Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - What causes your rational hatred of George Bush?

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - What causes your rational hatred of George Bush? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/97421-what-causes-your-rational-hatred-george-bush.html)

What causes your rational hatred of George Bush?

*ahem*

I'm creating this thread as an alternative to the one posted earlier. I dislike him as a President because he misled an entire country into starting a war (something no democracy should ever do) through methods of fearmongering and manipulation.

Gee, I don't think my keyboard would survive the amount of typing I'd have to do to list it all ;)

It is not hatred that I react to Bush with. I react with outrage to the lies and deliberately misleading statements that Bush consistently makes about matters of national security and other important policy matters. I react negatively to his hubris, his conceit, his ignorance, incompetence, and to his inarticulate manner of speech, his uncurious nature, his pettiness, his insecure personality, and his squandering of his own presidency, the reputation of our nation, the budget surplus that he inherited, his tax policies that favor the rich, his indifference to and lack of compassion for ordinary Americans, and his hypocrisy.

We'll start with Bush's biggest lie:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010916-2.html
...........Never did anybody's thought process about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly

not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious U.S. targets - never............. - GW Bush, speaking to reporters on Sept. 16, 2001

Only later did we find this to call the president's remarks into question:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 14, 2004; Page A16

While planning a high-level training exercise months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, U.S. military officials considered a

scenario in which a hijacked foreign commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon, defense officials said yesterday.

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...18-norad_x.htm
NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises

simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets

and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center...................

Quote:

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html
Contingency planning Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates
scenarios in preparing for emergencies
Story and Photos by Dennis Ryan
MDW News Service

Exercise SimulationsWashington, D.C., Nov. 3, 2000 — The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard.

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in509471.shtml
'99 Report Warned Of Suicide Hijacking

WASHINGTON, May 17, 2002

Former CIA Deputy Director John Gannon, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council when the report was written, said U.S. intelligence long has known a suicide hijacker was a possible threat.

(AP) Exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal report warned the executive branch that Osama bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building......
(Edited to add lil "dots" between the quoted article segments.)

......"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Thursday.

followed by his latest lies..... (The lengthy documentation is necessary because of the massive propaganda effort that Rove of the white house and Mehlman of the RNC carry out in the media to disguise the lies...)

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0051111-1.html
President Commemorates Veterans Day, Discusses War on Terror
Tobyhanna Army Depot
Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania

Fact sheetFact Sheet: Honoring America's Veterans
Fact sheetIn Focus: Honoring Our Veterans

11:45 A.M. EST

....While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. Misleading.... see quote box #1 These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.Misleading to the point of being untrue..see quote boxes #1, #4

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Misleading....inaccurate....see quote box #2 And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)Misleading....to the point that he is lying.....see quote boxes #1, #4

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. Misleading.... see quote box #1As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory. (Applause.) .....

Bush disgusts me as he often uses our troops as "props" for his misleading and deliberately inaccurate speeches.

Quote:

box #1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111101832.html
Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument

By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 12, 2005; Page A01

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate

The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters Thursday, countered "the notion that somehow this administration manipulated the intelligence." He said that "those people who have looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen."

But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."

Bush, in Pennsylvania yesterday, was more precise, but he still implied that it had been proved that the administration did not manipulate intelligence, saying that those who suggest the administration "manipulated the intelligence" are "fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments."

In the same speech, Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power." Giving a preview of Bush's speech, Hadley had said that "we all looked at the same intelligence."

But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country.

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE view that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote.
****************************************

Senator Pat Roberts' select intel committee, according to Roberts himself, has not even yet investigated the Bush administrations's pre-invasion role of "fixing the facts, as of July 2004, and as recently as Nov. 8, 2005
Here is what Roberts himself said when the "500 page report" was released in July, 2004:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...004Jul9_4.html
QUESTION: Given the 800 American G.I.s who have lost their lives so far, thousands have had serious injuries, lost limbs, all on the basis of false claims, as much as the American taxpayers have had to kick in almost $200 billion, doesn’t the American public and the relatives of people who lost their lives have a right to know before the next election whether this administration handled intelligence matters adequately and made statements that were justified -- before the election, not after the election?

ROBERTS: Well, as Senator Rockefeller has alluded to, this is in phase two of our efforts. We simply couldn’t get that done with the work product that we put out. And he has pointed out that that has a top priority. It is one of my top priorities. It’s his top priority, along with the reform effort.

Now, we have 20 legislative days. We want to have hearings from wise men and women in regards to the reform effort, and we will proceed with staff on phase two of the report. It involves probably three things -- or at least three.

One is the prewar intelligence on Iraq, which is what you’re talking about.

Secondly is the situation with the assistant secretary of defense, Douglas Feith, and his activity in regards to material that he provided with a so-called intelligence planning cell to the Department of Defense and to the CIA.

And then the left one -- what is the last one? What’s the third one? Help me with it.

(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS: Well, that’s prewar intelligence on Iraq.

There is a third one, and I don’t know why I can’t come up with it right now. But, anyway, it is a priority.

And, hey, I have told Jay, I have told everybody on the other side of the aisle, everybody on our side of the aisle, "We’ll proceed with phase two. It is a priority."

ROBERTS: I made my commitment, and it will be done.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...rticleId=10472
The Yes-Man
President Bush sent Porter Goss to the CIA to keep the agency in line. What he’s really doing is wrecking it.

By Robert Dreyfuss
Issue Date: 11.23.05

.....From 9-11 through the start of the Iraq War in March 2003, the neoconservative nexus in the administration, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, leaned heavily on the CIA to come up with intelligence to support the White House’s preordained determination to go to war against Iraq. The pressure directed at Tenet, McLaughlin, and scores of other CIA managers, analysts, and field officers was intense. Subsequent official investigations, by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and by the commission co-chaired by Lawrence Silberman and Charles Robb, blithely passed over the question of whether intelligence analysts were pressured by the administration. Both studies determined that analysts were not pressured, a conclusion that CIA and other U.S. intelligence professionals find laughable -- especially the idea that analysts would answer in the affirmative when asked by commissioners or senators if they had been pressured. “The senior guys got together and said, ‘You guys weren’t pressured, right? Right?’” says W. Patrick Lang, a former chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Middle East section.

In fact, analysts were pressured, and heavily so, according to Richard Kerr. A 32-year CIA veteran, Kerr led an internal investigation of the agency’s failure to correctly analyze Iraqi weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities, preparing a series of four reports that have not been released publicly. Kerr joined the CIA in 1960, serving in a series of senior analytic posts, including director of East Asian analysis, the unit that prepared the president’s daily intelligence brief, and finally as chief of the Directorate of Intelligence. For several months in 1991, Kerr was the acting CIA director; he retired in 1992. A highly respected analyst, Kerr received four Distinguished Intelligence Medals; in 1992, President George Bush Senior gave him the Citizen’s Medal for his work during Operation Desert Storm.

Two years ago, Kerr was summoned out of retirement to lead a four-member task force to conduct the investigation of the weapons-of-mass-destruction fiasco. His team, which included a former Near East Division chief, a former CIA deputy inspector general, and a former CIA chief Soviet analyst, spent months sorting through everything that the CIA produced on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction prior to the invasion, as well as interviewing virtually everyone at the agency who had anything to do with producing the faulty intelligence estimates. The Kerr team’s first report was an overview of what the CIA said about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before the war compared with what Kerr calls the postwar “ground truth.” The second looked specifically at a classified version of the important October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, which the administration used to build its case for war. The third looked at the overall intelligence process, and the fourth was a think piece that considered how to reorganize the management of intelligence analysis “if you could start all over again.”

Kerr’s four reports, with a fifth now under way, were viewed as the definitive works of self-criticism inside the agency and were shared with the oversight committees in Congress, outside commissions, and the office of the secretary of defense. Unlike the outside reports that looked at the same issues, however, Kerr’s concluded that CIA analysts felt squeezed -- and hard -- by the administration. “Everybody felt pressure,” Kerr told me. “A lot of analysts believed that they were being pressured to come to certain conclusions … . I talked to a lot of people who said, ‘There was a lot of repetitive questioning. We were being asked to justify what we were saying again and again.’ There were certainly people who felt they were being pushed beyond the evidence they had.”

In particular, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other administration officials hammered at the CIA to go back time and time again to look at intelligence that had already been sifted and resifted. “It was a continuing drumbeat: ‘How do you know this? How do you know that? What about this or that report in the newspaper?’” says Kerr. Many of those questions, which began to cascade onto the CIA in 2001, were generated by the Office of Special Plans and by discredited fabricators such as Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress and a secret source code-named “Curveball.” As a result, says Kerr, the CIA reached back to old data, relied on several sources of questionable veracity, and made assumptions about current data that were unwarranted. In particular, intelligence on Iraq’s biological and chemical weapons program, much of which was based on data collected in the 1980s, early ’90s, and more spottily until the end of the United Nations inspection regime in 1998, was parsed -- and, some would argue, cherry-picked -- in order to reinforce the administration’s case.

On and off the record, other former CIA officials say that despite the pressure, dissent against the White House was rife within the agency. The strongest opposition centered in the CIA’s Near East Division, few of whose officials supported the idea of war with Iraq. They clashed often with WINPAC, the CIA division focused on weapons proliferation and the part of the agency most responsible for the heavily skewed conclusions about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. “The Near East Division people didn’t buy into what the Bush administration wanted to do in regard to Iraq, but much of WINPAC did,” says Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer who left the agency in 1989 and then served four years as deputy director of the State Department’s office of counterterrorism. “Bush, and the White House, favored WINPAC over [the Near East Division]. There were people in the agency who tried to speak out or disagree … who got fired, got transferred, got outed, or criticized. Others decided to play ball.”

Michael Scheuer -- who gained fame in 2004 as Anonymous, the author of Imperial Hubris, and who exited the CIA as Goss came in -- headed the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit and saw the confrontation up close. “I know a lot of people in the Iraq shop who were dissenting,” he says. “There were people who were disciplined or taken off accounts.” Opposition flared, particularly when the controversial 2002 National Intelligence Estimate was being cooked. “There was a great deal of dissent about that [estimate],” says Scheuer. “No one thought it was conclusive. One gentleman that I talked to, a senior Iraq analyst, regrets to this day that he did not go public.”

According to another former CIA official, as the war loomed, the CIA’s Iraq task force ballooned in size, from fewer than 10 analysts to 500. But some of the CIA’s best and brightest on Iraq asked to be given other assignments rather than play ball with an administration already set on war. “A lot of people from the Iraq shop asked to be transferred away from Iraq,” the former officer said. “You had all these people being transferred in, and the people who didn’t like the direction it was going transferred out.”

* * *

Despite the vise-like squeeze on the CIA by Cheney and the Defense Department, the agency still got a lot on Iraq right. Not once in the period up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 did the U.S. intelligence community determine that Hussein posed a threat to the United States. The CIA concluded convincingly that there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and that Hussein had no connection to bin Laden’s attacks. “We, at CIA, were convinced within days -- within hours, by midday on September 11 -- that we had evidence that it was al-Qaeda and had no reason to suspect that Iraq was involved,” says a former high-level official. “That was our position, and we held to it firmly.” According to Scheuer, after the CIA received repeated inquiries about Iraq–al-Qaeda links from Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith’s office, the agency reviewed more than 70,000 documents and pieces of data, concluding that there was no tie between Hussein and al-Qaeda.

The CIA also correctly concluded that Iraq was not even close to developing nuclear weapons. And, long before the war, the CIA told the White House that if the United States invaded Iraq and carried out a prolonged occupation, it would spark an insurgency like the one now tearing Iraq apart. “We did predict this in papers that we wrote,” says a former CIA official.

Paul Pillar was one of many inside the CIA who accurately foresaw the insurgency, according to Scheuer. A longtime CIA officer who served in battle-scarred venues such as Sri Lanka, Algeria, and Kashmir until becoming the national intelligence officer for the Middle East, Pillar “knows insurgencies inside out,” says Scheuer admiringly. “It’s no surprise that Pillar would understand that there would be an insurgency in Iraq.”

By 2004, the CIA had issued a steady stream of finished intelligence products that, one after another, undermined the premises of the Bush administration’s basic assertions about the occupation. The team that put these together included McLaughlin, the bloodied Near East Division analysts, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Not only did the CIA’s work shoot holes in White House policy; several of its conclusions were leaked, finding their way on to the front pages of the major newspapers. More than anything else, it was these leaks that enraged Bush and Cheney and caused them to turn to Porter Goss as their enforcer.

The fact that the agency was leaking isn’t denied by some. “Of course they were leaking,” says Pat Lang. “They told me about it at the time. They thought it was funny. They’d say things like, ‘This last thing that came out, surely people will pay attention to that. They won’t re-elect this man.’”

The dissent within the agency, and the anger about being manipulated, were palpable by 2004. Equally palpable were the complaints about the agency emanating from the neoconservatives and other war supporters. In The New York Times, David Brooks was bloodthirsty. “If we lived in a primitive age,” he wrote, “the ground at Langley would be laid waste and salted, and there would be heads on spikes.” And Robert Novak, the principal conduit for the White House leak campaign against Plame and Wilson, concocted an indictment against Pillar for supposedly having leaked a CIA report that contradicted the most cherished assumptions of the administration about Iraq. The incident with Pillar, wrote Novak, “leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the president of the United States and the Central Intelligence Agency are at war with each other.” It made for a situation that Bush, facing re-election, wanted desperately to change. Brooks was about to get his wish.

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
May 5, 2002
............Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe. Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed. The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack — a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic — was discredited last week..............

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...mep.saddam.tm/
First Stop, Iraq

By Michael Elliott and James Carney
Monday, March 24, 2003 Posted: 5:49 PM EST (2249 GMT)

How did the U.S. end up taking on Saddam? The inside story of how Iraq jumped to the top of Bush's agenda -- and why the outcome there may foreshadow a different world order

"F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase.

<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml">Feb. 4, 2004 The Man Who Knew</a>
Powell said that when he made the case for war before the United Nations one year ago, he used evidence that reflected the best judgments of the intelligence agencies.

But long before the war started, there was plenty of doubt among intelligence analysts about Saddam's weapons.

One analyst, Greg Thielmann, told Correspondent Scott Pelley last October that key evidence cited by the administration was misrepresented to the public.

Thielmann should know. He had been in charge of analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Powell's own intelligence bureau.......

"The main problem was that the senior administration officials have what I call faith-based intelligence. They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show."
Greg Thielmann

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGNUFNCD61.DTL
Bush calls war critics 'irresponsible'

Richard W. Stevenson, New York Times

Saturday, November 12, 2005
......But the Senate review described repeated, unsuccessful efforts by the White House and its allies in the Pentagon to persuade the Central Intelligence Agency to embrace the view that Iraq had provided support to al Qaeda. In early 2003, according to former administration officials, then-CIA director George Tenet and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell also rejected as exaggerated and unsubstantiated by intelligence some elements of a speech drafted by aides to Vice President Dick Cheney that was intended to present the administration's case for........

Quote:

box #2
By THOMAS WAGNER
Associated Press Writer
SEPTEMBER 25, 04:21 ET
http://wire.ap.org/?FRONTID=EUROPE&S...2dWORLD%2dREAX

LONDON (AP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair's warning about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction appeared to win little support outside Washington, with France and China expressing skepticism.

For weeks, talk about a possible U.S.-led war against Iraq had created widespread interest about Blair's long-promised dossier about Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological arsenal.

In it and his speech to a special session of the House of Commons on Tuesday, Blair said the stockpile is not only growing, but that Saddam is prepared to use such weapons of mass destruction quickly. The intelligence dossier also said Iraq has taken steps to develop nuclear weapons.

