaster that was the bush administration for the american empire in general. in the name of attempting to set up the united states as a military hegemon that operated outside the rules of the international game---iraq was the theater of that---hussein was a symbol of american humiliation for the neo-con asshats at pnac---the un the instrument of that humiliation---the iraq invasion was the chance to set that right---the americans didn't give a fuck about democracy or the iraqi people---you know this from the lack of a strategy past the initial assault----topple saddam hussein, generate photo ops, be Triumphant, get out. the result of that disaster was the beginning of the unravel of american imperialism. it's been unraveling by degrees ever since.

the cause of the revolts around the middle east include political repression and the chokeholds on economic development/opportunity that repression has enabled (by channeling resources through patronage systems/oligarchies) all of which has happened with the full and consistent support of the united states (except in the case of iran since 1979---but from 1953-1979 it was the same thing there). the proximate cause was the wikileaks dump about ben ali; the tunisian revolt inspired egyptians to act. underneath this is a long process of mobilization by the 6 august movement. the trigger in egypt was the arrest and torture/murder of khaled said in alexandria.

it has nothing to do with the bush administrations disastrous actions in iraq. nothing.
the bush administration's actions in iraq are to democracy what stalin was to socialism.

except to the extent that they **are** a disaster that weakened the image of the empire.

the neo-cons threw the dice over iraq and they fucked it up.
even now they don't accept responsibility. they don't acknowledge what they actually did.
and the press goes along with it for some reason.

btw--->hear that quiet chirping sound?

that's the sound of the continued silence of the american press about the information in the op.

dc_dux · 02-16-2011, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Be that as it may...I would only point out that there were no mass revolutions going on before Hussein took the fall. Now why is that, I would ask? I think these protests would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. There was no momentum towards reform, there was no momentum towards challenging one's dictator...the people across the region were asleep, the idea of democracy was dormant. There was the same old same old of local repression and dictatorship. Bush2 comes along with this outrageous idea of Democracy in the Middle East as a solution to another potential 9/11. Go back and read the transcripts...this was his vision of a cure to what ailed 'em. I think we can all agree the region has been in need of reform for a long time; I would posit that - ironically enough - no one put forth the example of civil rights, representative government and everything else the arab street are demanding right this minute moreso than Bush2.

Like ace, IMO, you are giving way too much credit to the so-called Bush Doctrine, which was not only about promoting democracy, but also about the US having the right to invade sovereign nations that support terrorism or pose a direct threat ot the US (ie his justification for invading Iraq).

Most of the organizers of the revolution, and many of those who joined in, were college students or young unemployed workers.

When Bush made his post-9/11 speech, they would have been in their teens. IMO, it is a stretch to believe they were influenced by Bush's speech, assuming they were even aware of it. Would you have been influenced by a speech by a foreigner when you were 13-17 yrs old?

In fact, most of Egypt's population(60%+) are under 30.

In several reports I recall viewing, some mentioned Obama's 2009 Cairo speech, something many of them witnessed and heard first hand.

But I think that is a bit a stretch as well.

powerclown · 02-16-2011, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I would say that consecutive US administrations, including Bush and Obama, have done more over the years to squash reform in the middle east by helping to prop up these dictatorships.

Those are pretty strong words. I realize the west has been in cahoots with many of the dictatorships, but I don't necessarily think this means they perpetuated this form of government. Why no mass protest in Saudi Arabia at the moment?

roachboy · 02-16-2011, 08:03 AM

speculations are running in the direction of: countries that are flush with cash can buy off the opposition and that's the first line of defense. you see it happening with morocco in advance of protests that are scheduled for saturday/sunday; a significant sum (can't remember how much) has been diverted to maintain prices on food at a relatively/artificially low level. the alternative is direct repression of opposition. the saudis are apparently really jumpy and there are rumors (via friends who live there only) that both are already happening.

ASU2003 · 02-16-2011, 09:29 AM

It's amazing how much food prices can impact things. And I think we need to have a plan on food policy around the world. The US subsidizes farms to not grow certain foods to keep prices at good levels for farmers, we flood foreign markets with cheap or free food which causes the local farmers to not be able to compete. They switch to growing drugs or other things to make more money...

yournamehere · 02-16-2011, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

With all due respect, everyone intellectually capable of understanding that we were lied to in order to go to war has already long since figured it out. Those among us even with the most basic deductive skills cracked the code and the only people left who are unconvinced are suffering from a cognitive dissonance so strong it deserves it's own diagnostic criteria under the delusion section of the DSM-4. "Iraq War Rationalization Syndrome" has a nice ring to it.