Blair, President Bush's top ally, said he wants U.N. weapons inspectors allowed back into Iraq with no limits on their movements.

But he also supported the U.S. goal of a ``regime change'' in Baghdad, given how often Saddam has defied the world body's requirements regarding his weapons since losing the Gulf War.

Britain and the United States are two of the five permanent, veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council, and they have been trying to win the support of the other three - China, France and Russia - for a new resolution threatening Iraq for its continued defiance.

But the French and Chinese leaders both sounded skeptical Tuesday about Blair's speech and the dossier in comments they made while attending a summit of European and Asian leaders in Denmark.

French President Jacques Chirac said a war with Iraq is still avoidable if the U.N. Security Council is given a primary role in the crisis. Chirac reiterated there was no need for a proposed Security Council resolution threatening war if Saddam keeps U.N. arms inspectors out.

``This is not the view of France,'' said Chirac, adding that only inspectors can provide the needed proof about Saddam's weapons. ``I do not think at all that war is unavoidable.''..............
**********************************

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/me....powell.ricin/
Wednesday, February 12, 2003 Posted: 2:58 PM EST (1958 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- European intelligence officials questioned U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's contention Wednesday that the lethal poison involved in a terrorist plot broken up in Britain came from Iraq.

Powell cited the plot in testimony before the House International Relations Committee, arguing that part of the danger of not disarming Iraq lay in possible alliances with terrorists........

.......A French intelligence source said he was "stunned" by Powell's comment.

"There is no, repeat, no suggestion that the ricin was anything but locally produced," he said. "It was bad quality, not technically sophisticated."

Further, the source said, British authorities "are clear" that the poison was "home-made."

"Don't forget, intelligence is like a supermarket, and at that level in government, you see everything, and can pick anything," the source said.
*************************************

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html
German spies offered help to Saddam in run-up to war
By David Harrison in Baghdad
(Filed: 20/04/2003)

Germany's intelligence services attempted to build closer links to Saddam's secret service during the build-up to war last year, documents from the bombed Iraqi intelligence HQ in Baghdad obtained by The Telegraph reveal.

Documents recovered from Iraqi intelligence HQ in Baghdad

They show that an agent named as Johannes William Hoffner, described as a "new German representative in Iraq" who had entered the country under diplomatic cover, attended a meeting with Lt Gen Taher Jalil Haboosh, the director of Iraq's intelligence service.

During the meeting, on January 29, 2002, Lt Gen Haboosh says that the Iraqis are keen to have a relationship with Germany's intelligence agency "under diplomatic cover", adding that he hopes to develop that relationship through Mr Hoffner.

The German replies: "My organisation wants to develop its relationship with your organisation."

In return, the Iraqis offered to give lucrative contracts to German companies if the Berlin government helped prevent an American invasion of the country.

The revelations come a week after The Telegraph reported that Russia had spied for the Iraqis, passing them intelligence about a meeting between Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister. Both the British and Italian governments have launched investigations.

The meeting between the Iraqi and German agents took place some six months before Chancellor Schröder's Social Democrat-led government began its policy of direct opposition to the idea of an American/British-led war against Iraq. The policy was adopted in the heat of last year's German general election campaign, at a time when the Social Democrats were widely predicted to lose the contest. Mr Schröder was re-elected as Chancellor last September, largely because of the popularity of his government's outspoken opposition to the war against Iraq. The apparently verbatim account of the meeting between Lt Gen Haboosh and Mr Hoffner was among documents recovered by The Telegraph in the rubble of the Iraqi intelligence headquarters in Baghdad, which was heavily bombed.

During the meeting, Lt Gen Haboosh tells the German agent that Iraq has "big problems" with Britain and the United States. "We have problems with Britain because it occupied Iraq for 60 years and with America because of its aggression for 11 years," he says.

He adds, however, that Iraq has no problems with Germany and suggests that Germany will be rewarded with lucrative contracts if it offers international support to Iraq. "When the American conspiracy is finished, we will make a calculation for each state that helps Iraq in its crisis."

He also urges Mr Hoffner to lobby the German government to raise its diplomatic mission in Baghdad to full ambassadorial level. Mr Hoffner says that it would be a decision for the German foreign ministry, but Germany's diplomatic presence in the Iraqi capital made it easier for him to enter Iraq because he was able to use diplomatic cover.

Last night, a spokesman for the German government said it was "well known" that it had been offered lucrative contracts by Baghdad providing it maintained an anti-Iraq war stance. "Iraq made these kinds of promises before the war and praised Germany for its position," he said............
***********************************

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...431645,00.html
Why Bush Struggles to Win UN Backing
Inspections have found Iraq in violation of disarmament requirements, but have not confirmed Anglo-American claims of an imminent danger. Can the President still convince the UN?
By TONY KARON

Posted Thursday, Mar. 13, 2003
The Bush administration has always insisted it doesn't need UN permission to invade Iraq. President Bush has never left any doubt that the outcome of Security Council deliberations won't stop him from acting to eliminate what he perceives as an imminent threat to U.S. and allied security. When Bush first raised the issue at the UN Security Council last Fall, he did so in the form of a challenge to the international body — follow us to war, or render yourselves irrelevant...............

....................This week's failure by the U.S. and Britain to win backing for a UN ultimatum to Iraq authorizing force if Baghdad fails to meet a 10-day disarmament deadline underscores the fact that the UN process has, if anything, weakened rather than strengthened international support for a war........

...................The reason for the administration's difficulties may be, in part, the nature of the evidence revealed by the UN process. The Bush case for war against Iraq is premised on the idea that not only has Saddam failed to complete the disarmament required of him by the Gulf War truce, but that he is actively pursuing new chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs; and that these, together with what Washington insists is an alliance between Iraq and al-Qaeda, represent a clear and present danger to U.S. security.

But the inspection process has tested some of these claims, and in the process undermined the Bush administration's case. The inspectors found that Iraq has failed to destroy or account for substantial the stocks of chemical and biological weapons left over from its war with Iran, but they have found nothing to back claims of current, active chemical, biological or nuclear programs. Inspectors have made clear to the Council that they have investigated a number of U.S. and British allegations and intelligence tips, which came to naught...........
************************************

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3661134.stm
Thursday, 16 September, 2004, 09:21 GMT 10:21 UK

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally. .................

.........'Valid'

"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added.

He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.

And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.

When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.".............

Quote:

Box #4
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/in...er=rssuserland
October 3, 2004
How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence
By DAVID BARSTOW, WILLIAM J. BROAD and JEFF GERTH

In 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in September, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States now had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States.

Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.

The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.

Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.

One result was a largely one-sided presentation to the public that did not convey the depth of evidence and argument against the administration's most tangible proof of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq.

Today, 18 months after the invasion of Iraq, investigators there have found no evidence of hidden centrifuges or a revived nuclear weapons program. The absence of unconventional weapons in Iraq is now widely seen as evidence of a profound intelligence failure, of an intelligence community blinded by "group think," false assumptions and unreliable human sources.

Yet the tale of the tubes, pieced together through records and interviews with senior intelligence officers, nuclear experts, administration officials and Congressional investigators, reveals a different failure.......

.........Mr. Tenet declined to be interviewed. But in a statement, he said he "made it clear" to the White House "that the case for a possible nuclear program in Iraq was weaker than that for chemical and biological weapons." Regarding the tubes, Mr. Tenet said "alternative views were shared" with the administration after the intelligence community drafted a new National Intelligence Estimate in late September 2002.

The tubes episode is a case study of the intersection between the politics of pre-emption and the inherent ambiguity of intelligence. The tubes represented a scientific puzzle and rival camps of experts clashed over the tiniest technical details in secure rooms in Washington, London and Vienna. The stakes were high, and they knew it.

So did a powerful vice president who saw in 9/11 horrifying confirmation of his long-held belief that the United States too often naïvely underestimates the cunning and ruthlessness of its foes.

"We have a tendency - I don't know if it's part of the American character - to say, 'Well, we'll sit down and we'll evaluate the evidence, we'll draw a conclusion,' " Mr. Cheney said as he discussed the tubes in September 2002 on the NBC News program "Meet the Press."

"But we always think in terms that we've got all the evidence,'' he said. "Here, we don't have all the evidence. We have 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent. We don't know how much. We know we have a part of the picture. And that part of the picture tells us that he is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons."..............

...........One senior C.I.A. official recalled cautioning members of Congress in a closed session not to speak publicly about the possibility that the tubes were for rockets. ''If people start talking about that and the Iraqis see that people are saying rocket bodies, that will automatically become their explanation whenever anyone goes to Iraq,'' the official said in an interview.

So while administration officials spoke freely about the agency's theory, the evidence that best challenged this view remained almost entirely off limits for public debate.

In late September, the C.I.A. sent policymakers its most detailed classified report on the tubes. For the first time, an agency report acknowledged that ''some in the intelligence community'' believed rockets were ''more likely end uses'' for the tubes, according to officials who have seen the report.

Meanwhile, at the Energy Department, scientists were startled to find senior White House officials embracing a view of the tubes they considered thoroughly discredited. ''I was really shocked in 2002 when I saw it was still there,'' Dr. Wood, the Oak Ridge adviser, said of the centrifuge claim. ''I thought it had been put to bed.''

Members of the Energy Department team took a highly unusual step: They began working quietly with a Washington arms-control group, the Institute for Science and International Security, to help the group inform the public about the debate, said one team member and the group's president, David Albright.

On Sept. 23, the institute issued the first in series of lengthy reports that repeated some of the Energy Department's arguments against the C.I.A. analysis, though no classified ones. Still, after more than 16 months of secret debate, it was the first public airing of facts that undermined the most alarming suggestions about Iraq's nuclear threat.

The reports got little attention, partly because reporters did not realize they had been done with the cooperation of top Energy Department experts. The Washington Post ran a brief article about the findings on Page A18. Many major newspapers, including The Times, ran nothing at all. Scrambling for an 'Estimate'

Soon after Mr. Cheney's appearance on ''Meet the Press,'' Democratic senators began pressing for a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, terrorism and unconventional weapons. A National Intelligence Estimate is a classified document that is supposed to reflect the combined judgment of the entire intelligence community. The last such estimate had been done in 2000.

Most estimates take months to complete. But this one had to be done in days, in time for an October vote on a war resolution. There was little time for review or reflection, and no time for Jaeic, the joint committee, to reconcile deep analytical differences.

This was a potentially thorny obstacle for those writing the nuclear section: What do you do when the nation's nuclear experts strongly doubt the linchpin evidence behind the C.I.A.'s claims that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear weapons program?

The Energy Department helped solve the problem. In meetings on the estimate, senior department intelligence officials said that while they still did not believe the tubes were for centrifuges, they nonetheless could agree that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons capability.

Several senior scientists inside the department said they were stunned by that stance; they saw no compelling evidence of a revived nuclear program.

Some laboratory officials blamed time pressure and inexperience. Thomas S. Ryder, the department's representative at the meetings, had been acting director of the department's intelligence unit for only five months. ''A heck of a nice guy but not savvy on technical issues,'' is the way one senior nuclear official described Mr. Ryder, who declined comment.

Mr. Ryder's position was more alarming than prior assessments from the Energy Department. In an August 2001 intelligence paper, department analysts warned of suspicious activities in Iraq that ''could be preliminary steps'' toward reviving a centrifuge program. In July 2002 an Energy Department report, ''Nuclear Reconstitution Efforts Underway?'', noted that several developments, including Iraq's suspected bid to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger, suggested Baghdad was ''seeking to reconstitute'' a nuclear weapons program.

According to intelligence officials who took part in the meetings, Mr. Ryder justified his department's now firm position on nuclear reconstitution in large part by citing the Niger reports. Many C.I.A. analysts considered that intelligence suspect, as did analysts at the State Department.

Nevertheless, the estimate's authors seized on the Energy Department's position to avoid the entire tubes debate, with written dissents relegated to a 10-page annex. The estimate would instead emphasize that the C.I.A. and the Energy Department both agreed that Mr. Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. Only the closest reader would see that each agency was basing its assessment in large measure on evidence the other considered suspect.

On Oct. 2, nine days before the Senate vote on the war resolution, the new National Intelligence Estimate was delivered to the Intelligence Committee. The most significant change from past estimates dealt with nuclear weapons; the new one agreed with Mr. Cheney that Iraq was in aggressive pursuit of the atomic bomb.

Asked when Mr. Cheney became aware of the disagreements over the tubes, Mr. Kellems, his spokesman, said, ''The vice president knew about the debate at about the time of the National Intelligence Estimate.''

Today, the Intelligence Committee's report makes clear, that 93-page estimate stands as one of the most flawed documents in the history of American intelligence. The committee concluded unanimously that most of the major findings in the estimate were wrong, unfounded or overblown.

This was especially true of the nuclear section.

Estimates express their most important findings with high, moderate or low confidence levels. This one claimed ''moderate confidence'' on how fast Iraq could have a bomb, but ''high confidence'' that Baghdad was rebuilding its nuclear program. And the tubes were the leading and most detailed evidence cited in the body of the report.

Enough in this post, more lies from Bush's Veteran's Day Speech in next post-

More lies....big ones. On November 11, 2005, Bush spoke to U.S. troops in PA and told them the following mistruths that are the latest in a documented series of misleading statements and lies about the status of training and readiness of Iraqi security forces. It is all the more disturbing that the commander in chief of these troops deliberatley misleads them on a matter that cause a public controversy just 45 days ago, in a congressional hearing. It is also a matter that goes directly to assessment of progress in Iraq that is required before Bush will approve withdrawal of signifigant forced from Iraq...and he lies to the very folks who have the potential of being rotated into Iraq for additional tours of duty in a combat zone:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0051111-1.html
President Commemorates Veterans Day, Discusses War on Terror
Tobyhanna Army Depot
Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania

........Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. They are fanatical and extreme -- but they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, "We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life." (Applause.) And the civilized world knows very well that other fanatics in history, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, consumed whole nations in war and genocide before leaving the stage of history. Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously -- and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.,,,,,,,,,,,,
And....he works in the ole "Hitler" comparison out of habit

...........Together with our partners, we've disrupted a number of serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th -- including several plots to attack inside the United States. Our coalition against terror has killed or captured nearly all those directly responsible for the September the 11th attacks. We've captured or killed several of bin Laden's most serious deputies, al Qaeda managers and operatives in more than 24 countries; the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, who was chief of al Qaeda's operations in the Persian Gulf; the mastermind of the bombings in Jakarta and Bali; a senior Zarqawi terrorist planner, who was planning attacks in Turkey; and many of their senior leaders in Saudi Arabia.......

........I have said, as Iraqis stand up, Americans will stand down. And with our help, the Iraqi military is gaining new capabilities and new confidence with each passing month. At the time of our Fallujah operations a year ago, there were only a few Iraqi army battalions in combat. Today, there are nearly 90 Iraqi army battalions fighting the terrorists alongside our forces. (Applause.) General David Petraeus says, "Iraqis are in the fight. They're fighting and dying for their country, and they're fighting increasingly well." This progress is not easy, but it is steady. And no fair-minded person should ignore, deny, or dismiss the achievements of the Iraqi people. (Applause.).........All of the references in the preceding paragraph have been disproven - see below..

Here is the re-cap:

Quote:

Box #4(Sept. 23, 2004) Bush: "Nearly 100,000 fully trained and equipped Iraqi soldiers, police officers, and other security personnel are working today."

Box #3(Jan. 18, 2005)Sen. Biden to Condaleeza Rice: " if you speak to the folks on the ground, they don't think there's more than 4,000 actually trained Iraqi forces. I strongly urge you to pick up the phone or go see these folks."