We were lied to flagrantly and ad nauseum. This is just the hundred and fiftieth example that's come out in the past 7 years.

Absolutely spot on.

Valerie Plame . . . January 2001 meetings discussing the invasion of Iraq . . . . the logic involved in invading Iraq as retaliation for something a bunch of Saudis and Yemenis did . . .

But ASU - I don't think it was so much about rebuilding the military as it was about privatizing war into a for-profit business for a lot of Bush & Cheney's friends and business associates (The Bush family has an unbroken 3-generation tradition of war profiteering). Our tax dollars made quite a few businesses obscene amounts of money. Anyone who has not yet seen Iraq For Sale is doing themselves an injustice as far as understanding the depth of immorality and corruption in the Bush Administration. And many of these companies are still getting billions of our tax money under the present Administration.

roachboy · 02-16-2011, 02:10 PM

while the american media silence appears to continue, the plot thickens:

Quote:

Colin Powell demands answers over Curveball's WMD lies

Former US secretary of state asks why CIA failed to warn him over Iraqi defector who has admitted fabricating WMD evidence

Colin Powell, the US secretary of state at the time of the Iraq invasion, has called on the CIA and Pentagon to explain why they failed to alert him to the unreliability of a key source behind claims of Saddam Hussein's bio-weapons capability.

Responding to the Guardian's revelation that the source, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi or "Curveball" as his US and German handlers called him, admitted fabricating evidence of Iraq's secret biological weapons programme, Powell said that questions should be put to the US agencies involved in compiling the case for war. In particular he singled out the CIA and the Defence Intelligence Agency – the Pentagon's military intelligence arm. Janabi, an Iraqi defector, was used as the primary source by the Bush administration to justify invading Iraq in March 2003. Doubts about his credibility circulated before the war and have been confirmed by his admission this week that he lied.

Powell said that both the CIA and DIA should face questions about why they failed to sound the alarm about Janabi. He demanded to know why it had not been made clear to him that Curveball was totally unreliable before false information was put into the key intelligence assessment, or NIE, put before Congress, into the president's state of the union address two months before the war and into his own speech to the UN.

"It has been known for several years that the source called Curveball was totally unreliable," he said to the Guardian . "The question should be put to the CIA and the DIA as to why this wasn't known before the false information was put into the NIE sent to Congress, the president's state of the union address and my 5 February presentation to the UN."

On 5 February 2003, just a month before the invasion, Powell went before the UN security council to make the case for war. In his speech he referred to "firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails … The source was an eyewitness who supervised one of these facilities." It is now known that the source, Janabi, made up the story.

Powell has previously expressed regret about the role he unwittingly played in passing on false information to the UN, saying it had put a blot on his career. But his latest comments increase pressure on the intelligence agencies and their former chiefs to divulge what they knew at the time and why they failed to filter out such a bad source.

George Tenet, then head of the CIA, is particularly in the firing line. He failed to pass on warnings from German intelligence about Curveball's reliability.

In the light of the defector's confession, politicians in Iraq called for Curveball's permanent exile and poured scorn on his claim to want to return to his motherland and build a political party. "He is a liar, he will not serve his country," said one Iraqi MP.

In his adopted home of Germany, MPs are demanding to know why the German intelligence agency, the BND, paid Curveball £2,500 a month for at least five years after they knew he had lied.

Hans-Christian Ströbele, a Green MP, said Janabi had arguably violated a German law which makes warmongering illegal. Under the law, it is a criminal offence to do anything "with the intent to disturb the peaceful relations between nations, especially anything that leads to an aggressive war", he said. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment, he added, though he did not expect it would ever come to that.

Curveball told the Guardian he was pleased to have finally told the truth. He said he had given the Guardian's phone number to his wife and brother in Sweden "just in case something happens to me".

Further pressure on the CIA came from Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff at the time of the invasion. He said Curveball's lies raised questions about how the CIA had briefed Powell ahead of his fateful UN speech.

Tyler Drumheller, head of the CIA's Europe division in the run-up to the invasion, said he welcomed Curveball's confession because he had always warned Tenet that he may have been a fabricator.

Colin Powell demands answers over Curveball's WMD lies | World news | The Guardian

Willravel · 02-16-2011, 02:26 PM

I don't buy that Powell was ignorant for a second.

Charlatan · 02-16-2011, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Those are pretty strong words. I realize the west has been in cahoots with many of the dictatorships, but I don't necessarily think this means they perpetuated this form of government. Why no mass protest in Saudi Arabia at the moment?

I chose them carefully.