Box #2(Mar. 8, 2005)Gen. George Casey: "There's not a timetable. What I said was that there are 90-plus battalions that are operating with coalition forces. Okay? And some of those battalions are good enough so that they can operate independently. But there's not many of them."

Box #1(Sept. 30, 2005)Gen. George W. Casey: "The number of Iraqi army battalions that can fight insurgents without U.S. and coalition help has dropped from three to one......Senators bristled at the disclosure that only one of Iraq's 86 army battalions is ready to fight on its own....."

and on (Nov. 11, 2005) Bush: "At the time of our Fallujah operations a year ago, there were only a few Iraqi army battalions in combat. Today, there are nearly 90 Iraqi army battalions fighting the terrorists alongside our forces."

<h4>Bottomline: 13-1/2 months of Bush lies and mistruths to hide the fact that there is no signifigant progress in the training, equipping, and fielding of battalions of Iraqi soldiers that can function independently with the goal of replacing American combat forces in Iraq. Bush had the poor judgment of spewing this BS in a highly publicized speech to soldiers who he commands</h4>

Quote:

Box #1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092902085.html
Decline in Iraqi Troops' Readiness Cited
Generals Tell Lawmakers They Cannot Predict When U.S. Forces Can Withdraw

By Josh White and Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 30, 2005; Page A12

The number of Iraqi army battalions that can fight insurgents without U.S. and coalition help has dropped from three to one, top U.S. generals told Congress yesterday, adding that the security situation in Iraq is too uncertain to predict large-scale American troop withdrawals anytime soon.

Gen. George W. Casey Jr., who oversees U.S. forces in Iraq, said there are fewer Iraqi battalions at "Level 1" readiness than there were a few months ago. Although Casey said the number of troops and overall readiness of Iraqi security forces have steadily increased in recent months, and that there has not been a "step backwards," both Republican and Democratic senators expressed deep concern that the United States is not making enough progress against a resilient insurgency.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his commanders yesterday publicly hedged their forecasts of U.S. involvement in Iraq, leaving it unclear when troops will be able to come home or how long it will take before Iraqi security forces can defend their homeland. The officials also gave somber forecasts of significant insurgent attacks in the coming weeks as Iraq faces important political milestones............

.........Senators bristled at the disclosure that only one of Iraq's 86 army battalions is ready to fight on its own, including rare blunt criticism from Republicans. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he believes the United States has not had enough troops to fend off insurgents permanently. McCain also chastised Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, who retires as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff today, for being overly optimistic because "things have not gone as we had planned or expected nor as we were told by you, General Myers.".........

..........Asked whether the insurgency has worsened, Casey said it has not expanded geographically or numerically, "to the extent we can know that." But he noted that current "levels of violence are above norms," exceeding 500 attacks a week.............

Quote:

Box #2
http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2005/...0308-2241.html
Presenter: Gen. George Casey, USA, Commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq Tuesday, March 8, 2005

Special Defense Department Briefing

Third point, I mentioned the Iraqi security forces. They continue to get stronger every day. And the election success was a great boost not only to their own self-confidence, but to the Iraqi people's confidence in them.

Today we have just over 140,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces -- about 80,000 in the Ministry of Interior and about 60,000 in the Ministry of Defense. And today Iraq has more than 90 operational combat battalions in both military and special police. And these battalions are engaged in combat across Iraq, both with coalition forces and even in some cases independently without our support. And they are performing generally very well.

We will continue to build Iraqi divisions and brigades that are capable of independent counterinsurgency operations, so that the Iraqi armed forces themselves can take the leading role in fighting the insurgency, and the coalition forces can move to a supporting role. That will be our main effort here over the course of this year.

Q Talking about the Iraqi forces, you said, General, that 90 percent of the Iraqi forces are engaged in combat with the coalition forces, and sometimes they are engaged alone. My question is: When do you think the Iraqi forces will be capable to work alone on the ground? Is there any timetable?

GEN. CASEY: There's not a timetable. What I said was that there are 90-plus battalions that are operating with coalition forces. Okay? And some of those battalions are good enough so that they can operate independently. But there's not many of them. And over the period of the next year we will work with them to build their brigade and division level command structures so that you can have truly independent Iraqi operations. But it's going to take some months for that to happen.

Quote:

Box #3
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/po...rint&position=
January 18, 2005
TRANSCRIPT
Confirmation Hearing of Condoleeza Rice

BIDEN: On October 21st last year, you said, The Iraqi security force will number 125,000 by the end of the year. There will be 145,000 security forces by February, and 200,000 by the time of the permanent election. And in March of last year, Secretary Rumsfeld said, We now have 200,000 Iraqi security forces that are out there providing security in the country. And a month later he said 210,000 uniformed and called it, quote, an amazing accomplishment. And, now, what I'd like to know is what you all mean by trained Iraqi security force. Do you mean someone who we give a uniform to, someone who had been in the Iraqi military before or the police? Or does trained mean someone capable, absent a physical presence of the United States or a coalition force with them, to, in fact, do their job -- whatever it's assigned in whatever region they're in? What do you mean by trained ?

RICE: By trained, Senator, what we've been trying to do is take Iraqis -- some of whom have served before, some of whom have not -- and to give them, depending on whether it's police training or army training or commando training, the skills that they need to be able to secure the country. Now, we have had to, in many cases, understand that the initial training is just that, it's initial training, and that you face a number of other issues. You face issues of leadership. One of the problems that we've had with the desertion rates that we faced in the Iraqi security forces and with some of the problems of -- I'll call it discipline broadly -- is that we think there has been a leadership gap. We learned early on that Iraqis were not going to train and then serve coalition leaders and so...

BIDEN: What have we done about that leadership?

RICE: We have a very active program now that Prime Minister Allawi is very involved in himself of vetting proven leaders in the former Iraqi security forces to bring top-down leadership to those people. NATO, of course, has put in a training mission that is devoted to training leadership and...

BIDEN: That's not even set up yet, is it?

RICE: Well, it's -- we have, on the ground...

BIDEN: I'm not criticizing. I just want to -- look, here's the reason I asked this question. I talked about earlier -- and my time is about up. I talked earlier about the need to level with the American people. When you say we have 200,000 trained security forces and the secretary of state says we have 210,000, the impression of the average American is we've actually trained up people who can do the job. Now, I've made four trips there. Three since Saddam has come down. I've spent a lot of time. I've gone to the training facility for police in Jordan. With the American head trainer, I said without anybody there and I believe my friend and person who has an ideological bent considerably different than mine, my friend from South Carolina was there. I said, There's no one in the room. Please cut all the malarkey. Is this training program worth a darn? And the answer was no -- from our own trainer. I asked the head of the Jordanian police force who was there and the Canadian Royal Mounted Policeman who was there as the triumvirate running the operation. I've been back and spoke with a General Petraeus on two occasions. He is a first-rate soldier. He has indicated he's just basically beginning. How many -- and this is my last question. How many security forces do you think are trained that can shot straight, kill and stand their ground? I don't mean in a uniform. I mean real, live guys that our Marines. I was spent four hours in Fallujah. Our Marines are not real anxious to stand next to and count on a lot of Iraqi forces except the few that were trained as special forces. Now, how many do you really think are trained that Allawi can look to and say, I can rely on those forces ?

BIDEN: What do you think that number is?

RICE: Senator, I have to rely on what I get from the field. And by the way, I think that the trips that you've made and the trips that the others have made have given us information that we can go back with. And I appreciate your doing that. We think the number right now is somewhere over 120,000. We think that, among those people, there clearly continue to be questions about on-duty time, that is, people who don't report for duty. And so this is being looked at. We are trying to provide for some of these units mentors who can help, trying to provide leadership from the Iraqis themselves that can help these people. But this is the reason that Gary Luck has gone out, at Secretary Rumsfeld's direction, to take a hard look at the training program to see what General Petraeus, who, as you say, is a terrific soldier and has a lot of experience in Iraq, what he's been able to achieve; to work with the Iraqis to address some of these problems of leadership and morale and desertion in the armed forces and in the police forces; and to look at some of the equipping of the police forces. But I do want to note, Senator, that the Iraqis are making a lot of sacrifices here...

BIDEN: No question.

RICE: ... their soldiers, their police, in places like Fallujah, in places like Samarra, in places like Najaf. They have played an active role in their security. But it is a process that takes some time. We believe that we've made some progress. We have more progress to make.

BIDEN: Well, I thank you for your answer. I think you'll find, if you speak to the folks on the ground, they don't think there's more than 4,000 actually trained Iraqi forces. I strongly urge you to pick up the phone or go see these folks. And the reason I press it is not that the Iraqis aren't sacrificing. They are. But that's almost irrelevant in one regard. The exit strategy for America is a trained force of several hundred thousand people. We're talking about a year or more to get anywhere close to that. We should level with the American people about it. But after you take a hard look as secretary of state, I'd like to talk with you more about that. Thank you.

Quote:

Box #4
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040923-8.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 23, 2004

President Bush and Prime Minister Allawi Press Conference
The Rose Garden

The second step is to help Iraq's new government establish stability and security. Iraq must be able to defend itself. And Iraqi security forces are taking increasing responsibility for their country's security. Nearly 100,000 fully trained and equipped Iraqi soldiers, police officers, and other security personnel are working today. And that total will rise to 125,000 by the end of this year. The Iraqi government is on track to build a force of over 200,000 security personnel by the end of next year. With the help of the American military, the training of the Iraqi army is almost halfway complete. And in Najaf and other important areas, Iraqi military forces have performed with skill and success. In Najaf, Iraqi and coalition forces effectively surrounded, isolated and engaged enemy militias. Prime Minister Allawi and his government reached out to the local population to persuade citizens the path to a better future would be found in political participation and economic progress. The interim government then negotiated from a position of strength to end the standoff........

............... Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, in the past couple of days you have been talking about the consequences of the mixed messages you say John Kerry sends. I want to ask you, sir, do you mean immediate consequences, not just if the Senator is elected? Do you mean that the messages being sent now have a negative effect on the effort in Iraq? And does making the war in Iraq a part of a campaign also have consequences on the situation there, sir?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I think -- look, in a campaign, it's -- the war of Iraq is going to be part of a campaign. It's -- this is a major moment in American history. These are historic times. And I view it as a great opportunity to help secure our country. As I said before, Iraq is a central part of the war on terror. And I believe it's important for us to succeed there because of that.

See, 9/11 changed everything. September the 11th meant that we had to deal with a person like Saddam Hussein. Of course, I was hoping it could be done diplomatically. But diplomacy failed. And so the last resort of a President is to use force. And we did. And now we're -- we're helping the Iraqis.

The Prime Minister said something very interesting a while ago, and it's important for the American people to understand. Our strategy is to help the Iraqis help themselves. It's important that we train Iraqi troops. There are nearly 100,000 troops trained. The Afghan (sic) national army is a part of the army. By the way -- it's the Afghan [sic] national army that went into Najaf and did the work there. There's a regular army being trained. There are border guards being trained. There are police being trained. That's a key part of our mission.

But, Wendell, I think the world watches America. We're an influential nation, and everybody watches what we say. And I think it's very important for the American President to mean what he says. That's why I understand that the enemy could misread what I say. That's why I try to be as clearly I can. I don't want them to be emboldened by any confusion or doubt. I don't want them to think that, well, maybe all they got to do is attack and we'll shirk our duties. See, they've been emboldened before. They have caused certain nations to withdraw from coalitions as a result of their action, such action reinforcing the ability for suiciders, for example, to effect free societies. I know that. I've seen firsthand the tactics of these killers. And so therefore, I think it's very important for all of us involved in the process not to send mixed signals.

I don't know what the enemy thinks today. But I do know they're watching America very carefully. I do know they want to affect other nations by their acts of murder. I do know they were emboldened by Spain withdrew from Iraq as a result of attacks on election. And therefore, I have a duty to our troops -- for starters, most importantly -- not to send a mixed signal. I want our troops to know that the sacrifices they are making are worthwhile and necessary for the security of this country. And I want -- don't want the Iraqis to fear that, oh, all of a sudden, there will be a change of heart, that there'll be tough times politically, or that a poll might say something and, therefore, cause me to change my opinion. I don't want them to think that, because they have to make the hard choices for freedom. They have to go from a society that has been tortured by a brutal thug to a society in which they take responsibility for their daily lives.

I don't want the coalition forces to feel like we're wavering. And so I understand that people watch our words. And that's an explanation of why I say what I say.

In the above press conference, Bush states that he "understand(s) that people watch our words", yet everything he said about the progress of training a new Iraqi army is either misleading or untrue, and twice he refers to that army as "Afghan", instead of as "Iraqi".

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

We'll start with Bush's biggest lie:...

How do you explain this away, host?

Quote:

Bin Laden's Warning: full text

Osama Bin Laden has issued a strongly-worded warning to the United States in a recorded statement broadcast on al-Jazeera television. Below is the full text of his statement.

Praise be to God and we beseech Him for help and forgiveness.

We seek refuge with the Lord of our bad and evildoing. He whom God guides is rightly guided but he whom God leaves to stray, for him wilt thou find no protector to lead him to the right way.

I witness that there is no God but God and Mohammed is His slave and Prophet.

What the United States tastes today is a very small thing compared to what we have tasted for tens of years

God Almighty hit the United States at its most vulnerable spot. He destroyed its greatest buildings.

Praise be to God.

Here is the United States. It was filled with terror from its north to its south and from its east to its west.

Praise be to God.

What the United States tastes today is a very small thing compared to what we have tasted for tens of years.

Our nation has been tasting this humiliation and contempt for more than 80 years.

Its sons are being killed, its blood is being shed, its holy places are being attacked, and it is not being ruled according to what God has decreed.

Despite this, nobody cares.

When Almighty God rendered successful a convoy of Muslims, the vanguards of Islam, He allowed them to destroy the United States.

But if the sword falls on the United States after 80 years, hypocrisy raises its head lamenting the deaths of these killers who tampered with the blood, honour, and holy places of the Muslims

I ask God Almighty to elevate their status and grant them Paradise. He is the one who is capable to do so.

When these defended their oppressed sons, brothers, and sisters in Palestine and in many Islamic countries, the world at large shouted. The infidels shouted, followed by the hypocrites.

One million Iraqi children have thus far died in Iraq although they did not do anything wrong.

Despite this, we heard no denunciation by anyone in the world or a fatwa by the rulers' ulema [body of Muslim scholars].

Israeli tanks and tracked vehicles also enter to wreak havoc in Palestine, in Jenin, Ramallah, Rafah, Beit Jala, and other Islamic areas and we hear no voices raised or moves made.

They champion falsehood, support the butcher against the victim, the oppressor against the innocent child.
May God mete them the punishment they deserve

But if the sword falls on the United States after 80 years, hypocrisy raises its head lamenting the deaths of these killers who tampered with the blood, honour, and holy places of the Muslims.

The least that one can describe these people is that they are morally depraved.

They champion falsehood, support the butcher against the victim, the oppressor against the innocent child.

May God mete them the punishment they deserve.

I say that the matter is clear and explicit.

In the aftermath of this event and now that senior US officials have spoken, beginning with Bush, the head of the world's infidels, and whoever supports him, every Muslim should rush to defend his religion.

They came out to fight Islam in the name of terrorism

They came out in arrogance with their men and horses and instigated even those countries that belong to Islam against us.

They came out to fight this group of people who declared their faith in God and refused to abandon their religion.

They came out to fight Islam in the name of terrorism.

Hundreds of thousands of people, young and old, were killed in the farthest point on earth in Japan.

[For them] this is not a crime, but rather a debatable issue.

They bombed Iraq and considered that a debatable issue.

These incidents divided the entire world into two regions - one of faith where there is no hypocrisy and another of infidelity, from which we hope God will protect us

But when a dozen people of them were killed in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Afghanistan and Iraq were bombed and all hypocrite ones stood behind the head of the world's infidelity - behind the Hubal [an idol worshipped by pagans before the advent of Islam] of the age - namely, America and its supporters.

These incidents divided the entire world into two regions - one of faith where there is no hypocrisy and another of infidelity, from which we hope God will protect us.

Neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed

The winds of faith and change have blown to remove falsehood from the [Arabian] peninsula of Prophet Mohammed, may God's prayers be upon him.

As for the United States, I tell it and its people these few words: I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed, may God's peace and blessing be upon him.

God is great and glory to Islam.

May God's peace, mercy, and blessings be upon you.

It seems to me that the tapestry you weave is tarnished from the very start by faulty reasoning.

How do you explain away bin Laden's acceptance of responsibility, and his promise of more to come?

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

How do you explain this away, host?

It seems to me that the tapestry you weave is tarnished from the very start by faulty reasoning.

How do you explain away bin Laden's acceptance of responsibility, and his promise of more to come?

That one's easy. Everyone knows that there really is no Bin Laden, he's just a construct made by Bush to trick everyone into thinking that there's some "terrorist" threat. When it was really Bush who orchestrated the WTC attacks, duh :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Maybe it can be explained by the fact that the CIA was instrumental in bringing Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to power. Not to mention the Bin Laden and Bush families' business endeavors throughout the years. It's very lucrative for the two crime families to keep the terrorism threat alive. Does it mattter if Bin Laden claimed responsibility for the attacks if Bush and him are on the same team?

Don't forget the people who harbor and fund terrorists are just as guilty according to Dubya. Of course no one has more connections to the Bin Laden's than the Bushes do. That's my number 1 reason for rationally disliking Bush.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Huh??? even I don't get that.

I don't hate Bush. But what I really dislike is his (or his administration's) constant balck and white rhetoric. i.e. ' If you aren't with us, you're against us'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

OK fine, Bush was responsible for 9/11.
Thanks for playing.

...backing slowly out of room now...

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

OK fine, Bush was responsible for 9/11.
Thanks for playing.

...backing slowly out of room now...

Just play the conspiracy theory card. I'll admit it's easier than dealing with the well documented bin laden connections to the CIA and to the Bush family. That can just be forgotten about that though because there's a war to get behind.

How can someone look at the mountain of information against Bush and still rationally support him? Heck even a former Bush administration member(Morgan Reynolds chief economist dept. of Labor 1st term) is coming out and saying it looks like high levels of the US government may have planned the attacks. Former Bush Admin Member Appears On Alex Jones Show; Says Government Complicit In 9/11 (Audio)

I'm not sure that I hate George Bush, as hate is a very strong word. I dislike many of his policies, though:
-record budget deficits
-excessively religious rhetoric
-opposition to basic civil liberties
-dreadful mismanagement of the situations with North Korea, Syria, and Iran

Yeah, I also hold him personally accountable for flying those planes into the world trade center by remote control! :thumbsup:

Bush is just another major party polititian, in that regard he deserves our rational dislike.

This election cycle a large group is critical of the Republican, next election cycle a large group will be critical of the Democrat. They keep us pre-occupied with thinking that there are major differences between the two when they are almost the same.

Most of the policies and problems we face today would still be there no matter which major party is in control. It is in both their interests to grow the government ever larger and consolidate more power in Washington D.C. Both partiies are corrupt and grow richer at our expense and we are duped into thinking it makes a big difference which one is ruling us at the moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I've posted statements that Bush has made on Sept. 16, 2001, Sept. 23, 2004, and Nov. 11, 2005, all displayed on the white house's own website.

I've posted multiple and overwhelmingly credible, linked references that report the opposite, or at least essentially contradict all of Bush's statements.

Your response seems to be an attempt to defend Bush by your posting of a statement attributed to Bin Laden. I fail to understand how your Bin Laden quote rehabilitates any of my examples of Bush lies or intentionally misleading statements. My guess is that your intent is to discredit me if you are able to entice me into taking your "bait".

On Sept. 16, 2001....five days after 9/11 Bush said this to the press:

Quote:

Never did anybody's thought process about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly

not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious U.S. targets - never............

Later we learned (I've cited four reports) that Bush's declaration, quoted above, was most likely, <h3>Not True</h3>.

That quote has received very little coverage by the MSM. Condaleeza later made a very similar declaration, and it is her statement that has often been
referenced by the MSM

Quote:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../23/se.07.html
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Myers Testify Before 9/11 Commission

Aired March 23, 2004 - 15:32 ET

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE, COMMISSION MEMBER: Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary. There are a number of different questions I'd like to ask, but my time is limited........

.......With respect to your comment about domestic intelligence and what we knew as of September 10th, 2001, your statement was that you knew of no intelligence to suggest that planes would be hijacked in the United States and flown into buildings...............

.......I understand that going after al Qaeda overseas is one thing. But protecting the United States is another thing. And it seems to me that a statement that we could not conceive of such a thing happening really does not reflect the state of our intelligence community as of 2001, sir.

RUMSFELD: A couple of comments. I quite agree with you, there were a number of reports about potential hijacking. I even remember comments about UAVs.

I even have seen things about private aircraft hitting something. But I do not recall ever seeing anything in the period since I came back to government about the idea of taking a commercial airliner and using it as a missile. I just don't recall seeing it. And maybe you do, Dick?

MYERS: No, I do not.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, the fact is that our staff has -- and the joint inquiry before us, I must say -- has come up with eight or 10 examples which are well-known in the intelligence community. My goodness, there was an example of an individual who flew a small plane and landed right next to the White House.

RUMSFELD: I remember.

Three weeks later, the WaPo published a report that indicates that Rumsfeld or Myers actually should have known that the "idea" was considered at the pentagon:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
Pentagon Crash Scenario Was Rejected for Military Exercise

By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 14, 2004; Page A16

While planning a high-level training exercise months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, U.S. military officials considered a scenario in which a hijacked foreign commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon, defense officials said yesterday.

But the scenario was rejected as not in keeping with the theme of the April 2001 exercise, which dealt with how command of U.S. forces would be maintained in the event the Pentagon became unusable during a major war, the officials said. ....

The evidence indicates that Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Myers all made misleading statements concerning what they knew, before 9/11 about the possibility of terrorist attacks via hijacked domestic airliners being intentionally flown into architectural landmarks.

That evidence does not change and the damage that it causes to the credibility and to the reputations of these people who were entrusted with the responsibility to protect us, just because you post a statement of responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, attributed to Bin Laden.

Why do you attempt to change the subject? Isn't the evidence that Bush has repeatedly lied to the American people concerning grave matters of national security, over a four year period, including delivering a speech last week that is intentionally riddled with lies and misleading phrases, enough to even cause you to question who and what you are defending, again and again on these threads. Your defense of the things that Bush has said and done, even with your "back door" attempt to defend him here by discreditng me, reflects badly on you, and your judgment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

I'm not sure that I hate George Bush, as hate is a very strong word. I dislike many of his policies, though:

.....Yeah, I also hold him personally accountable for flying those planes into the world trade center by remote control! :thumbsup:

Posting a sophomoric "taunt", instead of discussing the "fact" that Bush made a statement on Sept. 16, 2001, that later news reports reveal Bush had to know, at the time he made the statement, to be untrue, is counterproductive to this discussion.

Until your post, references to the 9/11 attack had to do with what Bush knew vs. public statements that he made. The points made concerning conflicts in Bush's statements were backed with reputable, linked references.

What is the context and the motivation for your "world trade center" reference?

The poor kid's trying to take a shot at me. Hahaha. :lol: If you want to discuss the conspiracy surrpounding 9/11, I invite you to a discussion in the 9/11 thread in Paranoia. If you want to try and take shots at me in Politics, all you are doing is inviting the facts from the 9/11 thread in Paranoia into Polotics. Do you really want to open that Pandora's Box?

Hatred is never rational, even if provoked.

An emotional response can be triggered by rational thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Your response seems to be an attempt to defend Bush by your posting of a statement attributed to Bin Laden.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I fail to understand how your Bin Laden quote rehabilitates any of my examples of Bush lies or intentionally misleading statements.

With all due respect, your characterizations of Bush are beyond rehabilitation in my opinion. I simply refuse to believe anyone who tries to formulate a line of reasoning based upon a conspiracy theory. Simple as that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Hatred is never rational, even if provoked.

Same with Paranoia, Ustwo.

Let's see. In the past 5 days we've preached I mean discussed:

1) Bush=Hitler
2) 9/11=Bush's fault
3) Bush Lied - People Died
4) America=1930's Nazi Police State

The only thing that might make sense is the arrival of Avian Bird Flu.

Rather than wait for this to become Nasty....

".....Yeah, I also hold him personally accountable for flying those planes into the world trade center by remote control!"
Host....Mellow out, your getting pissed over sarcasm

This thread is iffy at best, and I am half tempted to move it or close it. which would be a shame.I know you are all capable of dealing with this as adults....

as a side note....I totally agree with Ustwo in this ".....Hatred is never rational, even if provoked."And yes....hell just froze over

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I am not defending Bush. bin Laden was around long before Bush became President. bin Laden's hatred and fatwas against America go back 10 years at the very least. Outside of conspiracy theories not worthy of discussion (with me anyway), I haven't heard one rational explanation for 9/11. The rational, logical comprehensive evidence points to bin Laden.

With all due respect, your characterizations of Bush are beyond rehabilitation in my opinion. I simply refuse to believe anyone who tries to formulate a line of reasoning based upon a conspiracy theory. Simple as that.

Please point out one example or reference by me on this thread that relates to a "conspiracy theory", and I'll respond to it.

Otherwise, I suggest that you respond to the points actually displayed in my posts. Point out where I inaccurately accuse Bush of making a misleading or an untrue statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Please point me to examples of either politicophile or powerclown making an effort to counter the points that I have actually posted, because I cannot find content in their posts that respond to the points that I've made.

If they are directing their comments towards me, isn't it reasonable to expect that they are addressing the points that I have actually made?

Well, guess I'll try to get the thread back on topic :D

I don't hate Bush. Dislike, distrust, yes. Hate, no. And it's really not just Bush--I see problems with the whole Neo-con movement, and the vast majority of the Republican party.

The things that make me dislike and distrust the Bush administration:
1) The war in Iraq. I think it was uncalled for, pushed for unclear reasons, and not properly supported. I think that we still don't have a clear plan there. I also think that it has made the world less safe as well.
2) Massive abuse of civil rights. Guantanamo Bay. The Patriot Act. Ad nauseum.
3) Destroying the trust and goodwill of the rest of the world. After 9/11, we had the entire Western world, and much of the Eastern world, on our side. We could have sat down and done something serious about terrorism. Instead, we told them to shove it and went into an ill-planned and reactionary war.
4) Gross mismanagement of finances. I thought Republicans were supposed to be about fiscal conservativism? The man spends like a college kid in a liquor store. Largest deficit in history. Enough said.
5) Cronyism. Mike Brown, anyone? Harriet Miers, Cheney and Halliburton, etc.
6) Pandering to big business. Pro-business economic policies are fine. Blatantly pandering to one sector or a few companies is not.
7) Religion. Bush seems intent on bringing religion into the government, courtroom, and classroom. It belongs in the church, not in the government.
8) The supreme court. I don't really have any problems with Roberts. I think maybe appointing him head justice was a bit hasty, but he seems to be an intelligent and reasoned man. But Alito is pretty far off to the right and Miers was in my opinion another cronyisitic (is that even a word?) action, and she was in no way qualified to sit on that court.
9) The environment. I love the outdoors, and I think this administration has been one of the most backwards thinking administrations in terms of the environment we have ever seen.
10) Katrina. People act like Bush was responsible for the hurricane itself, which is clearly ridiculous. But he was slow to act, and once he did, did so (I thought) half-heartedly. And don't forget Brown. I still can't get over that; cronyism at it's worst.

So that's pretty much it. That's most of why I don't like Bush and his administration. Not irrational, I have very set and clear reasons why I don't like what he's done.

host, if your point is that Bush did in fact know about jets being used as missiles, you are acknowledging 3 things:

1) bin Laden's ambitions to attack America.
2) that terrorists did in fact fly jets into buildings on 9/11.
3) invalidating the conspiracy theory of "Professional Demolition" of those buildings.

Sigh. I'm sure you also have conspiracy theories to back up your conspiracy theories. I'm through.

Perhaps it is the time of year, with no major elections, no press to speak with giddy smiles at democrat victories and republican losses, and no pundits making front page news, that keeps people from the debate, but the politics board has become more and more about the irrational, and even the rational often seems to be based on irrational and refuted premises (no need to point fingers). The political philosophies matter little when its about who can shout the loudest with the most people, regardless of the merit of the argument.

We are left with those who enjoy the art of the debate, for the sake of the debate, and those with axes to grind. While we can enjoy reading those who are here for the debating, it quickly dissolves when confronted by an axe wielder.

I have a feeling next November will be quite different.

I would be interested to hear where certain parties believe they fall on the axe-grinder/art-of-debate continuum...

Tecoyah's right Host...have an adult beverage or two and try to get a sense of humor back about all the crap our administration seems to be getting us into. As for Bush, I voted for him as the lesser of two evils, or so I thought at the time (maybe we should have a "what I hated about Kerry" thread). Bush is stodgy, not so bright, intolerant, arrogant, lacking in empathy...I could go on, but why bother? I don't hate him though. In fact, I'm mostly just scared that he is so sure he's doing what's best for all of us, even though we may disagree (vehemently so, in your case).

I don't hate George Bush.

It's his foreign policy, his domestic policy, and his fiscal policy that I can't stand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loganmule

As for Bush, I voted for him as the lesser of two evils, or so I thought at the time (maybe we should have a "what I hated about Kerry" thread)

Tow evils? How many people do you think ran for president in 2000, and 2004?

Wow. Little did I realize what this thread had jumped into. I just thought I was going to post why I dislike the man. I was sorely pressed to make a decision in the past election. It was an Evil of The Lessers situation that I was so angry with my country for putting me in.

I don't hate the man <term used loosely>, I am embarrassed that my President has such an issue with his vocabulary and grammar that he frequently cannot put together a coherent statement when taken off guard. I am frustrated with the narrow-mindedness that accompanies his cabinet and pours out of the mouths of some of the more rabid supporters. I am disappointed in a government that feels the need to monitor me, seeing as I am such a threat to national security--southern white girl with an accent and blue toenails... I'm going to hijack your plane, please take my shoes apart, confiscate my belt and drop my laptop on the ground. I am appalled at the support my President and government give towards slashing the budgets in regards to medical care, mental health treatment, juvenile justice, and education. Hate is not involved. It's sheer disbelief of nightmare proportions.

edit cause this southern white girl cain't speel.

I wish I were as eloquent as Jimmy Carter. I find that we share the same concerns so allow me to use his words to share my opinion.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111405Q.shtml

Quote:

This Isn't the Real America
By Jimmy Carter
The Los Angeles Times

Monday 14 November 2005

In recent years, I have become increasingly concerned by a host of radical government policies that now threaten many basic principles espoused by all previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.

These include the rudimentary American commitment to peace, economic and social justice, civil liberties, our environment and human rights.

Also endangered are our historic commitments to providing citizens with truthful information, treating dissenting voices and beliefs with respect, state and local autonomy and fiscal responsibility.

At the same time, our political leaders have declared independence from the restraints of international organizations and have disavowed long-standing global agreements - including agreements on nuclear arms, control of biological weapons and the international system of justice.

Instead of our tradition of espousing peace as a national priority unless our security is directly threatened, we have proclaimed a policy of "preemptive war," an unabridged right to attack other nations unilaterally to change an unsavory regime or for other purposes. When there are serious differences with other nations, we brand them as international pariahs and refuse to permit direct discussions to resolve disputes.