Since 1945, when President Roosevelt stopped by to chat with King Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia, the US has been involved in supporting "stability" in the Middle East. The British, have been doing it even longer.

Oil is a big motivator for keeping this stability in place.

There are no protests in the streets of Saudi Arabia because the regime has enough money to continue to buy off if opposition. Have a look at what other oil-rich nations have done in the face of Egypt. They have increase spending on the public.

The ones that are currently having the largest protests are the ones that have the least amount of oil money. The world's hunger for oil keeps these dictatorships in power. The US policy is, simply put, better the dictator you know, than the popular movement you don't.

Baraka_Guru · 02-16-2011, 05:39 PM

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. There isn't even the pretense of open and fair elections.

What are you going to protest against besides the abolition of the monarchy? It's not your run-of-the-mill monarchy.

Willravel · 02-16-2011, 05:50 PM

What do we want?! More rich Saudi princes!
When do we want them?! At the royal family's convenience!!!

powerclown · 02-16-2011, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Oil is a big motivator for keeping this stability in place.

I think its the only reason, but its a moot point. They have oil. If they didn't I don't think any country would pay much interest. See Africa, circa 1500 b.c. - 2011 a.d.

Quote:

There are no protests in the streets of Saudi Arabia because the regime has enough money to continue to buy off if opposition. Have a look at what other oil-rich nations have done in the face of Egypt. They have increase spending on the public.

Agreed, and they better continue to spend and spend and spend on their people and job creation. It is not going to be pretty when the oil runs dry.

Quote:

The US policy is, simply put, better the dictator you know, than the popular movement you don't.

The US and every other industrialized country on Earth is forced to play ball with these people because there is simply no other f-----g choice until they come up with some other alternative form of energy. I think WW3 is going to start the day someone does find some other form of energy and the Middle East becomes irrelevant.

Bonkai · 02-16-2011, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

It's always been my belief that the Bush administration *wanted* to invade Iraq (and wanted to do so, even prior to September 11, 2001). This defector was just used to lend some legitimacy to their actions.

According to Colin Powell that's exactly what happened.

"He had often clashed with others in the administration, who were reportedly planning an Iraq invasion even before the September 11 attacks, an insight supported by testimony by former terrorism czar Richard Clarke in front of the 9/11 Commission."

Colin Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

roachboy · 02-17-2011, 01:08 PM

today in cnn, because of powell's reaction:

Powell questions handling of Iraqi defector - CNN.com

this is the first mainstream press mention in the states that i've found.

the story is running around below the surface.

does anyone actually watch cnn? i can't make myself do it....

ring · 02-17-2011, 01:19 PM

I can sorta watch CNN while wearing my monitor mode hat.
I have to rinse & wring it out so frequently though, that it's not quite worth it &
Dishpan Hands are painful.

yournamehere · 02-17-2011, 01:45 PM

Actually, instead of watching CNN, wouldn't it be more fun to watch how Fox News will explain how it's all Obama's fault?

Baraka_Guru · 02-17-2011, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

It is not going to be pretty when the oil runs dry.The US and every other industrialized country on Earth is forced to play ball with these people because there is simply no other f-----g choice until they come up with some other alternative form of energy. I think WW3 is going to start the day someone does find some other form of energy and the Middle East becomes irrelevant.

Why isn't the U.S. talking up investing more in the tar sands in Alberta? I seem to hear more about China jumping on the area than I do Americans. Mind you, American companies have been there for a while now. But what about future expansion/development/technology? Is there a push for that in the U.S.?

You do realize the tar sands in Alberta hold the second-largest oil reserve in the world, right?

If it weren't for all that damn sand.....

Charlatan · 02-17-2011, 03:04 PM

Obama's big announcement a few week's back should have been a push to make America Middle East Oil free within the next ten years. It could be done.

don.to · 02-17-2011, 05:21 PM

I would caution those unfamiliar with the Guardian UK. While it is generally well regarded and well written, its editorial stance is decidedly one sided, left wing. One has to wonder how this agenda affects balanced news reporting. Personally speaking, I have found it good on the whole, but with occasional articles and features of a rather specious nature.

roachboy · 02-19-2011, 06:51 AM

apparently there are others who find powell's position to be implausible:

Quote:

Colin Powell's Own Staff Had Warned Him Against His War Lies

By davidswanson - Posted on 17 February 2011

In the wake of WMD-liar Curveball's videotaped confession, Colin Powell is demanding to know why nobody warned him about Curveball's unreliability. The trouble is, they did.