Regardless of the costs, there are determined efforts by top US leaders to exert American imperial dominance throughout the world.

These revolutionary policies have been orchestrated by those who believe that our nation's tremendous power and influence should not be internationally constrained. Even with our troops involved in combat and America facing the threat of additional terrorist attacks, our declaration of "You are either with us or against us!" has replaced the forming of alliances based on a clear comprehension of mutual interests, including the threat of terrorism.

Another disturbing realization is that, unlike during other times of national crisis, the burden of conflict is now concentrated exclusively on the few heroic men and women sent back repeatedly to fight in the quagmire of Iraq. The rest of our nation has not been asked to make any sacrifice, and every effort has been made to conceal or minimize public awareness of casualties.

Instead of cherishing our role as the great champion of human rights, we now find civil liberties and personal privacy grossly violated under some extreme provisions of the Patriot Act.

Of even greater concern is that the US has repudiated the Geneva accords and espoused the use of torture in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, and secretly through proxy regimes elsewhere with the so-called extraordinary rendition program. It is embarrassing to see the president and vice president insisting that the CIA should be free to perpetrate "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" on people in US custody.

Instead of reducing America's reliance on nuclear weapons and their further proliferation, we have insisted on our right (and that of others) to retain our arsenals, expand them, and therefore abrogate or derogate almost all nuclear arms control agreements negotiated during the last 50 years. We have now become a prime culprit in global nuclear proliferation. America also has abandoned the prohibition of "first use" of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear nations, and is contemplating the previously condemned deployment of weapons in space.

Protection of the environment has fallen by the wayside because of government subservience to political pressure from the oil industry and other powerful lobbying groups. The last five years have brought continued lowering of pollution standards at home and almost universal condemnation of our nation's global environmental policies.

Our government has abandoned fiscal responsibility by unprecedented favors to the rich, while neglecting America's working families. Members of Congress have increased their own pay by $30,000 per year since freezing the minimum wage at $5.15 per hour (the lowest among industrialized nations).

I am extremely concerned by a fundamentalist shift in many houses of worship and in government, as church and state have become increasingly intertwined in ways previously thought unimaginable.

As the world's only superpower, America should be seen as the unswerving champion of peace, freedom and human rights. Our country should be the focal point around which other nations can gather to combat threats to international security and to enhance the quality of our common environment. We should be in the forefront of providing human assistance to people in need.

It is time for the deep and disturbing political divisions within our country to be substantially healed, with Americans united in a common commitment to revive and nourish the historic political and moral values that we have espoused during the last 230 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Powerclown, I have reread Host's posts in this thread and have yet to find the conspiracy theory you claim he is representing. Please, point out the specific comment to which you are referring.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I wish I were as eloquent as Jimmy Carter. I find that we share the same concerns so allow me to use his words to share my opinion.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111405Q.shtml

I wish Carter would just stfu, he had his chance, he was awful, and works to weaken our nations resolve.

His weakness is part of why we have such issues today in the mid east.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I wish Carter would just stfu, he had his chance, he was awful, and works to weaken our nations resolve.

His weakness is part of why we have such issues today in the mid east.

I agree totally. Carter didn't understand the Middle East when he was president, and doesn't understand now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I wish Carter would just stfu, he had his chance, he was awful, and works to weaken our nations resolve.

His weakness is part of why we have such issues today in the mid east.

Here are your last dozen posts on this forum. In the past, posting a recap of your posts seemed to positively influence your output here, going forward...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The communist of course. An ant is unaware of the slavery and can not escape, a communist can. Of course this brings one to the red pill/ blue pill overused debate, and the Matrix is too crappy a movie at its core to bring up again.

M.S. :thumbsup: (Plus two additional post grad years, and a year of epidemiology)
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...eply&p=1937795

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Whats funny to me as a biologist is that while everyone, including myself, have used that communism works for a hive mentality type of argument, its not even perfect for ants. Because of its rigid nature, hives are very slow to adapt to new threats. There are insects who mimic the signals that ants use to communicate, and then they feed off the hives food supplies or the ants themselves. Being they are programmed for one kind of response, the ants are helpless.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...eply&p=1937604

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Hatred is never rational, even if provoked.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...eply&p=1937324

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Sometimes I wish some of you were trying to run a small business. Perhaps that should be a exercise in highschool or the like.

I was once told (by a union official I know personally) that the main reason the democrats (unions) were in favor of every minium wage increase they could get was that it created the baseline for where unions could set their wages. After all if UNSKILLED labor gets X then highly skilled Union labor should get X+Y at the very least. I haven't seen anything that would make me think he was wrong, as the concept of a minium wage is economially stupid.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...eply&p=1926735

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The funny thing about politics is that replace U.N. with Bush Admin, and you would see a very different take from the same people posting.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...eply&p=1921824

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

:thumbsup: Thanks, yes, that little dispute is what I was refering to.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...eply&p=1921217

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Fraid not.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...eply&p=1921200

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

From his credentials it was obvious he was a Bucannanite :)

1920's isolationism, worked out well.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...eply&p=1919670

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

*Crickets chirping*

I listen for the indignation of the left.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...eply&p=1919279

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Its so one sided I find it rather amusing.

Yes very suspect, it does a masteful job of being suspect :)

Edit: A few lines in that article to me said 'This guy is Anti-Isreal' and a quick search of his writings yield http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7127.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...eply&p=1919274

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Hyperion did it MUCH better, where the evil computers were using human brains for their processing power. I didn't see the Matrix until many years after it was out and I really had a hard time swallowing the 'battery' theory. I take it the computers never heard of geothermal or nuclear power.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...eply&p=1914531

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Here are your last dozen posts on this forum. In the past, posting a recap of your posts seemed to positively influence your output here, going forward...

Might not want to start that, because then he'll try to post your last dozen posts, and crash the board ;)

A fish does not know he is wet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Powerclown, I have reread Host's posts in this thread and have yet to find the conspiracy theory you claim he is representing. Please, point out the specific comment to which you are referring.

Did you notice that too? We had a nice little back and forth going, then BAM...debate over. Did you notice how quiet host suddenly got?

Around here, that means 3 possible things:

1) You won the debate
2) Google is down
3) Perplexed, once again, by Ustwo

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

This strongly mirrors my own opinion of Bush.

It is unfortunate that I felt it necessary to vote for him to keep Kerry out of the White House, but that is the political reality we live in.

*still searching for that viable third party...*

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

What debate? You were claiming he was posting nothing more than a conspiracy theory, and I am asking you to point specifically to the post that causes you to say that.

The only "debate" was your avoidance of answering this very question by Host, and once again be me. Perhaps three times is the charm..."where is the conspiracy theory?"

If host wants to respond to #24, I'll proceed from there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Amen, in a non-religious sense. I hope nobody minds if I return to actually discussing rational hatred of George Bush. :crazy:

I voted for Bush in 2004. Had I been old enough to vote in 2000, I would have done so then as well. In retrospect, I still believe those votes were the correct ones to have made, despite the numerous disagreements I have with Bush's policies.

Although Lebell chooses to phrase my goal in a different way than I would choose to, we share a wanting for a "viable third party". What I would really like to see, though, is the marginalization of the Bush-wing of the Republican Party. Christianity and social conservatism need to be thrown out, as mixing them with the government (in the classic Bush fashion) is contrary to the founding principles of the Republican Party.

The new "Republican Party" that I would create is one that rigorously defends civil/religious liberties (repeals the USA PATRIOT Act, stops using the Oval Office as a Christian-promoting device), supports fiscal responsibility (constitutional amendment against deficit spending, shove "bridge to nowhere" up Ted Stevens' ass), respects the right to privacy (no restrictions on abortions performed before viability, minimal restrictions on late-term abortions, freedom to use marajuana recreationally, freedom to buy whatever sort of firearm you please, freedom to marry whomever you please, regardless of gender), and adopts a consistently reserved, but not isolationist, position in international relations (give enough funding to MI so that we know what the hell rogue regimes are doing, apply sanctions to all countries that fail to respect basic human rights, invade all countries that engage in genocide [that includes Rwanda and Sudan], no more ineffective and excessively indiscriminate bombings a la Kosovo and Iraq 1998).

And that was my roundabout way of criticizing the Bush administration. His policy choices have been unwise in some instances and reasonably disasterous in others. My rational criticism for Bush stems primarily from his systemic abandonment of the conservative values of small government, individual freedom, and peace through strength. And don't even get me started on federalism...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Libertarian maybe?

There's no point in voting for a candidate that you know will lose when you have a stake in which main-party candidate wins. If the race is at all close, I probably would prefer the Republican over the Democrat. And since the libertarian is going to lose anyway, why would I waste my vote?

No, what I envision is either taking over the Republican party and altering its platform away from the Bush-Republican style, or replacing the Republicans with a new conservative party that better represents the ideals of classical liberals, i.e. actual modern conservatives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

If host wants to respond to #24, I'll proceed from there.

I have no idea what you edited out of this comment, so I will respond to your brief sentence.

#21: Host asked you to specify the conspiracy theory you ascribe to him.

#24: You respond with a non sequitur. This is the post you *really* believe is worthy of a response?

#32: I ask you to respond to Host's question in post #21.

#38: Boy Howdy! You somehow twist my words into something that appears that I agree with you in your silly attack on Host? That's some chutzpah.

#40: I called on you once again to answer the question in #21, #32, and ask for the third time that you answer the question of where is the conspiracy in Host's post.

Powerclown, this is simply a low tactic that is not worthy of you. I do not wish to consider the possibility that my good opinion of you is misplaced.

Drop the game or answer Host's question. It's that easy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Drop the game or answer Host's question. It's that easy.

He's not going to answer because he can't give an answer without either lying or losing, neither of which he wants to do.

He's backing the wrong guy, which means the facts are stacked against him. He's finding it more and more difficult to respond to the valid questions that you and others are posting. He's having to resort to the typical diversionary tactics to try and obscure the fact that his candidate, his political beliefs, and his party are crashing to earth.

What powerclown thinks he has done, is caught host in his own contradictory conspiracy theories. I say thinks because I do not have the stomach to go through each one host has posted on the Bush admin anymore so I can not verify powerclowns belief as true or false. I gave up trying to follow them all at the Bush engages in human sacrifice thread which was moved, wisely, to the paranoia board.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

What powerclown thinks he has done, is caught host in his own contradictory conspiracy theories.

If host wants to respond to #24, I'll proceed from there.

Politicophile,

I agree with pretty much all you've said.

My main beef with the libertarians is that they want to remove ALL security nets and I know from personal experience that that isn't realistic or desirable.

For example, OSHA and the related safety regulations (29 CFR 1910) are very much needed since too many employers have shown that they are capable of putting their employee's safety at serious risk to earn another 0.01 cents/share.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

For example, OSHA and the related safety regulations (29 CFR 1910) are very much needed since too many employers have shown that they are capable of putting their employee's safety at serious risk to earn another 0.01 cents/share.

You are, I think, correct in that the libertarian party assumes by nature that everyone can take care of themselves. Even in the US we may have raised the bar, but we still have a pesant class mentality out there, and they would indeed suffer more. My solution would be an education system designed to break this mentality but thats for another thread where we can all talk of our pet theories which no one will adopt.

That being said, more specificly, OSHA is one of those things which is good on paper, and not bad for all, but most definately bad for some. Being that I work with it every day, some of the hoops, expensive hoops passed on to the consumer, are very annoying and totally pointless in terms of safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

First of all, NO vote, that is cast, is a "wasted" vote.
Second of all, why do you "know" that the Libertarian is going to loose? Simply because they always have? I have heard over and over and over again that "Well, I'd have voted for Badnarik...if I thought that he had a chance to win.". Seems to me, that perhaps, just perhaps, if everyone had voted their true conscience, and how they truly believed, then Badnarik may have actually made quite a respectable showing.
That's kind of high schoolish, isn't it. "Well, I know that the "band geek" would make a much better student council president than the "jock", that he's running against, but he doesn't stand a chance of actually winning. Ahh, I'll just vote for the "jock" because everyone else is."

/me steps off of the Libertarian soapbox.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOR

Seems to me, that perhaps, just perhaps, if everyone had voted their true conscience, and how they truly believed, then Badnarik may have actually made quite a respectable showing.

Actually in a sense every vote is wasted no matter who you vote for, because there is not a chance in hell that your single vote is going to decide the election. In fact, you're more likely to be struck by lightning while winning the Lotto while discovering the cure for aids on the way to the ballot box, than be casting the deciding vote.

So, since your vote isn't going to make one whit of a difference one way or the other, why not just say the hell with all the polls, and just vote your conscience?

If everybody did this, then I think we would be a lot happier with the winning candidate, since both sides seem about equally unhappy with both of the major parties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

The new "Republican Party" that I would create is one that rigorously defends civil/religious liberties (repeals the USA PATRIOT Act, stops using the Oval Office as a Christian-promoting device), supports fiscal responsibility (constitutional amendment against deficit spending, shove "bridge to nowhere" up Ted Stevens' ass), respects the right to privacy (no restrictions on abortions performed before viability, minimal restrictions on late-term abortions, freedom to use marajuana recreationally, freedom to buy whatever sort of firearm you please, freedom to marry whomever you please, regardless of gender), and adopts a consistently reserved, but not isolationist, position in international relations (give enough funding to MI so that we know what the hell rogue regimes are doing, apply sanctions to all countries that fail to respect basic human rights, invade all countries that engage in genocide [that includes Rwanda and Sudan], no more ineffective and excessively indiscriminate bombings a la Kosovo and Iraq 1998).

This actually almost exactly mirrors my views. I know quite a few people who vote Republican who have almost the exact same views as I do; the reason I vote Democrat is that I feel the Republican party has been almost completely overtaken by the same religious, socially conservative neo-cons that you were just speaking of. Almost all of my beliefs--smaller government, fiscal responsibility, stronger support of civil rights, etc. The problem is, the Republican party today supports none of those.

I also agree with Lebell that I don't want to vote Libertarian because history has shown that businesses will do almost anything for that extra cent--and having regulations in place to prevent that is something I see as a necessity. We don't need a repeat of late 19th century business practices--and, contrary to the Libertarian belief, I don't think most people have the will or resources to fight back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

respectable showing

There are no moral victories, only victories. My thought is if everyone who may have voted for Badnarik did indeed vote for him, he would have made a respectable showing, but only in so much that it would have cost Bush the election. I'm sure some democrats would have voted that way too, but most people who are left learning and claim to be libertarians know nothing about the party beyond it being trendy to talk about. Once they get beyond the legalization of currently illegal drugs they tend to be horrified.

The VERY best possibility would be that each election they would get more respectable to the point of viable. It would split the vote on the right. The US does not form coalition governments and it most likely never will, as such we get NOTHING and surrender all power to the left. This is bad. Even if the Libertarians became the majority party, it would take several years of left wing dominance to reach it. It is something I may consider worth while, but not on the CHANCE that the libertarians MAY some day be a majority party.

Even though I agree with libertarian philosophy to a high degree, I do not agree completely and it will always result in a situation where it is the lesser of evils.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

The school example does not fit this model because there are only two candidates. In a case where there are only two people running, it obviously makes sense to vote your conscience. The addition of a third candidate makes things more complicated.

In 2004, I decided that I would rather elect Bush than Kerry. Because of this decision, and because it was going to be reasonably close, I felt it would be irresponsible for me to refuse to help Bush prevail over Kerry. And that, in my view, is what a Libertarian vote would have been. The man had no chance of winning, whereas both Kerry and Bush had a significant chance of winning. My obligation under those conditions was to select amongst the two potential winners.