Can you imagine having an opportunity to address the United Nations Security Council about a matter of great global importance, with all the world's media watching, and using it to… well, to make shit up – to lie with a straight face, and with a CIA director propped up behind you, I mean to spew one world-class, for-the-record-books stream of bull, to utter nary a breath without a couple of whoppers in it, and to look like you really mean it all? What gall. What an insult to the entire world that would be.

Colin Powell doesn't have to imagine such a thing. He has to live with it. He did it on February 5, 2003. It's on videotape.

I tried to ask him about it in the summer of 2004. He was speaking to the Unity Journalists of Color convention in Washington, D.C. The event had been advertised as including questions from the floor, but for some reason that plan was revised. Speakers from the floor were permitted to ask questions of four safe and vetted journalists of color before Powell showed up, and then those four individuals could choose to ask him something related – which of course they did not, in any instance, do.

Bush and Kerry spoke as well. The panel of journalists who asked Bush questions when he showed up had not been properly vetted. Roland Martin of the Chicago Defender had slipped onto it somehow (which won't happen again!). Martin asked Bush whether he was opposed to preferential college admissions for the kids of alumni and whether he cared more about voting rights in Afghanistan than in Florida. Bush looked like a deer in the headlights, only without the intelligence. He stumbled so badly that the room openly laughed at him.

But the panel that had been assembled to lob softballs at Powell served its purpose well. It was moderated by Gwen Ifill. I asked Ifill (and Powell could watch it later on C-Span if he wanted to) whether Powell had any explanation for the way in which he had relied on the testimony of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law. He had recited the claims about weapons of mass destruction but carefully left out the part where that same gentleman had testified that all of Iraq's WMDs had been destroyed. Ifill thanked me, and said nothing. Hillary Clinton was not present and nobody beat me up.

I wonder what Powell would say if someone were to actually ask him that question, even today, or next year, or ten years from now. Someone tells you about a bunch of old weapons and at the same time tells you they've been destroyed, and you choose to repeat the part about the weapons and censor the part about their destruction. How would you explain that?

Well, it's a sin of omission, so ultimately Powell could claim he forgot. "Oh yeah, I meant to say that, but it slipped my mind."

But how would he explain this:

During his presentation at the United Nations, Powell provided this translation of an intercepted conversation between Iraqi army officers:

"They're inspecting the ammunition you have, yes.

"Yes.

"For the possibility there are forbidden ammo.

"For the possibility there is by chance forbidden ammo?

"Yes.

"And we sent you a message yesterday to clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there."

The incriminating phrases "clean all of the areas" and "Make sure there is nothing there" do not appear in the official State Department translation of the exchange:

"Lt. Colonel: They are inspecting the ammunition you have.

"Colonel: Yes.

"Lt. Col: For the possibility there are forbidden ammo.

"Colonel: Yes?

"Lt. Colonel: For the possibility there is by chance, forbidden ammo.

"Colonel: Yes.

"Lt. Colonel: And we sent you a message to inspect the scrap areas and the abandoned areas.

"Colonel: Yes."

Powell was writing fictional dialogue. He put those extra lines in there and pretended somebody had said them. Here's what Bob Woodward said about this in his book "Plan of Attack."

"[Powell] had decided to add his personal interpretation of the intercepts to rehearsed script, taking them substantially further and casting them in the most negative light. Concerning the intercept about inspecting for the possibility of 'forbidden ammo,' Powell took the interpretation further: 'Clean out all of the areas. . . . Make sure there is nothing there.' None of this was in the intercept."

For most of his presentation, Powell wasn't inventing dialogue, but he was presenting as facts numerous claims that his own staff had warned him were weak and indefensible.

Powell told the UN and the world: "We know that Saddam’s son, Qusay, ordered the removal of all prohibited weapons from Saddam's numerous palace complexes." The January 31, 2003, evaluation of Powell's draft remarks prepared for him by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research ("INR") flagged this claim as "WEAK".

Regarding alleged Iraqi concealment of key files, Powell said: "key files from military and scientific establishments have been placed in cars that are being driven around the countryside by Iraqi intelligence agents to avoid detection." The January 31, 2003 INR evaluation flagged this claim as "WEAK" and added "Plausibility open to question." A Feb. 3, 2003, INR evaluation of a subsequent draft of Powell's remarks noted:

"Page 4, last bullet, re key files being driven around in cars to avoid inspectors. This claim is highly questionable and promises to be targeted by critics and possibly UN inspection officials as well."
That didn't stop Colin from stating it as fact and apparently hoping that, even if UN inspectors thought he was a brazen liar, US media outlets wouldn't tell anyone.

On the issue of biological weapons and dispersal equipment, Powell said: "we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was disbursing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agents to various locations, distributing them to various locations in western Iraq."

The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this claim as "WEAK":

"WEAK. Missiles with biological warheads reportedly dispersed. This would be somewhat true in terms of short-range missiles with conventional warheads, but is questionable in terms of longer-range missiles or biological warheads."
This claim was again flagged in the February 3, 2003, evaluation of a subsequent draft of Powell's presentation: "Page 5. first para, claim re missile brigade dispersing rocket launchers and BW warheads. This claim too is highly questionable and might be subjected to criticism by UN inspection officials."

That didn't stop Colin. In fact, he brought out visual aids to help with his lying

Powell showed a slide of a satellite photograph of an Iraqi munitions bunker, and lied:

"The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions . . . [t]he truck you [...] see is a signature item. It's a decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong."
The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this claim as "WEAK" and added: "We support much of this discussion, but we note that decontamination vehicles – cited several times in the text – are water trucks that can have legitimate uses... Iraq has given UNMOVIC what may be a plausible account for this activity – that this was an exercise involving the movement of conventional explosives; presence of a fire safety truck (water truck, which could also be used as a decontamination vehicle) is common in such an event."

Powell's own staff had told him the thing was a water truck, but he told the U.N. it was "a signature item…a decontamination vehicle." The UN was going to need a decontamination vehicle itself by the time Powell finished spewing his lies and disgracing his country.

He just kept piling it on: "UAVs outfitted with spray tanks constitute an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons," he said.

The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this statement as "WEAK" and added: "the claim that experts agree UAVs fitted with spray tanks are ‘an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons’ is WEAK."

In other words, experts did NOT agree with that claim.

Powell kept going, announcing "in mid-December weapons experts at one facility were replaced by Iraqi intelligence agents who were to deceive inspectors about the work that was being done there."

The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this claim as "WEAK" and "not credible" and "open to criticism, particularly by the UN inspectorates."

His staff was warning him that what he planned to say would not be believed by his audience, which would include the people with actual knowledge of the matter.

To Powell that was no matter.

Powell, no doubt figuring he was in deep already, so what did he have to lose, went on to tell the UN: "On orders from Saddam Hussein, Iraqi officials issued a false death certificate for one scientist, and he was sent into hiding."

The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this claim as "WEAK" and called it "Not implausible, but UN inspectors might question it. (Note: Draft states it as fact.)"

And Powell stated it as fact. Notice that his staff was not able to say there was any evidence for the claim, but rather that it was "not implausible." That was the best they could come up with. In other words: "They might buy this one, Sir, but don't count on it."

Powell, however, wasn't satisfied lying about one scientist. He had to have a dozen. He told the United Nations: "A dozen [WMD] experts have been placed under house arrest, not in their own houses, but as a group at one of Saddam Hussein's guest houses."

The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this claim as "WEAK" and "Highly questionable." This one didn't even merit a "Not implausible."

Powell also said: "In the middle of January, experts at one facility that was related to weapons of mass destruction, those experts had been ordered to stay home from work to avoid the inspectors. Workers from other Iraqi military facilities not engaged in elicit weapons projects were to replace the workers who’d been sent home."

Powell's staff called this "WEAK," with "Plausibility open to question."

All of this stuff sounded plausible enough to viewers of Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. And that, we can see now, was what interested Colin. But it must have sounded highly implausible to the U.N. inspectors. Here was a guy who had not been with them on any of their inspections coming in to tell them what had happened.

We know from Scott Ritter, who led many UNSCOM inspections in Iraq, that U.S. inspectors had used the access that the inspection process afforded them to spy for, and to set up means of data collection for, the CIA. So there was some plausibility to the idea that an American could come back to the UN and inform the UN what had really happened on its inspections.

Yet, repeatedly, Powell's staff warned him that the specific claims he wanted to make were not going to even sound plausible. They will be recorded by history more simply as blatant lies.

The examples of Powell's lying listed above are taken from an extensive report released by Congressman John Conyers: "The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War."

David Swanson is the author of "War Is A Lie" War Is A Lie | Let's Try Democracy

Colin Powell's Own Staff Had Warned Him Against His War Lies | Let's Try Democracy

from swanson's blog.
make of it as you like....i find it interesting both in itself and for its motives.

yournamehere · 03-02-2011, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Why isn't the U.S. talking up investing more in the tar sands in Alberta? I seem to hear more about China jumping on the area than I do Americans. Mind you, American companies have been there for a while now. But what about future expansion/development/technology? Is there a push for that in the U.S.?