I'll also second what everyone else has said about the problematic nature of Libertarian calls for the destruction of the regulatory state. Not all governmental regulations are bad ones...

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Since the 9/11 attacks, between my wife and I.....two of our three sons have enlisted in the U.S. military, and one of them is still on active duty today.

One of our sons, the first to enlist, grew up in New England and attended catholic sunday school and services. He lost interest in organized worship and
is left leaning, politically. He was as shocked as I was to quickly get a sense during his early months in the military, in 2002, that there was a deliberate and widespread training and indoctrination effort to ready the troops for combat in Iraq. He asked me to look into the possibility of military action in Iraq, and...try as I might, I found no reason to believe that there would be justification for invasion of Iraq. I think his attitude, political sympathies, and reaction to Iraq was similar to what was reported about Pat Tillman:

Quote:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGD7ETMNM1.DTL
New inquiry may expose events that led to Pat Tillman’s death

Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, September 25, 2005

..........Interviews also show a side of Pat Tillman not widely known — a fiercely independent thinker who enlisted, fought and died in service to his country yet was critical of President Bush and opposed the war in Iraq, where he served a tour of duty. He was an avid reader whose interests ranged from history books on World War II and Winston Churchill to works of leftist Noam Chomsky, a favorite author..............

..........Throughout the controversy, the Tillman family has been reluctant to cause a media stir. Mary noted that Pat shunned publicity, refusing all public comment when he enlisted and asking the Army to reject all media requests for interviews while he was in service. Pat’s widow, Marie, and his brother Kevin have not become publicly involved in the case, and they declined to comment for this article.

Yet other Tillman family members are less reluctant to show Tillman’s unique character, which was more complex than the public image of a gung-ho patriotic warrior. He started keeping a journal at 16 and continued the practice on the battlefield, writing in it regularly. (His journal was lost immediately after his death.) Mary Tillman said a friend of Pat’s even arranged a private meeting with Chomsky, the antiwar author, to take place after his return from Afghanistan — a meeting prevented by his death. She said that although he supported the Afghan war, believing it justified by the Sept. 11 attacks, “Pat was very critical of the whole Iraq war.”

Baer, who served with Tillman for more than a year in Iraq and Afghanistan, told one anecdote that took place during the March 2003 invasion as the Rangers moved up through southern Iraq.

“I can see it like a movie screen,” Baer said. “We were outside of (a city in southern Iraq) watching as bombs were dropping on the town. We were at an old air base, me, Kevin and Pat, we weren’t in the fight right then. We were talking. And Pat said, ‘You know, this war is so f— illegal.’ And we all said, ‘Yeah.’ That’s who he was. He totally was against Bush.”

Another soldier in the platoon, who asked not to be identified, said Pat urged him to vote for Bush’s Democratic opponent in the 2004 election, Sen. John Kerry.

Senior Chief Petty Officer Stephen White — a Navy SEAL who served with Pat and Kevin for four months in Iraq and was the only military member to speak at Tillman’s memorial — said Pat “wasn’t very fired up about being in Iraq” and instead wanted to go fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan. He said both Pat and Kevin (who has a degree in philosophy) “were amazingly well-read individuals … very firm in some of their beliefs, their political and religious or not so religious beliefs.” .............

The other son, who enlisted much later....after the invasion of Iraq and the reports that there were no WMD to be found, spent his childhood in the southeast, in an extremely conservative christian household. He is an unwavering supporter of Bush and his policies, still arguing that WMD were found and that the left leaning press ignores the facts. I advise him not to be "more Bush", than Bush....as the administration has admitted that "the weapons we thought were there.....aren't there..." This son voted for Bush, and believes that it is right to back up the president and his policies by serving in the military. I don't agree with his politics, but I admire his willingness to "put his money where his mouth is".

I see so little of that consistancy exhibited by many other young people who support and/or vote for Bush:

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in944449.shtml

............But if opponents of the war should go to France, shouldn't leaders of the pro-war movement serve in Iraq? In response to a query from The Nation about whether any leaders have volunteered to fight the war in Iraq, Shauna Moser, the chairman of Penn State YAF, said only that information on YAF officials could be found with a simple "search in a search engine."

YAF chairman Erik Johnson, vice chairman Darren Marks and fourteen other national officials have posted brief autobiographies on YAF's website. None of these bios indicate that the organization's national leaders have served in the military or plan to in the future.

For his part, Chris Hill has served in the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) and has contibuted to a web log in which he offered advice to aspiring soldiers on how to obtain a military commission. He holds an officer's commission and intends to attend Navy Flight School next summer.

Nation Editor's Note: In an Oct. 6 interview with The Nation about his military aspirations, Hill indicated that he planned to attend graduate school, but for reasons of military protocol, did not disclose his naval commission or his plans to attend flight school. This story has been updated to include that information.

College Republicans also appear to be lacking in military aspirations. None of their board members--the controversial chairman Paul Gourley and officers Jess Beeson, Nathaniel Harding, Britton Alexander, Dan Schuberth and Tom Robins--boast any military experience. Their posted bios do not refer to any past, present or future military service, though they do describe in detail the postgraduate work and political aspirations of these young right-wingers.

Conservative campus groups like YAF and College Republicans are growing in strength and numbers. And since the start of the Iraq War, these outfits have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Bush to support the war, but they have not stood alongside the soldiers doing the actual fighting and dying. They want someone else to do the hard work.

This "contradiction" between what young Bush supporters say, and vote for, versus what they are willing to do, is causing controversy on college campuses:

Quote:

http://orient.bowdoin.edu/orient/art...section=1&id=2
Schuberth questions Cornell du Houx’s motives
Campus responds to criticism of student Marine’s impending deployment
October 28, 2005

By Anne Riley

As Maine College Democrats President Alex Cornell du Houx '06, a vocal opponent of the War in Iraq, prepares for his upcoming active duty with the U.S. Marines in Iraq, members of the Bowdoin community are responding to the news of his deployment with shock, gratitude, and in some cases, criticism.

"I applaud Mr. Houx [sic] for his service, just as I applaud any other soldier who is brave enough to take up arms in defense of this country," Dan Schuberth '06, secretary of the College Republican National Committee, said in a statement aired on a Bowdoin Cable Network news broadcast this week.

"I find it troubling, however," Schuberth continued, "that one of the most vocal opponents of our president, our country and our mission in Iraq has chosen to fight for a cause he claims is wrong. Mr. Houx's [sic] rhetoric against the war on terror places him in agreement with the most radical fringes of the Democratic Party, and I am left to question his logic and motivation."

Quote:

http://orient.bowdoin.edu/orient/art...section=1&id=2
Schuberth retracts criticism of Cornell du Houx's service
Leaders of College Democrats not satisfied with apology
November 4, 2005

By Anne Riley
Orient Staff

After publicly questioning the "logic and motivation" of U.S. Marine and Maine College Democrats President Alex Cornell du Houx '06 for his military service, Secretary of the College Republican National Committee Dan Schuberth '06 has issued an apology. Schuberth called Cornell du Houx, who is leaving for a tour of duty in Iraq in December, "one of the most vocal opponents of...our country."...........

politicophile, what about you? Do you fully understand the implications, obligations, and consequences of your vote for Bush? Do your plans include military service in the near future, or.....do you have "other priorities"?

Wow, its been a while since the chicken hawk defense was used.....

Weak then weak now.

What I always find amusing is how HARD people look for military men who are opposed to Bush, how they tell their stories in print, and yet, the military vote speaks for what the true feelings are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

What I always find amusing is how HARD people look for military men who are opposed to Bush, how they tell their stories in print, and yet, the military vote speaks for what the true feelings are.

Host only had to look as far as his son. I have only so far to look as my cousin, and about a dozen friends. It's not hard to find them. It's hard to get them to talk. I'm sure you know the legilities aobut a military officer and what he/she can or cannot say in regards to the commander in chief.

Host vs Politicophile

Let it go Host....just let it go.

There is no reason to go back to the border of flame you two were on.

Please guys....just take a deep breath.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Let me first state that I know Dan Schuberth personally and he is a collossal asshole - I'd have a hard time finding a worse leader. Maybe that's why I haven't been to a College Republicans meeting since Freshman year...

In a sense, I suppose I do have "other priorities". Like (I would hope) most patriotic Americans, I considered joining the military. ROTC would have been my route. After receiving information about the program from the Army website, I met with an Army Major who himself was an ROTC grad. He highly recommended that I join and convinced me that I would be well-suited for the work.

There are three reasons that, combined, comprise my "other priorities": those are my mother, my father, and my girlfriend. For a period of about six months, these three major influences on my life attempted to convince me that it would be unwise for me to join the military.

My mother argued that it would put me at unnecessary risk. Since I didn't need any monetary assistence in receiving an education, she argued, it didn't make any sense to put myself in harm's way.

My father argued that it was not in my interest to join, as it would delay my going to grad school and developing personal connections with the people I will be dealing with in my political life. He also claimed that there were other ways that I could satisfy my obligation to my country, such as working as a District Attorney or running for political office.

My girlfriend argued that, by joining the Army, I would be setting myself up for being forced to fight for a cause I didn't believe in. Considering the man currently occupying the Whitehouse, I thought this concern was entirely legitimate.

I did not join ROTC because I thought the arguments against doing so were good ones. Furthermore, I respected the opinions of those people closest to me and, in part, relied on their judgment. Sometimes I sincerely regret my decision. Other times, I feel I made the right call...

As for military service in the future... on the off chance they begin drafting soldiers before I enroll in law school, I will enlist when I graduate from college in the spring of 2007. If there is no draft, I will attend law school beginning in the fall of 2008, presumably graduating in spring 2011. At that point, all bets are off: I have no idea if military service would be on my mind then. Here is my best guess, though. I'll be 26 at that time. I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) that enlisting entails three years of service. If that is correct, I see no reason why I couldn't serve for three years before settling down. However, I certainly wouldn't consider this "the near future", nor do I think predictions that far in the future mean very much. I will say, however, that I believe all Americans should serve their country in one way or another. There is no profession more noble than being a soldier and I aspire to serve at a time when my educational "obligations" have been fulfilled.

politicophile - (and anyone else of that age) when I was in your position, almost exactly, I made the same choice (hell I even went to one of the young Republican meetings and had the same feeling of assholes, though it was perhaps better than the 'vibe' I got at a young democrats meeting). I have to say it is perhaps the only real regret I have when I look at my life’s accomplishments. It was an easy choice for me, Clinton was president at the time and the military was demoralized, things were bad and it looked like it was getting worse, which it did being prior to the disgrace in Somalia. I had the worried parents, I had the horny girlfriend, I had a president who I wouldn't trust with my life or my girlfriend and I didn't join.

Whats worse is I still took 2.5 years of extra (and not necessary) study, so I would have had the time. End result is, while I am in the top of my field, and a success by any measure, I still feel I let myself down. If you want to go into politics, a military background can only help you.

i was speechless for a while and then i figured it out---this is the first time i have read something posted under this alias that no real person would ever say.

i knew it.

i read through this thread and cannot figure out what it is about.
i know how it started, but i dont understand anything else.
just saying.

I could have wriiten this....I have the information, but not the writing ability.....

Quote:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112005Y.shtml
One War Lost, Another to Go
By Frank Rich
The New York Times

Sunday 20 November 2005

If anyone needs further proof that we are racing for the exits in Iraq, just follow the bouncing ball that is Rick Santorum. A Republican leader in the Senate and a true-blue (or red) Iraq hawk, he has long slobbered over President Bush, much as Ed McMahon did over Johnny Carson. But when Mr. Bush went to Mr. Santorum's home state of Pennsylvania to give his Veterans Day speech smearing the war's critics as unpatriotic, the senator was M.I.A.

Mr. Santorum preferred to honor a previous engagement more than 100 miles away. There he told reporters for the first time that "maybe some blame" for the war's "less than optimal" progress belonged to the White House. This change of heart had nothing to do with looming revelations of how the new Iraqi "democracy" had instituted Saddam-style torture chambers. Or with the spiraling investigations into the whereabouts of nearly $9 billion in unaccounted-for taxpayers' money from the American occupation authority. Or with the latest spike in casualties. Mr. Santorum was instead contemplating his own incipient political obituary written the day before: a poll showing him 16 points down in his re-election race.No sooner did he stiff Mr. Bush in Pennsylvania than he did so again in Washington, voting with a 79-to-19 majority on a Senate resolution begging for an Iraq exit strategy. He was joined by all but one (Jon Kyl) of the 13 other Republican senators running for re-election next year. They desperately want to be able to tell their constituents that they were against the war after they were for it.

They know the voters have decided the war is over, no matter what symbolic resolutions are passed or defeated in Congress nor how many Republicans try to Swift-boat Representative John Murtha, the marine hero who wants the troops out. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup survey last week found that the percentage (52) of Americans who want to get out of Iraq fast, in 12 months or less, is even larger than the percentage (48) that
<h2>favored a quick withdrawal from Vietnam when that war's casualty toll neared 54,000 in the apocalyptic year of 1970.</h2> The Ohio State political scientist John Mueller, writing in Foreign Affairs , found that "if history is any indication, there is little the Bush administration can do to reverse this decline." He observed that Mr. Bush was trying to channel L. B. J. by making "countless speeches explaining what the effort in Iraq is about, urging patience and asserting that progress is being made. But as was also evident during Woodrow Wilson's campaign to sell the League of Nations to the American public, the efficacy of the bully pulpit is much overrated."

Mr. Bush may disdain timetables for our pullout, but, hello, there already is one, set by the Santorums of his own party: the expiration date for a sizable American presence in Iraq is Election Day 2006. As Mr. Mueller says, the decline in support for the war won't reverse itself. The public knows progress is not being made, no matter how many times it is told that Iraqis will soon stand up so we can stand down.

On the same day the Senate passed the resolution rebuking Mr. Bush on the war, Martha Raddatz of ABC News reported that "only about 700 Iraqi troops" could operate independently of the U.S. military, 27,000 more could take a lead role in combat "only with strong support" from our forces and the rest of the 200,000-odd trainees suffered from a variety of problems, from equipment shortages to an inability "to wake up when told" or follow orders.

But while the war is lost both as a political matter at home and a practical matter in Iraq, the exit strategy being haggled over in Washington will hardly mark the end of our woes. Few Americans will cry over the collapse of the administration's vainglorious mission to make Iraq a model of neocon nation-building. But, as some may dimly recall, there is another war going on as well - against Osama bin Laden and company.

One hideous consequence of the White House's Big Lie - fusing the war of choice in Iraq with the war of necessity that began on 9/11 - is that the public, having rejected one, automatically rejects the other. That's already happening. The percentage of Americans who now regard fighting terrorism as a top national priority is either in the single or low double digits in every poll. Thus the tragic bottom line of the Bush catastrophe: the administration has at once increased the ranks of jihadists by turning Iraq into a new training ground and recruitment magnet while at the same time exhausting America's will and resources to confront that expanded threat.

We have arrived at "the worst of all possible worlds," in the words of Daniel Benjamin, Richard Clarke's former counterterrorism colleague, with whom I talked last week. No one speaks more eloquently to this point than Mr. Benjamin and Steven Simon, his fellow National Security Council alum. They saw the Qaeda threat coming before most others did in the 1990's, and their riveting new book, "The Next Attack," is the best argued and most thoroughly reported account of why, in their opening words, "we are losing" the war against the bin Laden progeny now.

"The Next Attack" is prescient to a scary degree. "If bin Laden is the Robin Hood of jihad," the authors write, then Abu Musab al-Zarqawi "has been its Horatio Alger, and Iraq his field of dreams." The proof arrived spectacularly this month with the Zarqawi-engineered suicide bombings of three hotels in Amman. That attack, Mr. Benjamin wrote in Slate "could soon be remembered as the day that the spillover of violence from Iraq became a major affliction for the Middle East." But not remembered in America. Thanks to the confusion sown by the Bush administration, the implications for us in this attack, like those in London and Madrid, are quickly forgotten, if they were noticed in the first place. What happened in Amman is just another numbing bit of bad news that we mentally delete along with all the other disasters we now label "Iraq."