You do realize the tar sands in Alberta hold the second-largest oil reserve in the world, right?

If it weren't for all that damn sand.....

I think they'll probably stay closer to home - oil shale in western Colorado. An oil company (can't remember which) spent $1B determining the cost/earnings potential there back in the 80s. At the time, they thought it wasn't worth it. But then again, gas was under $1 per gallon back then. I'd like to say that technology in the oil business has improved since then, too - but BP taught us last summer it hasn't. Look for Grand Junction to become the new Houston sometime in the future, though.

Baraka_Guru · 03-02-2011, 12:04 PM

Wow, I had no idea that the U.S. was sitting on such a huge amount of oil (albeit oil shale). Maybe they should have used the money they spent invading Iraq to invest in making oil shale production viable. Woulda, shoulda, coulda, right?

Oil shale reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Willravel · 03-02-2011, 01:55 PM

Oil shale didn't threaten to kill Bush's dad. And oil shale can't be attacked with hardware sold at a premium by military contractors.

Baraka_Guru · 03-02-2011, 02:13 PM

Those are the words of a socialist, Will.

aceventura3 · 03-03-2011, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Why isn't the U.S. talking up investing more in the tar sands in Alberta?

How about the duplicitous nature of the media and the Obama administration?

Quote:

Bush Links To Oil Rise Ran 15-To-1 Vs. Obama

By JULIA A. SEYMOUR Posted 03/02/2011 06:34 PM ET

Unrest in the Mideast has hit American consumers hard, driving up gas prices that had already been above $3-a-gallon since Dec. 23. The national average for gasoline hit $3.36 on Feb. 28, the highest ever for the month of February, according to the Associated Press. But the amount of network news coverage of rising gas prices did not reflect it.

All three broadcast networks together averaged just one story about rising gas prices per day. In contrast, when gas prices rose similarly in 2008, the networks averaged more than one story, per network, per day.

It took 24 days, from Feb. 1 to Feb. 24, for the national average for unleaded gasoline to climb from $3.101 to 3.228. The last comparable period of "eye-popping" gas prices: the 20 days between Feb. 21 and March 11, 2008, when the national average climbed from $3.086 to $3.227.

Some 2008 reports, including the March 6 "Early Show," exaggerated the already rising prices by emphasizing extremely high prices. That morning CBS showed viewers a California gas pump charging $5.19 a gallon for regular unleaded before mentioning the national average for that day, which was $2.02 lower.

Some 2011 reports have reversed that trend by downplaying the impact of currently high gas prices on consumers by using words like "inching" to describe rising prices, or calling U.S. prices "a bargain compared to Europe."

The Business & Media Institute examined all the broadcast network news reports mentioning gas prices during each of those time periods and found ABC, CBS and NBC aired more than 2 1/2 times more stories (63 stories to 24) in 2008 than they did in 2011.

But it was more than just the amount of coverage that showed the media's willingness to spin gas prices one way under Bush and another way under Obama. In 2008, network reporters mentioned "Bush," the "president" or "government" in gas price reports 15 times more often than in 2011 under President Obama (15 stories to 1). A number of stories portrayed Bush as out-of-the-loop when asked about the possibility of $4 gas and hadn't yet heard that prediction.

In contrast to the 15 reports referencing the Bush when gas prices were "through the roof," the only 2011 story to mention Obama has been NBC "Nightly News" on Feb. 24, when Tom Costello quoted Obama as being "optimistic."

Obama is the most anti-oil president in years and has taken specific steps to limit domestic oil production, including a moratorium on deepwater drilling after the BP spill and the recent imposition of new regulations on the industry. Not a single one of 2011 stories about rising gas prices that BMI examined brought up any of Obama's anti-oil policies despite the impact they could have on supply and prices.

Bush Links To Oil Rise Ran 15-To-1 Vs. Obama - Investors.com

dc_dux · 03-03-2011, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

How about the duplicitous nature of the media and the Obama administration?

Bush Links To Oil Rise Ran 15-To-1 Vs. Obama - Investors.com

ace....Julia Seymour is an assistant editor of Brent Bozell's Media Research Center, a self-described "media watchdog", but in reality just another conservative mouthpiece that receives funding from ExxonMobil, among others.

Please verify the allegations in her column from an independent source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

....

I have never had a problem with providing addition support of items I have shared from the various publications that I routinely read. I often read the footnotes and look at their source data....

So, provide the source data.

OR do you, in reality, take everything you read in IBD opinion columns as factual? And expect others to as well?