Only since his speech about "Islamo-fascism" in early October has Mr. Bush started trying to make distinctions between the "evildoers" of Saddam's regime and the Islamic radicals who did and do directly threaten us. But even if anyone was still listening to this president, it would be too little and too late. The only hope for getting Americans to focus on the war we can't escape is to clear the decks by telling the truth about the war of choice in Iraq: that it is making us less safe, not more, and that we have to learn from its mistakes and calculate the damage it has caused as we reboot and move on.

Mr. Bush is incapable of such candor. In the speech Mr. Santorum skipped on Veterans Day, the president lashed out at his critics for trying "to rewrite the history" of how the war began. Then he rewrote the history of the war, both then and now. He boasted of America's "broad and coordinated homeland defense" even as the members of the bipartisan 9/11 commission were preparing to chastise the administration's inadequate efforts to prevent actual nuclear W.M.D.'s, as opposed to Saddam's fictional ones, from finding their way to terrorists. Mr. Bush preened about how "we're standing with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes" even as we were hearing new reports of how we outsource detainees to such regimes to be tortured.

And once again he bragged about the growing readiness of Iraqi troops, citing "nearly 90 Iraqi army battalions fighting the terrorists alongside our forces." But as James Fallows confirms in his exhaustive report on "Why Iraq Has No Army" in the current issue of The Atlantic Monthly, America would have to commit to remaining in Iraq for many years to "bring an Iraqi army to maturity." If we're not going to do that, Mr. Fallows concludes, America's only alternative is to "face the stark fact that it has no orderly way out of Iraq, and prepare accordingly."

That's the alternative that has already been chosen, brought on not just by the public's irreversible rejection of the war, but also by the depleted state of our own broken military forces; they are falling short of recruitment goals across the board by as much as two-thirds, the Government Accountability Office reported last week. We must prepare accordingly for what's to come. To do so we need leaders, whatever the political party, who can look beyond our nonorderly withdrawal from Iraq next year to the mess that will remain once we're on our way out. Whether it's countering the havoc inflicted on American interests internationally by Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo or overhauling and redeploying our military, intelligence and homeland security operations to confront the enemy we actually face, there's an enormous job to be done.

The arguments about how we got into Mr. Bush's war and exactly how we'll get out are also important. But the damage from this fiasco will be even greater if those debates obscure the urgency of the other war we are losing, one that will be with us long after we've left the quagmire in Iraq.

-------

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material above is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TFP member, "host" has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TFP member, "host" endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

I have to share this board with people who post about some of us "undermining the troops", because we know a mistake and a disaster in the making when we see one, especially when we have lived through a similar situation in the past, but....I don't have to like it!

If you have posted about, or believe that we are "undermining" by discussing and protesting against the disasterous and illegal invasion of Iraq, is it better to wait until 52,000 more of our soldiers have died there.

The term "decimated" is often misused when it is intended to describe the losses to an army in wartime. It does not mean that an army is nearly "wiped out". The actual meaning is that one tenth, or 10 percent of an army is killed or wounded.

Our military in Iraq, using the correct meaning of the term "decimated", since it is a standing force of about 150,000 and it has experienced losses in excess of 15,000 seriously wounded, and over 2,000 killed.....has been decimated.
And...what has it accomplished? I've posted current references that back the descriptions in the above article of the state of "readiness" and fighting capabilities of Iraqi forces. There is no progress in achieving Bush's "goal" of getting them to stand up, so we can stand down. There are only lies about progress, in Bush's Veteran's day speech, for example, as I detailed in my first or second post, on this thread.

I cannot persuade those who disagree with me to even respond to or rebut, or even acknowledge the referenced information that I've posted here that exposes Bush as a liar about the subject of progress in achieving "readiness" of Iraqi security forces. I can, however, post it all for the viewing of everyone who has an open mind and wants to help the troops avoid death that is in vain, and is avoidable. Your president is a liar, on the reasons we are in Iraq, and on the progress we are making to get our troops back home to us.

The "readiness" status of Iraqis, described above, and in my earlier posts, is the same or less as it was described in reports of battles in Najaf in april, 2004, and that was 19 months ago.....

The details that impact your arguments that are contrary to mine, are undeniable, and therefore, cannot fit into your "take" on what is happening in Iraq, and to Bush's presidency....but they are not going to go away, because they are a reliable description of waht is happening in what has morphed from a misguided and intentionally manipulated case for a run up to war, and a poorly planned invasion and occupation, that has descended into a lost cause. As in....a cause that was never worth fighting and dying....for.

This "war on terror in Iraq" never rose to the level of legitimacy or necessity that anyone named Bush or Cheny, or any named of any other prominent official in Washington, save a son or two among 535 legislators.....not a Bush cousin, even......bothered themself to actually serve and fight in. If you want to accuse anyone of "undermining", why not ask those who created and executed this quagmire, how it is that a cause so just and necessary has not moved any of their "flesh and blood" to serve in it and sacrafice for it?

Why are those questions labelled a "tired argument", when they are never honestly answered?

To follow up my long ago post #56 on this page..... some contradictions between what TPTB say....and what we know that they've done, and....what is still emerging as to what they have done.....

<center><h3>
Fortunate Son

Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
Ooh, theyre red, white and blue.
And when the band plays hail to the chief,
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, lord,

It aint me, it aint me, I aint no senators son, son.
It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, no,....

.....Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, lord,
And when you ask them, how much should we give?
Ooh, they only answer more! more! more! yoh,

It aint me, it aint me, I aint no military son, son.
It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, one......

- John Fogerty
</h3></center>

I'm motivated to "come back" to this thread because of the hypocrisy and the hubris of the people who aspire to lead us into war, and to pursue war, but who do not themselves, generation after generation, now.....serve in the military to personally commit themselves to fight the war, that they are ideologically committed to....what is up with that? And where are the folks coming from, politically.....who actually serve in the military...the ones who ignore the hubris and hypocrisy, by embracing the policies of the chickenhawks....and their politics ?

Quote:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/...ap3958728.html
Associated Press
AP: New Details on Tillman's Death
By MARTHA MENDOZA 07.26.07, 7:28 PM ET

SAN FRANCISCO -

Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors - whose names were blacked out - said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

Ultimately, the Pentagon did conduct a criminal investigation, and asked Tillman's comrades whether he was disliked by his men and whether they had any reason to believe he was deliberately killed. The Pentagon eventually ruled that Tillman's death at the hands of his comrades was a friendly-fire accident.

The medical examiners' suspicions were outlined in 2,300 pages of testimony released to the AP this week by the Defense Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

Among other information contained in the documents:

_ In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop "sniveling."

_ Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.

_ The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman's death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn't recall details of his actions.

_ No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene - no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.

The Pentagon and the Bush administration have been criticized in recent months for lying about the circumstances of Tillman's death. The military initially told the public and the Tillman family that he had been killed by enemy fire. Only weeks later did the Pentagon acknowledge he was gunned down by fellow Rangers.

With questions lingering about how high in the Bush administration the deception reached, Congress is preparing for yet another hearing next week.

The Pentagon is separately preparing a new round of punishments, including a stinging demotion of retired Lt. Gen. Philip R. Kensinger Jr., 60, according to military officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the punishments under consideration have not been made public.

In more than four hours of questioning by the Pentagon inspector general's office in December 2006, Kensinger repeatedly contradicted other officers' testimony, and sometimes his own. He said on some 70 occasions that he did not recall something.

At one point, he said: "You've got me really scared about my brain right now. I'm really having a problem."

Tillman's mother, Mary Tillman, who has long suggested that her son was deliberately killed by his comrades, said she is still looking for answers and looks forward to the congressional hearings next week.

"Nothing is going to bring Pat back. It's about justice for Pat and justice for other soldiers. The nation has been deceived," she said.

The documents show that a doctor who autopsied Tillman's body was suspicious of the three gunshot wounds to the forehead. The doctor said he took the unusual step of calling the Army's Human Resources Command and was rebuffed. He then asked an official at the Army's Criminal Investigation Division if the CID would consider opening a criminal case.

"He said he talked to his higher headquarters and they had said no," the doctor testified.

Also according to the documents, investigators pressed officers and soldiers on a question Mrs. Tillman has been asking all along.

"Have you, at any time since this incident occurred back on April 22, 2004, have you ever received any information even rumor that Cpl. Tillman was killed by anybody within his own unit intentionally?" an investigator asked then-Capt. Richard Scott.

Scott, and others who were asked, said they were certain the shooting was accidental.

Investigators also asked soldiers and commanders whether Tillman was disliked, whether anyone was jealous of his celebrity, or if he was considered arrogant. They said Tillman was respected, admired and well-liked.

The documents also shed new light on Tillman's last moments.

It has been widely reported by the AP and others that Spc. Bryan O'Neal, who was at Tillman's side as he was killed, told investigators that Tillman was waving his arms shouting "Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat (expletive) Tillman, damn it!" again and again.

But the latest documents give a different account from a chaplain who debriefed the entire unit days after Tillman was killed.

The chaplain said that O'Neal told him he was hugging the ground at Tillman's side, "crying out to God, help us. And Tillman says to him, `Would you shut your (expletive) mouth? God's not going to help you; you need to do something for yourself, you sniveling ..."

Associated Press reporters Scott Lindlaw in Las Vegas and Lolita C. Baldor in Washington contributed to this story.

In May of 2006, Stan Goff began a seven part series of reports on Tillman's death: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/the...an_files.shtml , with an Sept., 2006 addendum following the seven part series.....Many of the details reported now in the AP article, were reported more than a year ago, by Stan Goff.

....and the General with the bad memory, described in the preceding AP reporting:

Quote:

http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=6845494
Retired general may be demoted in connection with Tillman cover-up

July 26, 2007 09:19 PM

Army Secretary Peter Geren is expected to recommend three-star Retired Lt. Gen. Philip Kensinger be stripped of a star and face a decrease in retirement pension for his role in an alleged cover-up surrounding the nature of Army Ranger Pat Tillman's death.

Tillman, a former Arizona Cardinals football star, was killed by friendly fire three years ago in Afghanistan.

For five weeks military officials claimed he was killed by enemy fire, even though investigators determined quickly that he was killed by his own troops.

Last March, the acting Pentagon inspector general faulted nine army officers, including Kensinger, for making critical errors in reporting Tillman's death.

Lt. Gen. Philip Kensinger was the most senior of those officers. He was also the Army's representative at Tillman's nationally televised memorial service the following month.

The Department of Defense's report concluded that at the service, "although Lt. Gen. Kensinger knew friendly fire was suspected, he decided to withhold notification from family members."

It also found that when asked about it later, "Kensinger provided misleading testimony" to investigators.

The commander of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command is expected to decide on punishments next Tuesday.

<h3>The Pentagon, under Bob Gates, has apparently learned nothing from the Tillman coverup crimes:</h3>

Quote:

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000587
How the Pentagon’s “Surrogates Operation” Feeds Stories to Administration-Friendly Media and Pundits
DEPARTMENT Washington Babylon
BY Ken Silverstein
PUBLISHED July 19, 2007

Earlier this week I wrote a story about a program run by the Pentagon’s Office of Public Affairs. This program seeks to bypass the mainstream press by working directly with a carefully culled list of military analysts, bloggers, and others who can be counted on to parrot the Bush Administration’s line on national security issues.

The unit was initially called the “Surrogates Operation” but was later rechristened as “Communications Outreach” after someone realized that the original title, while accurate, was embarrassing for those working with the Pentagon.

As I reported earlier, the unit is headed up by Erin Healey, a former junior assistant press secretary at the White House. Other players I identified were Julie George, a former campaign worker for ex-Senator Rick Santorum, and Jocelyn Webster, who formerly worked in the White House’s political operation. I’ve since learned that another key figure at the Surrogates unit is James Davis, who like Healey was apparently brought in as a contractor but was subsequently given a political appointee position. From what I understand, Davis is a political ally of former senator and GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson.

The Surrogates unit arranges regular conference calls during which senior Pentagon officials brief retired military officials, civilian defense and national security analysts, pundits, and bloggers. A few moderates are invited to take part, but the list of participants skews far, far to the right. The Pentagon essentially feeds participants the talking points, bullet points, and stories it wants told.

As far as I can tell, the conference calls with retired military officials and other analysts are not transcribed or made public, and I’ve been unable to learn who takes part in those briefings. But the calls with bloggers—who are often briefed by the same Pentagon officials who speak with the other groups—can be found on <a href="http://www.defendamerica.mil/specials/2007/blog/">“Defend America,” a Pentagon website</a>. “Welcome to the archives of the ‘Bloggers’ Roundtable’,” reads the site, adding forthrightly, “Here you will find source material for recent stories in the blogosphere concerning the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Global War on Terrorism by bloggers and online journalists.” ......

Quote:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...cowardly-lion/
Petraeus inappropriately talks to the Cowardly Lion
By: John Amato on Saturday, July 21st, 2007 at 2:01 PM - PDT

After Gen. Petraeus’ appearance on <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/petraeus-gop-to.html">the Hugh Hewitt talk show</a>, there is simply no denying that the good General is a political puppet. Some of you may not know why I call Hewitt “The Cowardly Lion.” It’s an unbelievable exchange he had with <a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/29/hugh-hewitt-the-cowardly-lion/">CNN’s Michael Ware</a> some time ago. (OK, make sure you rinse and spit after reading that…)

Petraeus needs to worry about the war in Iraq and not go on shows like HewittWorld. I didn’t know he had the kind of time to waste on a propagandist, who cares little for the country itself. I think <a href="http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8428">John Cole should be honored</a> that the Cowardly Lion named him in a post. Here’s some propaganda for you:

I am not surprised that the Bush haters like Sullivan and Cole are outraged that General Petraeus would be interviewed by an admirer of the president, or that the anti-war extremists like Greenwald, Yglesias and the others cannot disguise their contempt for the military (though they think their attack on General Petraeus’ integrity won’t identify them as anti-military.)

You can always tell a propagandist by their use of the military as a wedge issue. The Daily Dish <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/petraeus-gop-to.html">sums it up this way</a>:

Just look how Hewitt <a href="http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/374db9bc-bee3-44c2-9049-0c5f41f40b28">coopted the military leadership</a> for the Bush-Cheney narrative. This is pure Weimar: stab-in-the-back reactionaries trying to coopt the military for an agenda of one-party rule in defense of the homeland. Petraeus will regret his misjudgment. For him to aid, abet and ally himself with such a vicious and extreme partisan can only serve to undermine his critical presentation in September.

<h3>....and this week, a person identified as someone who "blogs at HughHewitt.com."...authors the following....and remember, Hugh Hewitt is "brought to you", both on Salem Radio's network, and on Salem's website, townhall.com, by prominent mega millionaire "leaders", <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/12/higher_frequency.html">Epperson and Atsinger III</a>, of the Council for National Policy:</h3>

Quote:

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Pu...3/904pffgs.asp
The 9/11 Generation
Better than the Boomers.
by Dean Barnett
07/30/2007, Volume 012, Issue 43

In the 1960s, history called the Baby Boomers. They didn't answer the phone.

Confronted with a generation-defining conflict, the cold war, the Boomers--those, at any rate, who came to be emblematic of their generation--took the opposite path from their parents during World War II. Sadly, the excesses of Woodstock became the face of the Boomers' response to their moment of challenge. War protests where agitated youths derided American soldiers as baby-killers added no luster to their image.