Baraka_Guru · 03-16-2011, 04:49 AM

dc: ace was asking about the duplicitous nature of the media and the Obama administration. Maybe what he provided was an example?

02-15-2011, 07:23 AM	#2 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I did a quick sampling as well. The Guardian lists the story as an exclusive, but that shouldn't stop other news sources from reporting on it in due time, so I suppose it's a matter of waiting and seeing how this story breaks and develops. I couldn't find it in headline news on the BBC or the CBC either. They are focusing on the Berlusconi prostitution probe. I see that CNN has made prominent the Iranian lawmakers' call to execute opposition leaders in the face of protests. It will be interesting to see if U.S. media overlooks or undervalues this Iraq war revelation and instead focuses on the usual kind of extremism going on in the Middle East. You know, always looking outward instead of inward to find a source of the problems in the world. If anything, this isn't quite the case of a fascinating summary of media coverage. I think at this point this makes for a great media audit over the next few days to see if American media decides to cover more stuff about what's wrong with Iraq both past and present. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

02-15-2011, 07:50 AM	#3 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	As my personal politics have evolved over the years, I started at "right battle, wrong time" and arrived at "wrong battle." What I cannot understand is how the words of one man seemed to carry so much weight? This happens to all of us, we hear what we want to hear and we look no further. For most of us, the consequence is ignorance. In this case, the consequences were lives and treasure lost. Seeing the uprisings around that region now, one must ask: had the battle of Iraq not occurred, would the Iraqis now be in the streets? Undoubtedly. Would it be like Egypt? Like Iran? Would they trade the past 8 years away for 8 more years of Saddam and a homegrown revolution now? __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." Last edited by Cimarron29414; 02-15-2011 at 02:39 PM..

02-15-2011, 04:25 PM	#6 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	good zappa song tho. reminds me of others. st. alfonzo's pancake breakfast. brown shoes don't make it. plastic people. but i digress. the bush people were simply looking for an pretext to invade iraq. the rationale was the neo-con geopolitical nonsense put out by the project for a new american century. the theater of justification was as cynical as i've ever seen. the chilcot commission demolished any remaining pretense of credibility to any of the claims that were presented at the time. and the strong-arming done by the bush people to force acquiescence to their little war is documented. this is a matter of record, otto. not opinion. but the chilcot commission got almost no press in the united states either. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 02-15-2011 at 04:32 PM..

02-16-2011, 04:39 AM	#13 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	You are right. There was no momentum. I don't disagree that Iraq may have played a part in the mix. I am not, however, convinced that it wouldn't have happened regardless of the invasion of Iraq. I would say that consecutive US administrations, including Bush and Obama, have done more over the years to squash reform in the middle east by helping to prop up these dictatorships. Bush paid a lot of lip service to democracy, but I don't think it was anything more than window dressing. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-16-2011, 04:55 AM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i saw this line taking shape in conservativeland--the one that tries to exploit egypt and tunisian (and libya and bahrain and iran and algeria and morocco and jordan and yemen) as justifications of bush 2 policy. in reality, the bush people were to the language of democracy what stalin was to the language of socialism. if there is a connection it follows from the magnitude of the disaster that was the bush administration for the american empire in general. in the name of attempting to set up the united states as a military hegemon that operated outside the rules of the international game---iraq was the theater of that---hussein was a symbol of american humiliation for the neo-con asshats at pnac---the un the instrument of that humiliation---the iraq invasion was the chance to set that right---the americans didn't give a fuck about democracy or the iraqi people---you know this from the lack of a strategy past the initial assault----topple saddam hussein, generate photo ops, be Triumphant, get out. the result of that disaster was the beginning of the unravel of american imperialism. it's been unraveling by degrees ever since. the cause of the revolts around the middle east include political repression and the chokeholds on economic development/opportunity that repression has enabled (by channeling resources through patronage systems/oligarchies) all of which has happened with the full and consistent support of the united states (except in the case of iran since 1979---but from 1953-1979 it was the same thing there). the proximate cause was the wikileaks dump about ben ali; the tunisian revolt inspired egyptians to act. underneath this is a long process of mobilization by the 6 august movement. the trigger in egypt was the arrest and torture/murder of khaled said in alexandria. it has nothing to do with the bush administrations disastrous actions in iraq. nothing. the bush administration's actions in iraq are to democracy what stalin was to socialism. except to the extent that they are a disaster that weakened the image of the empire. the neo-cons threw the dice over iraq and they fucked it up. even now they don't accept responsibility. they don't acknowledge what they actually did. and the press goes along with it for some reason. btw--->hear that quiet chirping sound? that's the sound of the continued silence of the american press about the information in the op. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 02-16-2011 at 04:59 AM..