Few of the leading lights of that generation joined the military. Most calculated how they could avoid military service, and their attitude rippled through the rest of the century. In the 1970s, '80s, and '90s, military service didn't occur to most young people as an option, let alone a duty.

But now, once again, history is calling. Fortunately, the present generation appears more reminiscent of their grandparents than their parents.

I've spent much of the past two weeks speaking with young people (and a few not-so-young) who have made the decision to serve their country by volunteering for the military. Some of these men have Ivy League degrees; all of them are talented and intelligent individuals who--contrary to John Kerry's infamous "botched joke" ("Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq")--could have chosen to do anything with their lives. Having signed up, they have either gone to Iraq or look forward to doing so. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media have underreported their stories.

One of the excesses of the 1960s that present-day liberals have disowned and disavowed since 9/11 is the demonization of the American military. While every now and then an unrepentant liberal like Charlie Rangel will appear on cable news and casually accuse U.S. troops of engaging in baby-killing in Iraq, the liberal establishment generally knows better. They "support" the American military--at least in the abstract, until it does anything resembling fighting a war.

In search of a new narrative, 21st-century liberals have settled on the "soldiers are victims" meme. Democratic senators (and the occasional Republican senator who's facing a tough reelection campaign) routinely pronounce their concern for our "children" in Iraq. One of the reasons John Kerry's "botched joke" resonated so strongly was that it fit the liberals' narrative. The Democratic party would have you believe that our soldiers are children or, at best, adults with few options: In short, a callous and mendacious administration has victimized the young, the gullible, and the hopeless, and stuck them in Iraq.

But this narrative is not just insulting to our fighting men and women, it is also grossly inaccurate.

Kurt Schlichter is a lieutenant colonel in the California National Guard. A veteran of the first Gulf war, he's now stateside and commands the 1-18th Cavalry, 462-man RSTA (Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition) squadron attached to the 40th Infantry Brigade Combat Team. The last media representative he spoke with before I contacted him was a New York Times stringer who wanted Schlichter's help in tracking down guardsmen who were "having trouble because they got mobilized."

In describing his unit, Schlichter says, "Our mission is to operate far out in front of the main body of the brigade to find and keep in contact with the enemy, report on its activities, and call in air or artillery fire on it. We are very lightly armed--speed, stealth, and smarts are our best weapons--and our Cav scouts work out of humvees or on foot." Their squadron motto is "Swift and Deadly."

Colonel Schlichter talks about the soldiers he commands with unvarnished admiration. He has 20-year-olds serving under him who have earned combat badges. As to why these young men are willingly and eagerly putting themselves in harm's way, Schlichter flatly declares, "The direction comes from themselves. They like to be challenged."

One of the soldiers in Colonel Schlichter's 1-18th is 28-year-old Sergeant Joseph Moseley. The outline of Moseley's story matches the liberal narrative of the "soldier victim." A junior college student, he served four years in the Army and then four years in the National Guard. During his stint in the Guard, Moseley got mobilized. He went to Iraq, where he had a portion of his calf muscle torn away by an IED. He has since returned to the United States and is undergoing a rigorous rehab program, which he describes as "not always going smoothly." It's virtually impossible that Sergeant Moseley will recover fully from his injuries.

Yet when asked about his time in Iraq, Moseley speaks with evident pride. He says the fact that he took the brunt of the IED's blow means he did his job. None of the men serving under him was seriously injured. When asked how he would feel about being characterized as a victim, Sergeant Moseley bristles. "I'm not a victim," he says. "It's insulting. That's what we signed up for. I knew what I was doing."

Tom Cotton is another soldier who knew what he was doing. When 9/11 occurred, Cotton was in his third year at Harvard Law School. Like most Americans, he was "shocked, saddened, and angered." Like many on that day, he made a promise to serve his country.

And Cotton meant it. After fulfilling the commitments he had already made, including clerking for a federal judge and going to work for a large Washington law firm, Cotton enlisted in the Army. He jokes that doing so came with a healthy six-figure pay cut.

Cotton enlisted for one reason: He wanted to lead men into combat. His recruiter suggested that he use the talents he had spent seven years developing at Harvard and join the JAG Corps, the Armed Forces' law firm. Cotton rejected that idea. He instead began 15 months of training that culminated with his deployment to Iraq as a 2nd lieutenant platoon leader with the 101st Airborne in Baghdad.

The platoon he led was composed of men who had already been in Baghdad for five months. Cotton knew that a new platoon leader normally undergoes a period of testing from his men. Because his platoon was patrolling "outside the wire" every day, there was no time for Cotton and his men to have such a spell. He credits what turned out to be a smooth transition to his platoon's noncommissioned officers, saying, "The troops really belong to the NCOs." After six months, Cotton and his platoon redeployed stateside.

While in Iraq, Cotton's platoon was awarded two Purple Hearts, but suffered no killed in action. His larger unit, however, did suffer a KIA. When I asked Cotton for his feelings about that soldier's death, the pain in his voice was evident. After searching for words, he described it as "sad, frustrating, angry--very hard, very hard on the entire company."

He then added some thoughts. "As painful as it was, the death didn't hurt morale," he said. "That's something that would have surprised me before I joined the Army. Everyone in the Infantry has volunteered twice--once for the Army, once for the Infantry. These are all grown men who all made the decision to face the enemy on his turf. The least you can do is respect them and what they're doing."

Now serving in the Army in Virginia, still enjoying his six-figure pay cut, Tom Cotton says he is "infinitely happy" that he joined the Army and fought in Iraq. "If I hadn't done it," he says, "I would have regretted it the rest of my life."

Regardless of their backgrounds, the soldiers I spoke with had a similar matter-of-fact style. Not only did all of them bristle at the notion of being labeled victims, they bristled at the idea of being labeled heroes. To a man, they were doing what they saw as their duty. Their self-assessments lacked the sense of superiority that politicians of a certain age who once served in the military often display. The soldiers I spoke with also refused to make disparaging comparisons between themselves and their generational cohorts who have taken a different path.

But that doesn't mean the soldiers were unaware of the importance of their undertaking. About a month ago, I attended the commissioning of a lieutenant in the Marine Corps. The day before his commissioning, he had graduated from Harvard. He didn't come from a military family, and it wasn't financial hardship that drove him into the Armed Forces. Don't tell John Kerry, but he studied hard in college. After his commissioning, this freshly minted United States Marine returned to his Harvard dorm room to clean it out.

As he entered the dorm in his full dress uniform, some of his classmates gave him a spontaneous round of applause. A campus police officer took him aside to shake his hand. His father observed, "It was like something out of a movie."

A few weeks after his commissioning, the lieutenant sent me an email that read in part:

I remember when I was down at Quantico two summers ago for the first half of Officer Candidates School. The second to last day I was down there--"Family Day," incidentally--was the 7/7 bombings. The staff pulled us over and told us the news and then said that's basically why they're so hard on us down there: We're at war and will be for a long time, and the mothers of recruits at MCRD and at Parris Island right now are going to be depending on us one day to get their sons and daughters home alive.

When I was in England last week, I talked to an officer in the Royal Navy who had just received his Ph.D. He was saying he thought the larger war would last 20-30 years; I've always thought a generation--mine in particular. Our highest calling: To defend our way of life and Western Civilization; fight for the freedom of others; protect our friends, family, and country; and give hope to a people long without it.

It is surely a measure of how far we've come as a society from the dark days of the 1960s that things like military service and duty and sacrifice are now celebrated. Just because Washington and Hollywood haven't noticed this generational shift doesn't mean it hasn't occurred. It has, and it's seismic.

<h3>Dean Barnett blogs at HughHewitt.com.</h3>

....Contrast the "bluster", above....with the new video described and linked to, here:

Quote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-bl...t_b_56676.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFGit_tZDqs

Max Blumenthal

Generation Chickenhawk: the Unauthorized College Republican Convention Tour

Posted July 18, 2007 | 12:42 PM (EST)

On July 13, 2007, I visited Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery, where the bodies of American soldiers killed in Iraq were freshly interred. Afterwards, I headed across the street to the Sheraton National Hotel, owned by right-wing Korean cult leader Sun Myung-Moon, to meet some of the war's most fervent supporters at the College Republican National Convention.

In conversations with at least twenty College Republicans about the war in Iraq, I listened as they lip-synched discredited cant about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Many of the young GOP cadres I met described the so-called "war on terror" as nothing less than the cause of their time.

<h3>Yet when I asked these College Repulicans why they were not participating in this historical cause, they immediately went into contortions. Asthma. Bad knees from playing catcher in high school. "Medical reasons." "It's not for me." These were some of the excuses College Republicans offered for why they could not fight them "over there." Like the current Republican leaders who skipped out on Vietnam, the GOP's next generation would rather cheerlead from the sidelines for the war in Iraq while other, less privileged young men and women fight and die.</h3>

Along with videographer Thomas Shomaker, I captured a vivid portrait of the hypocritical mentality of the next generation of Republican leaders. See for yourself.

Quote:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_...94486398202142

Wolcott writes:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/b...er_uppers.html

.....I suspect that among those who have not had to fight a war there are always a few who regret not being able to prove themselves on the battlefield. War does seem hardwired into the human experience; the battle cry is a pretty primal thing. So, I can understand the excitement of the twenty somethings like Pat Tilman who joined up after 9/11, driven by a strong desire to test his mettle and physical courage. (Hell, that was the reason Oliver Stone joined up in Vietnam, Kerry too --- it has little to do with politics.)Young men being excited about war is nothing new --- and having their illusions shattered by the reality of it is nothing new either. The literature of the ages can attest to this.

That is not what we are dealing with here, however. We are dealing with a group of right wing glory seekers who chose long ago to eschew putting themselves on the line in favor of tough talk and empty posturing --- the Vietnam chickenhawks and their recently hatched offspring of the new Global War On Terrorism. These are men (mostly) driven by the desire to prove their manhood but who refuse to actually test their physical courage. Neither are they able to prove their virility as they are held hostage by prudish theocrats and their own shortcomings. So they adopt the pose of warrior but never actually place themselves under fire. This is a psychologically difficult position to uphold. Bullshitting yourself is never without a cost.

And I think there is an even deeper layer to this as well and one which is vital to understanding why the right wing baby boomers and their political offspring are so pathologically irrational about dealing with terrorism. Vietnam, as we were all just mercilessly reminded in the presidential election, was the crucible of the baby boom generation, perhaps the crucible of America as a mature world power.

The war provided two very distinct tribal pathways to manhood. One was to join "the revolution" which included the perk of having equally revolutionary women at their sides, freely joining in sexual as well as political adventure as part of the broader cultural revolution. (The 60's leftist got laid. A lot.) And he was also deeply engaged in the major issue of his age, the war in Vietnam, in a way that was not, at the time, seen as cowardly, but rather quite threatening. His masculine image encompassed both sides of the male archetypal coin --- he was both virile and heroic.

The other pathway to prove your manhood was to test your physical courage in battle. There was an actual bloody fight going on in Vietnam, after all. Plenty of young men volunteered and plenty more were drafted. And despite the fact that it may be illogical on some level to say that if you support a war you must fight it, certainly if your self-image is that of a warrior, tradition requires that you put yourself in the line of fire to prove your courage if the opportunity presents itself. You simply cannot be a warrior if you are not willing to fight. This, I think, is deeply understood by people at a primitive level and all cultures have some version of it deeply embedded in the DNA. It's not just the willingness to die it also involves the willingness to kill. Men who went to Vietnam and faced their fears of killing and dying, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, put themselves to this test.

And then there were the chickenhawks. They were neither part of the revolution nor did they take the obvious step of volunteering to fight the war they supported. In fact, due to the draft, they allowed others to fight and die in their place despite the fact that they believed heartily that the best response to communism was to aggressively fight it "over there" so we wouldn't have to fight it here. These were empty boys, unwilling to put themselves on the line at the moment of truth, yet they held the masculine virtues as the highest form of human experience and have portrayed themselves ever since as tough, uncompromising manly men while portraying liberals as weak and effeminate. (Bill Clinton was able to thwart this image because of his reputation as a womanizer. You simply couldn't say he was effeminate.)

Now it must be pointed out that there were many men, and many more women, who didn't buy into any of this "manhood" stuff and felt no need to join in tribal rituals or bloody wars to prove anything. Most of those men, however, didn't aspire to political leadership. Among the revolutionaries, the warriors and the chickenhawks, there were many who did. Indeed, these manhood rituals are more often than not a requirement for leadership. (Perhaps having more women in power will finally change that.)

The only political aspirants among those three groups who failed to meet the test of their generation were the chickenhawks. And our problem today is that they are the ones in charge of the government as we face a national security threat. These unfulfilled men still have something to prove.

And, I suspect because their leadership of the "conservative" movement has infected the new generation, we are seeing much of the same pathology among younger warhawks as well. This is why we hear the shrill war cries of inchoate bloodlust from these quarters every time the terrorists strike. It's a primal scream of inner confusion and self-loathing. These are people whose highest aspirations and deepest longings are wrapped up in their masculinity, and yet they are flaccid failures. They are in a state of arrested development, never having faced their fears, never becoming men, remaining boys standing in the corner of the darkened hallway watching Bill Clinton emerge from a co-ed's dorm room to lead a rousing all night strategy session --- and sitting in the bus station on the way home for Christmas vacation as Chuck Hagel and John Kerry in uniform, looking stalwart and strong, clap each other on the back in brotherly solidarity and prepare to see what they are really made of. They have never been part of anything but an effete political movement in which the stakes go no higher than repeal of the death tax.

So, now we are facing a new crucible, one which the fighting keyboarders insist is an existential fight for everything we believe in. And you once again have campus Republicans sputtering about how their bake sales support the troops, trotting out their manly beer drinking as a stand-in for meeting the test of manhood their own belief system requires. Indeed, in a typical twist of reality, they claim that they are the new campus revolutionaries --- as they support the power structure in every way and insist that traditional values be enforced. I have no idea if they are getting laid, but their hyper-reliance on frat boy hyperbole to prove their masculinity to one another makes me doubt it. And so the weakness of one generation is passed on to the next.

Wolcott concludes his piece wondering how the warhawks can reconcile their alleged admiration for the British "stiff upper lip," with their own hysterical overreaction to the threat of terrorism:

The curious thing is that so many of the rightward bloggers and Fox Newswers who are hailing the Brits for their quiet stoicism and pluck don't seem to realize they're issuing an implicit rebuke to themselves and their fellow Americans. They're saying, in effect, "You've got to admire the Brits for showing calm and quiet perserverence after these explosions--they don't get all hysterical, overdramatic, and overreactive the way we Americans do." They don't seem to realize the example shown by Londoners might be a lesson to them, a model they might follow instead of playing laptop Pattons at full volume every time they feel a rousing post coming on.

Playing laptop Pattons at full volume, supporting the president and the entire power structure of the government is their only way of proving to themselves that they are warriors. They are damaged by their own contradictory past and as a result they cannot see their way through the haze of emotional turmoil to seek out and find real solutions to the problem of terrorism. They lash out with trash talk and threats and constant references to their own resolve because they are afraid. They've always been afraid.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I very rarely post in Tilted Politics, but nothing could iterate my feelings about our current president better than the above...

Hmm, rational hatred seems like an oxymoron. Certainly one can be rational and hate someone or something, and maybe they can even apply a certain rationale to justify hating someone; however, hate signifies such strong feelings and it is feelings above all that some people find to be the most irrational. But, really, that's neither here nor there.

I suppose it might be clear that I would find it hard to say that I hate Bush. I might not even want to say that I dislike him. I suppose it's more of a passive tolerance, the sort of feelings one might have for an annoying 5 year old. The reason for that is probably because I've lost hope that he'll ever be able to do anything, "war on terror" policy wise, that I might ever agree with.