02-15-2011, 08:11 PM	#9 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	With all due respect, everyone intellectually capable of understanding that we were lied to in order to go to war has already long since figured it out. Those among us even with the most basic deductive skills cracked the code and the only people left who are unconvinced are suffering from a cognitive dissonance so strong it deserves it's own diagnostic criteria under the delusion section of the DSM-4. "Iraq War Rationalization Syndrome" has a nice ring to it. We were lied to flagrantly and ad nauseum. This is just the hundred and fiftieth example that's come out in the past 7 years.

02-16-2011, 04:28 AM	#12 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Be that as it may...I would only point out that there were no mass revolutions going on before Hussein took the fall. Now why is that, I would ask? I think these protests would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. There was no momentum towards reform, there was no momentum towards challenging one's dictator...the people across the region were asleep, the idea of democracy was dormant. There was the same old same old of local repression and dictatorship. Bush2 comes along with this outrageous idea of Democracy in the Middle East as a solution to another potential 9/11. Go back and read the transcripts...this was his vision of a cure to what ailed 'em. I think we can all agree the region has been in need of reform for a long time; I would posit that - ironically enough - no one put forth the example of civil rights, representative government and everything else the arab street are demanding right this minute moreso than Bush2.

02-16-2011, 08:03 AM	#17 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	speculations are running in the direction of: countries that are flush with cash can buy off the opposition and that's the first line of defense. you see it happening with morocco in advance of protests that are scheduled for saturday/sunday; a significant sum (can't remember how much) has been diverted to maintain prices on food at a relatively/artificially low level. the alternative is direct repression of opposition. the saudis are apparently really jumpy and there are rumors (via friends who live there only) that both are already happening. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-16-2011, 09:29 AM	#18 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	It's amazing how much food prices can impact things. And I think we need to have a plan on food policy around the world. The US subsidizes farms to not grow certain foods to keep prices at good levels for farmers, we flood foreign markets with cheap or free food which causes the local farmers to not be able to compete. They switch to growing drugs or other things to make more money...

02-16-2011, 02:26 PM	#21 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I don't buy that Powell was ignorant for a second.

02-16-2011, 05:39 PM	#23 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. There isn't even the pretense of open and fair elections. What are you going to protest against besides the abolition of the monarchy? It's not your run-of-the-mill monarchy. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

02-16-2011, 05:50 PM	#24 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	What do we want?! More rich Saudi princes! When do we want them?! At the royal family's convenience!!!

02-17-2011, 01:08 PM	#27 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	today in cnn, because of powell's reaction: Powell questions handling of Iraqi defector - CNN.com this is the first mainstream press mention in the states that i've found. the story is running around below the surface. does anyone actually watch cnn? i can't make myself do it.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-17-2011, 01:19 PM	#28 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	I can sorta watch CNN while wearing my monitor mode hat. I have to rinse & wring it out so frequently though, that it's not quite worth it & Dishpan Hands are painful.

02-17-2011, 01:45 PM	#29 (permalink)
yournamehere Invisible Location: tentative, at best	Actually, instead of watching CNN, wouldn't it be more fun to watch how Fox News will explain how it's all Obama's fault? __________________ If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors: "If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too." It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.

02-17-2011, 03:04 PM	#31 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Obama's big announcement a few week's back should have been a push to make America Middle East Oil free within the next ten years. It could be done. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-17-2011, 05:21 PM	#32 (permalink)
don.to Upright	I would caution those unfamiliar with the Guardian UK. While it is generally well regarded and well written, its editorial stance is decidedly one sided, left wing. One has to wonder how this agenda affects balanced news reporting. Personally speaking, I have found it good on the whole, but with occasional articles and features of a rather specious nature.

03-02-2011, 12:04 PM	#35 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Wow, I had no idea that the U.S. was sitting on such a huge amount of oil (albeit oil shale). Maybe they should have used the money they spent invading Iraq to invest in making oil shale production viable. Woulda, shoulda, coulda, right? Oil shale reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

03-02-2011, 01:55 PM	#36 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Oil shale didn't threaten to kill Bush's dad. And oil shale can't be attacked with hardware sold at a premium by military contractors.

03-02-2011, 02:13 PM	#37 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Those are the words of a socialist, Will. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

03-16-2011, 04:49 AM	#40 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	dc: ace was asking about the duplicitous nature of the media and the Obama administration. Maybe what he provided was an example? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot