The Real Reasons behind the Iraq Invasion

[Linda_D]

For those of you who think the US invaded Iraq because of WMDs or the War on Terror, consider this piece:
Oil and Blood

By BOB HERBERT
Published: July 28, 2005
It is now generally understood that the U.S.-led war in Iraq has become a debacle. Nevertheless, Iraqis are supposed to have their constitution ratified and a permanent government elected by the end of the year. It's a logical escape hatch for George W. Bush. He could declare victory, as a senator once suggested to Lyndon Johnson in the early years of Vietnam, and bring the troops home as quickly as possible. His mantra would be: There's a government in place. We won. We're out of there.

But don't count on it. The Bush administration has no plans to bring the troops home from this misguided war, which has taken a fearful toll in lives and injuries while at the same time weakening the military, damaging the international reputation of the United States, serving as a world-class recruiting tool for terrorist groups and blowing a hole the size of Baghdad in Washington's budget.

A wiser leader would begin to cut some of these losses. But the whole point of this war, it seems, was to establish a long-term military presence in Iraq to ensure American domination of the Middle East and its precious oil reserves, which have been described, the author Daniel Yergin tells us, as "the greatest single prize in all history."

You can run through all the wildly varying rationales for this war: the weapons of mass destruction (that were never found), the need to remove the unmitigated evil of Saddam (whom we had once cozied up to), the connection to Al Qaeda (which was bogus), and, one of President Bush's favorites, the need to fight the terrorists "over there" so we won't have to fight them here at home.

All the rationales have to genuflect before "The Prize," the title of Mr. Yergin's Pulitzer-Prize-winning book.

It's the oil, stupid.

What has so often gotten lost in all the talk about terror and weapons of mass destruction is the fact that for so many of the most influential members of the Bush administration, the obsessive desire to invade Iraq preceded the Sept. 11 attacks. It preceded the Bush administration. The neoconservatives were beating the war drums on Iraq as far back as the late 1990's.

Iraq was supposed to be a first step. Iran was also in the neoconservatives' sights. The neocons envisaged U.S. control of the region (and its oil), to be followed inevitably by the realization of their ultimate dream, a global American empire. Of course it sounds like madness, which is why we should have been paying closer attention from the beginning.

The madness took a Dr. Strangelovian turn in the summer of 2002, before the war with Iraq was launched. As The Washington Post first reported, an influential Pentagon advisory board was given a briefing prepared by a Rand Corporation analyst who said the U.S. should consider seizing the oil fields and financial assets of Saudi Arabia if it did not stop its support of terrorism.

Mercifully the briefing went nowhere. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said it did not represent the "dominant opinion" within the administration.

The point here is that the invasion of Iraq was part of a much larger, long-term policy that had to do with the U.S. imposing its will, militarily when necessary, throughout the Middle East and beyond. The war has gone badly, and the viciousness of the Iraq insurgency has put the torch to the idea of further pre-emptive adventures by the Bush administration.

But dreams of empire die hard. American G.I.'s are dug into Iraq, and the bases have been built for a long stay. The war may be going badly, but the primary consideration is that there is still a tremendous amount of oil at stake, the second-largest reserves on the planet. And neocon fantasies aside, the global competition for the planet's finite oil reserves intensifies by the hour.

Lyndon Johnson ignored the unsolicited advice of Senator George Aiken of Vermont - to declare victory in Vietnam in 1966. The war continued for nearly a decade. Many high-level government figures believe that U.S. troops will be in Iraq for a minimum of 5 more years, and perhaps 10.

That should be understood by the people who think that the formation of a permanent Iraqi government will lead to the withdrawal of American troops. There is no real withdrawal plan. The fighting and the dying will continue indefinitely.
Bob Herbert is an op-ed writer for the NY Times

[Boost Buffalo]

Linda, that's Lefty's editorial. Its comically shallow, its nothing but the same old tired liberal unfounded rhetoric. Its says nothing at all.

[WestCoastPerspective]

Haven't we've heard this on these boards over and over?:

"You can run through all the wildly varying rationales for this war: the weapons of mass destruction (that were never found), the need to remove the unmitigated evil of Saddam (whom we had once cozied up to), the connection to Al Qaeda (which was bogus), and, one of President Bush's favorites, the need to fight the terrorists "over there" so we won't have to fight them here at home.

All the rationales have to genuflect before "The Prize," the title of Mr. Yergin's Pulitzer-Prize-winning book. "

It's the oil, stupid. And W hoping to be the war hero (ala Churchill) he will never be!

[Linda_D]

For those of you who claim this is all "lefty rhetoric", here's the letter sent to Bill Clinton in 1998 (3 1/2 years before 9/11)urging him to invade Iraq.

Of the 18 signees of this letter, at least 10 hold or have held positions in the Bush administration. I've put their names in red. I'm sure you'll recognize several. I've also bolded those who hold cabinet-level positions.

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis ***uyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

[WestSideJohn]

I believe history will show that the invasion of Iraq actually increased terrorism rather than helping to fight it. Time will tell.

[buffknut]

This is so ridiculous. Iraq had WMD, that is widely known. Where they went is open to speculation but it is not true to say they never existed and there was no threat. In fact, the UN commision never claimed they didn't exist, but instead that they could not find them and were not getting any help in finding them. In essence, they stopped looking.

Every single politician and country believed they were there. I've extensively documented direct quotes to that effect in previous posts. If you failed to read them or remember them, then you are using selective memory. Additionally, there are many reports coming out that indicate that in fact, they are finding evidence of WMD in Iraq so clearly the jury is still out.

This nonsense about the war being about oil is pure BS.

It just goes to show that you "I hate Bush" posters will never quit with the nonsense. Aren't you tired of your own rhetoric?

Give it up. Gore lost, Kerry lost. The USA is leaving the Democratic liberal mentality behind. The Unions are splintering. The Democratic Party is going to break up soon; just watch it happen.

There really is a war on terror and Iraq is a key battlefield.

I fully expect you "I hate Bush" junkies to keep going ad nauseum.

Here again are some websites:
www.littlegreenfootballs.com
www.polipundit.com
www.instapundit.com
www.austinbay.net
www.jihadwatch.com
www.publiuspundit.com

There are many others.

[WestCoastPerspective]

Buff- putting the NUT in BuffkNut

[Linda_D]

If Saddam had WMDs, Buffknut, why didn't he use them agasint the US troops during the invasion, huh????

If Saddam had WMDs, Buffknut, why haven't the insurgents used them in the last two years????

[steven]

Originally posted by buffknut
Iraq had WMD, that is widely known. Where they went is open to speculation

OH my.

[WestCoastPerspective]

Iran is harboring them! On to Iran! On to Iran! On to Iran!

[avet]

Iraq had WMD, that is widely known
Show me "ANY" kind of ....PROOF "whatsoever".
Solid "FACTS" - NOT - the "W" group says it's so.

..."they could not find them"
If it "ain't there" - you never "WILL" ...find it.

..."they stopped looking"
I stopped looking for the "pot of gold" at the end of rainbows when I became "educated" as a child. And, ....there is no Santa Clause, in case you didn't know.
Were living in a huge fantasy world, and some key people just seem to know how, and have the power\wealth to "manipulate" that fact to the "MAX", to reach their own secret goals & personal agendas.

"Every single politician and country believed they were there"
Why is that? Because a certain group of so-called trusted, "few" people RAMMED that "story" down our "paranoid" throats on the national news everyday - day, after day, after day, on EVERY single newscast.


The "undisputable" facts are:

The administration is\had "undisputable" direct ties with major "Big Oil" - past & present.

Big Oil is making new & higher "RECORD BREAKING PROFITS" every new QUARTER (while gas prices are at the same time "breaking" records)

The administration is\had "undisputable" direct ties\deals with "EVERY & ALL" of the ...."CULPRIT$".

The administration is\had "undisputable" direct ties with "ALL" the profitable industries making BIG, BIG $$$$$$$

The administration is "undisputably" the "richest" bunch of "have mores" the US has "EVER" had.

The administration has "seen to it" that the "have mores" - GET MORE & PAY LESS.

An administration key player was "undisputably" heavily backed by Ken Lay - one of the "biggest" crooks in history who created one of the biggest financial scandals in history. Yet, Mr. Lay has "NEVER" seen the inside of a jail cell - and is now living "comfortably" in good ole' Texas (in his mind, he thinks he's "broke", him & his wife, being down to a few "tax sheltered", "untouchable", Texas millions.

The MAJOR disaster on 9\11 was caused by a member of the Bin Laden family, who HAS NEVER BEEN CAUGHT, to this day - the Bin Laden family was a "undisputable" major key financial "backer" of a key administration official in his past - & received "beyond" EXTRAORDINARY "protection" directly after 9\11 - even though a member of their family "attacked us" and killed nearly 4,000 people in just a mere few minutes.

The administration "refuses" to incorporate a draft, even though we are in a major global war against terrorism, and fighting on multiple continants - and are "undisputably", "extremely" short of troops! Instead, he forces all the troops who are serving, (mostly all the "poor" who are mainly trying to get a "chance" at some sort of an education - like a carrot dangling in front of the donkey pulling the cart) to serve multiple tours & duties. Heaven forbid that any prodigy of the "have mores" should spill even "one" drop of their "red, white & blue" blood. They, after all, run the companies that produce the stickers for our cars, and the ...flags. They are slowly, but surely getting "permanent relief" from the burdens & costs of our society, while those who served, and had to eat "expired food", (then stick their life on the line), come home to huge, major BUDGET CUTS for ex-veterans & have to work at Wal-mart (where they train employees how to use the Medacaid system to get any health care)


It just goes to show that you "I hate Bush" posters will never quit with the ......"FACTS" !

Give it up. Bush senior "never finished" the job when he had the chance. Bush junior "never finished" the job when he had Osama Bin Laden "cornered" up in the hills, a long time ago.

"MISSION UNACCOMPLISHED - AGAIN" !!!

Some many "convienant" failures to leverage us into fits of fear, & major, ungodly, huge amounts of "debt" that our grandchildren, not even "born yet", will be "forever" paying for, maybe even with their ..."lives".

There really is a war on terror and Iraq is a key ...oil field.

I fully expect you "I love Bush" junkies to keep going ad nauseum.

[Boost Buffalo]

Originally posted by avet


Were living in a huge fantasy world

seems you're living in a fantasy world, notavet.:rolleyes:

speak for yourself.

[WestCoastPerspective]

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis ***uyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick


AKA 'the chicken hawks'

[avet]

GET YOUR DIVIDEND CHECK FROM HALLARIP-OFF-THE-TAXPAYERS THIS MONTH?

HOW'S THE STICKER SUPPLY COMMIN' ?

DID "YOU" SIGN UP YET TO SERVE THE CAUSE ??????

[buffknut]

I'm not going to resort to name-calling here. We obviously disagree at a fundamental level.

What I would ask is that you do read some of the websites I've mentioned, not just once and brush them off, but several times to get a better flavor of the material they bring up. They present the arguments much better than I do. They also have much better access to facts than I do (as well as time and ability to do the research).

You will see that there are many people who think like me. You probably find that scary but it's true.

I would be willing to read view some of your favorite sites if you wish to provide them.

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by buffknut
I fully expect you "I hate Bush" junkies to keep going ad nauseum.Originally posted by buffknut
I'm not going to resort to name-calling here.

[steven]

Originally posted by buffknut
You will see that there are many people who think like me. You probably find that scary but it's true.


There are a lot of people that think the moon landing was faked as well. But I missed the conspiracy theory on wmd being spirited out of Iraq.

Please fill me in.

[buffknut]

John,

you are right & properly chastised me. I should have said that I will no longer resort to name-calling.

Steven,

I again invite you to visit & read the sites I've mentioned as I am not very brilliant and thus will refer you to those excellent sites for more information.

There is evidence (again, you'll have to do some of the reading) that there were WMDs or at the very least, the capability to quickly ramp up was there. There is also growing evidence of linkages between Saddam and al-quaeda.

I do not have the answer to every point you raise. But others do and I ask that you regularly read them. Obviously you don't have to but that is where I am coming from (if that at all matters).

My opinions are my own, and I won't apologize for them. I'm not a parrot of any "right-wing" (whatever that really means) or Republican organization despite what you may have come to believe.

[stevenco]

O peration
I raqi
L iberation spells petroleum.

Listen. Let me tell you something about intelligence. Real intelligence is NOT learned. Real intelligence is discerned.

I don't expect Boost to understand what this means, but many of you do know.

What's keeping many Americans from seeing what is happening here is naivity. They think it is inconceivable that our leaders could actually sacrifice so many lives for money. They continue to believe what they see on the T.V. ...and yes, 911 was a made for T.V. movie.

They'll get caught. Trust me.

[biker]

Originally posted by Linda_D
If Saddam had WMDs, Buffknut, why didn't he use them agasint the US troops during the invasion, huh????

If Saddam had WMDs, Buffknut, why haven't the insurgents used them in the last two years????

Dumb question, beginning with "if".

Now if you had used "since" it would have been discussion-provoking.

Because he did and in sufficient use and quantities not be dismissed by your "oh, a few chemical weapons." With thousands dead, Linda, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

But go back to the beginning. "Since Saddam had WMDS, why didn't he use them against US troops?"

But this is the more interesting twist. Why didn't he use them in the first Gulf War. That's the real question. He had last used them about three or four years prior. He didn't need missiles to deliver them.

So why not, Linda?

We both know. don't we.

And it applies to 2003 as well.

[stevenco]

Originally posted by buffknut
access to facts


facts?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA:D

[Linda_D]

Originally posted by buffknut
I'm not going to resort to name-calling here. We obviously disagree at a fundamental level.

What I would ask is that you do read some of the websites I've mentioned, not just once and brush them off, but several times to get a better flavor of the material they bring up. They present the arguments much better than I do. They also have much better access to facts than I do (as well as time and ability to do the research).

You will see that there are many people who think like me. You probably find that scary but it's true.

I would be willing to read view some of your favorite sites if you wish to provide them.

I HAVE read them -- and others like them -- buffknut, and it's why I coined the word "nutwit"!!! ANYBODY who has the right software can create and maintain a website that says ANYTHING he or she wants to say. You assume that everybody who disagrees with the neocon war-mongering can be dismissed as a "liberal". That's the same stupid stereotyping that lost us 50,000+ men and women in Vietnam when critics were smeared with the label "commies" and dismissed.

Here's my favorite left wing liberal site for you to visit, buffknut. It'll really open your eyes to the truth! My favorite site (http://boards.buffalobills.com). Enjoy!

[stevenco]

1700 plus American soldiers killed over there, and 100,000 plus Iraqis including women and children. We are sickened when 52 Londoners get killed. How do you expect them to react when we burn their innocents? Take a step back- a view from outerspace and you just see two factions fighting- both of them wrong.

[steven]

I guess I should have qualified my comment to you buff. I mean any "credible source of information" that points to wmd being spirited out of iraq or hidden. Please direct me to one as this is news to me.

On a side note I dont think it was about oil, although the best comment I have ever seen on the boards was (I think BP said it) " it takes a certain level of incompetence to invade and conquer an oil rich nation then see the price of oil sky rocket at home"

Im still laughing at that one.

I just think Bush is incompetent.

[therising]

EVERYONE knows that the UN Inspectors couldn't find the WMD's because Clinton's Penis was in the way.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by buffknut
[B] Additionally, there are many reports coming out that indicate that in fact, they are finding evidence of WMD in Iraq so clearly the jury is still out.


Many reports? Where? Buffknut, I looked over the web sites you posted, but didn't see anything about WMD being found in Iraq.

In fact, I don't think I saw a single statement with a reliable source -- or any source, come to think of it -- to back it up.

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
Many reports? Where? Buffknut, I looked over the web sites you posted, but didn't see anything about WMD being found in Iraq. In fact, I don't think I saw a single statement with a reliable source -- or any source, come to think of it -- to back it up. Buffknut, you relax. I've got this one covered.

*ahem*

The LBMSM (liberally-biased mainstream media) is ignoring the many reports coming out of Iraq concerning the discovery of WMDs, so that's why you libs haven't seen them.

[stevenco]

Okay, the real reason behind the invasion is it was inevitable.

When the big bang happened everything that was to happen was already set, just a result of the initial explosion. Everything you type and do is also a result which you have no control over.

[buffknut]

stevenco,

your comment about 911 being a made for TV movie disgusts me.

Also stevenco, the 100,000 dead Iraqi figure was pulled from a discredited British medical publication report (I think it was Lancet or something like that). But it sounds like you feel a need to apologize to the world for America so go right ahead. It's interesting that you accuse our troops of "burn their innocents". Nice to know we can count you as one who "supports the troops". How disgusting again.

You guys can believe whatever you want & continue the attacks on me and Bush all you want. You can continue to get all your news from CBS, the NY Times and their ilk; I'll get mine from the "neocon war-mongering" sites as Linda calls them.

I've made my statements and will stick by them. Thankfully, the majority of Americans agree with me since they continue to vote out the Democrats in the Senate, Congress, and Governorships, as well as 7 out of the last 10 Presidential elections.

[stevenco]

Originally posted by buffknut
stevenco,

your comment about 911 being a made for TV movie disgusts me.
I DIDN'T WRITE THE SCRIPT. WAIT TIL YOU FIND OUT THE TRUTH, THEN YOU'LL TRULY BE DISGUSTED.

Nice to know we can count you as one who "supports the troops". YEAH I SUPPORT THEM, THAT'S WHY I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE NEVER GONE THERE. I WANT THEM TO BE HEALTHY YOUNG MEN, NOT DEAD AND SHELLSHOCKED. NICE ARGUMENT. IT'S GETTING OLD THOUGH: "IF YOU ARE NOT FOR THIS SICK INVASION THEN YOU MUST BE UNPATRIOTIC AND NOT SUPPORT THE TROOPS."
GERMANS WHO DID NOT AGREE WITH HITLER'S VISION WERE UNPATRIOTIC,TOO AND DID NOT SUPPORT HIS TROOPS.

[WestSideJohn]

It amazes me that the people who want to bring the troops home to their families and lives are the ones accused of not supporting the troops.

But, putting that aside for the moment perhaps Buffknut would be kind enough to verify his claim that there are many reports coming out of Iraq of found WMDs?

Then again, perhaps not.

[stevenco]

Originally posted by WestSideJohn
It amazes me that the people who want to bring the troops home to their families and lives are the ones accused of not supporting the troops.



Support your children by sending them off to die.

[buffknut]

stevenco,

I won't even attempt to interpret your 911 comment. I'm sure we're all interested in your version of the truth about 911.

Go ahead, tell us.

John,

As I've tried to state before, the websites Ive mentioned have discussed the WMD issue at length. I just don't have time to keep going back & finding the specific links. I know you'll criticise me for that but my suggestion still is to keep looking at those sites because the topic does resurface.

Also, I've never accused someone who wants to bring the troops home of not supporting the troops. I did however specifically challenge stevenco's assertion that our troops "burn their innocents". I didn't say that, he did. And I'll be curious to see if anyone else here will challenge his assertion. To me, how can you say you support the troops in one breath, and claim they "burn their innocents" in another? He has made a very damning statement against our troops. And he is making some interesting claims about 911 which I'm very interested in him clarifying.

Now, if you agree with him about our troops and about 911, then say so.

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by buffknut
And he is making some interesting claims about 911 which I'm very interested in him clarifying. [/B] It's interesting that you refuse to back up your claims but expect others to back theirs up.Originally posted by buffknut
Now, if you agree with him about our troops and about 911, then say so.Uh, I don't recall saying any such thing. Stevenco speaks for himself and I speak for myself.

[buffknut]

John,

I am backing up my claims with links to articles that themselves link to more.

On the relationship between Iraq & al-quada:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

Debunking 8 myths about the conflict in Iraq:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/xyz.php

Now, you can accuse me of whatever you want, but don't accuse me of not providing supporting information. I'm sure some of you will characterize these articles as "not credible" although it's a joke if you think CBS, NY Times etc are credible (what makes MSM journalists more credible than internet journalists anyway?).

I don't expect any of you to change your opinions, but if you don't read these thoroughly, including at least some of the links, then you are as close-minded, empty, whatever else you've called me, as you accuse me of being.

Let's see stevenco back up his 911 claim and his "burn their innocents" claim. I also note that no one else has yet challenged him on his claims.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by buffknut
John,

I am backing up my claims with links to articles that themselves link to more.

On the relationship between Iraq & al-quada:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

Debunking 8 myths about the conflict in Iraq:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/xyz.php

Now, you can accuse me of whatever you want, but don't accuse me of not providing supporting information. I'm sure some of you will characterize these articles as "not credible" although it's a joke if you think CBS, NY Times etc are credible (what makes MSM journalists more credible than internet journalists anyway?).

I don't expect any of you to change your opinions, but if you don't read these thoroughly, including at least some of the links, then you are as close-minded, empty, whatever else you've called me, as you accuse me of being.

Let's see stevenco back up his 911 claim and his "burn their innocents" claim. I also note that no one else has yet challenged him on his claims.


Hi. I read through the Weekly Standard link you sent. It was interesting, but all the information highlighted by the writer regarded one detainee.

I've always assumed Iraq militants had some sort of business with bin Laden. Just makes sense. So have militants in other Muslin countries.

But there has yet to be any evidence that Iraq was behind 9/11.


I know you don't regard the NY Times as a viable publication, but there are two stories in it today you would find interesting. The first is on the f ront page, and it's about the way terrorist networks are formed.

The second is also on the front page. It's about the new director of national intellligence, John Negroponte, restructuring the way intelligence is handled to insure it is "credible." His spokesman says the changes are a reaction to the faulty info U.S. officials based the attack on Iraq on.

Negroponte isn't exactly a bleeding heart liberal out to get Bush, but even he acknowledges the intelligence used for the Iraq war was wrong.

You also ask what makes mainstream journalists more credible than internet "journalists."

A few internet writers do an okay job. They provide information corrobrated by sources, either humans or documents. Some even try to be even handed.

But most -- including the sites I've looked over at your request -- don't backup what they way with anything independent. Opinion is not fact.

And just because traditional news does not print what you want to read, that doesn't make it wrong (although it has been wrong plenty of times -- including its coverage of the lead up to the Iraq war).

[avet]

WHY, ...WHY!!!.... DO THEY HATE US SO MUCH ????

"Killed Unarmed Iraqis, Ex-Marine Tells Hearing

Jimmy Massey, a former marine staff sergeant, told an immigration and refugee board hearing in Toronto that he and his fellow marines shot and killed more than 30 unarmed men, women and children and even shot a young Iraqi who got out of his car with his arms in the air.

"We killed the man. We fired at a cyclic rate of 500 bullets per vehicle," testified Mr. Massey, a marine for 12 years who was honourably discharged last year. "The company gunnery sergeant came running over and began yelling, 'You just shot a guy with his hands up.' "

On another occasion, marines reacted to a stray bullet by killing a small group of unarmed protesters and bystanders, said Mr. Massey, who said he has nightmares and posttraumatic stress disorder. "I was deeply concerned about the civilian casualties," he said. "What they were doing was committing murder."

His testimony bolstered that of Mr. Hinzman, who said earlier the Iraqi conflict was considered "a new kind of war" and soldiers believed they were "going to Iraq to jack up [kill] some terrorists."

"We were told to consider all Arabs as potential terrorists . . . to foster an attitude of hatred that gets your blood boiling," said the former paratrooper, adding he did not want to be involved in capturing Iraqis who would not be afforded the rights of due process or of the Geneva Conventions.
_______________________________________________
How Many Dead Innocent Iraqis Is Too Many?

Take a minute to think about the enormity of this human cost. Think of it as September 11, 30 times over.

We speak of Iraqi civilians, even 100,000 of them, not as victims, but as collateral damage.

The fact that killing innocents was not the aim, but rather a guaranteed byproduct of our action, does not absolve us.

It took Saddam several decades to kill 300,000 people. We have managed a third of that in just 18 months.

That our actions do not meet the depravity of terrorism does not justify them. Since when have terrorists provided the moral standard against which we judge ourselves? Are we really reduced to arguing that we are not as bad as them?

Our concern, as people whose governments are waging war in our name, should be for the legitimacy of our own actions. When it comes to our actions in Iraq, that legitimacy has been fatally eroded. We have now run out of excuses.
_____________________________________________
More Iraqis killed by U.S. than by terror

Civilian deaths are undermining efforts to win over people

"Anyone who hates America has come here to fight: Saddam's supporters, people who don't have jobs, other Arab fighters. All these people are on our streets," said Hamed, the ministry official. "But everyone is afraid of the Americans, not the fighters. And they should be."
______________________________________________
Why Americans Believe Only American Deaths Count in Iraq

And yet if what you learned in school didn't stick, we have the president of the United States to model this arrogance. After the gruesome beheading of American contractor Paul Johnson by Al Qaeda members in Iraq on June 18, President George W. Bush stated,
"There's no justification whatsoever for his murder, and yet they killed him in cold blood."

Was the killing of a dozen innocent Iraqis hours later by a U.S. missile gone awry justified?
Were they not killed "in cold blood"? Since when were America's methods of war crimes (incidents of the "missile miss" sort have become a regular occurrence these days) deemed by experts the "right" way to murder? If we are to create any peace in this world, all killing must be viewed as "barbaric," the president's description for the beheading. For whatever the means, the ends are the same: the deaths of wives, husbands, and children.

After Johnson's murder, the U.S. government and corporate media loudly expressed their outrage, just as they did after the beheading of Nick Berg. Surely enough, like after the Berg case, alongside the understandable anger came a sort of bewilderment, a response of, How could they do this? While the question is not surprising, it is a sad commentary that so many Americans, even those who have been speaking out against the occupation, can be so sickened by a single murder of one of us though we seldom express a true concern for the innocent Iraqis killed daily, not just anti-administration criticism. But who can blame us?

There's no special news segment for each of those people, nothing about their good nature, sense of humor, devotion to family.

The president continued his statement of June 18:
"And it should remind us that we must pursue these people, and bring them to justice before they hurt other Americans."

Perhaps for many Americans watching on television, or reading these words in the paper, little seems strange. Of course our president wants to protect us. But imagine you're a Thai soldier. Or you work for the British embassy. Or you're an Iraqi who deeply believes in the possibility of democracy, who remains hopeful. Or perhaps you're Kim Sun-il, the South Korean hostage in the days before his life was taken on June 22. Would you not likely wonder,
Who does the U.S. government, the coalition leader and self-proclaimed prophet of freedom for Iraq and the world, really value?

Am I as a soldier, a worker, a person, worth less because I'm not American?

In President Bush's eyes, the answer seems to be yes.

It's about time we humbly climb down from our egregiously high horse, take a look around, and recognize we've forgotten our history. Or maybe we're simply remembering it all too well.
_____________________________________________
More Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. forces than by insurgents, data shows

At al Kimdi Hospital, Dr. Mumtaz Jaber, a vascular surgeon, said that three months ago, his 3-year-old nephew, his sister and his brother-in-law were driving in Baghdad at about 9 p.m. when they saw an American checkpoint. His nephew was killed.

"They didn't stop fast enough. The Americans shot them immediately," Jaber
said. "This is how so many die."

At the Baghdad morgue, Dr. Quasis Hassan Salem said he saw a family of eight brought in: three women, three men and two children. They were sleeping on their roof last month because it was hot inside. A military helicopter shot at them and killed them: "I don't know why.

[avet]

Atrocities in Iraq: 'I killed innocent people for our government'
By Paul Rockwell
Published 2:15 am PDT Sunday, May 16, 2004

"We forget what war is about, what it does to those who wage it and those who suffer from it. Those who hate war the most, I have often found, are veterans who know it."

For nearly 12 years, Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey was a hard-core, some say gung-ho, Marine. For three years he trained fellow Marines in one of the most grueling indoctrination rituals in military life - Marine boot camp.

The Iraq war changed Massey. The brutality, the sheer carnage of the U.S. invasion, touched his conscience and transformed him forever. He was honorably discharged with full severance last Dec. 31 and is now back in his hometown, Waynsville, N.C.

When I talked with Massey last week, he expressed his remorse at the civilian loss of life in incidents in which he himself was involved.

Q: You spent 12 years in the Marines. When were you sent to Iraq?

A: I went to Kuwait around Jan. 17. I was in Iraq from the get-go. And I was involved in the initial invasion.

Q: What does the public need to know about your experiences as a Marine?

A: The cause of the Iraqi revolt against the American occupation. What they need to know is we killed a lot of innocent people. I think at first the Iraqis had the understanding that casualties are a part of war. But over the course of time, the occupation hurt the Iraqis. And I didn't see any humanitarian support.

Q: What experiences turned you against the war and made you leave the Marines?

A: I was in charge of a platoon that consists of machine gunners and missile men. Our job was to go into certain areas of the towns and secure the roadways. There was this one particular incident - and there's many more - the one that really pushed me over the edge. It involved a car with Iraqi civilians. From all the intelligence reports we were getting, the cars were loaded down with suicide bombs or material. That's the rhetoric we received from intelligence. They came upon our checkpoint. We fired some warning shots. They didn't slow down. So we lit them up.

Q: Lit up? You mean you fired machine guns?

A: Right. Every car that we lit up we were expecting ammunition to go off. But we never heard any. Well, this particular vehicle we didn't destroy completely, and one gentleman looked up at me and said: "Why did you kill my brother? We didn't do anything wrong." That hit me like a ton of bricks.

Q: He spoke English?

A: Oh, yeah.

Q: Baghdad was being bombed. The civilians were trying to get out, right?

A: Yes. They received pamphlets, propaganda we dropped on them. It said, "Just throw up your hands, lay down weapons." That's what they were doing, but we were still lighting them up. They weren't in uniform. We never found any weapons.

Q: You got to see the bodies and casualties?

A: Yeah, firsthand. I helped throw them in a ditch.

Q: Over what period did all this take place?

A: During the invasion of Baghdad.

'We lit him up pretty good'
Q: How many times were you involved in checkpoint "light-ups"?
A: Five times. There was [the city of] Rekha. The gentleman was driving a stolen work utility van. He didn't stop. With us being trigger happy, we didn't really give this guy much of a chance. We lit him up pretty good. Then we inspected the back of the van. We found nothing. No explosives.

Q: The reports said the cars were loaded with explosives. In all the incidents did you find that to be the case?

A: Never. Not once. There were no secondary explosions. As a matter of fact, we lit up a rally after we heard a stray gunshot.

Q: A demonstration? Where?

A: On the outskirts of Baghdad. Near a military compound. There were demonstrators at the end of the street. They were young and they had no weapons. And when we rolled onto the scene, there was already a tank that was parked on the side of the road. If the Iraqis wanted to do something, they could have blown up the tank. But they didn't. They were only holding a demonstration. Down at the end of the road, we saw some RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) lined up against the wall. That put us at ease because we thought: "Wow, if they were going to blow us up, they would have done it."

Q: Were the protest signs in English or Arabic?

A: Both.

Q: Who gave the order to wipe the demonstrators out?

A: Higher command. We were told to be on the lookout for the civilians because a lot of the Fedayeen and the Republican Guards had tossed away uniforms and put on civilian clothes and were mounting terrorist attacks on American soldiers. The intelligence reports that were given to us were basically known by every member of the chain of command. The rank structure that was implemented in Iraq by the chain of command was evident to every Marine in Iraq. The order to shoot the demonstrators, I believe, came from senior government officials, including intelligence communities within the military and the U.S. government.

Q: What kind of firepower was employed?

A: M-16s, 50-cal. machine guns.

Q: You fired into six or ten kids? Were they all taken out?

A: Oh, yeah. Well, I had a "mercy" on one guy. When we rolled up, he was hiding behind a concrete pillar. I saw him and raised my weapon up, and he put up his hands. He ran off. I told everybody, "Don't shoot." Half of his foot was trailing behind him. So he was running with half of his foot cut off.

Q: After you lit up the demonstration, how long before the next incident?

A: Probably about one or two hours. This is another thing, too. I am so glad I am talking with you, because I suppressed all of this.

Q: Well, I appreciate you giving me the information, as hard as it must be to recall the painful details.

A: That's all right. It's kind of therapy for me. Because it's something that I had repressed for a long time.

Q: And the incident?

A: There was an incident with one of the cars. We shot an individual with his hands up. He got out of the car. He was badly shot. We lit him up. I don't know who started shooting first. One of the Marines came running over to where we were and said: "You all just shot a guy with his hands up." Man, I forgot about this.

Depleted uranium and cluster bombs
Q: You mention machine guns. What can you tell me about cluster bombs, or depleted uranium?
A: Depleted uranium. I know what it does. It's basically like leaving plutonium rods around. I'm 32 years old. I have 80 percent of my lung capacity. I ache all the time. I don't feel like a healthy 32-year-old.

Q: Were you in the vicinity of of depleted uranium?

A: Oh, yeah. It's everywhere. DU is everywhere on the battlefield. If you hit a tank, there's dust.

Q: Did you breath any dust?

A: Yeah.

Q: And if DU is affecting you or our troops, it's impacting Iraqi civilians.

A: Oh, yeah. They got a big wasteland problem.

Q: Do Marines have any precautions about dealing with DU?

A: Not that I know of. Well, if a tank gets hit, crews are detained for a little while to make sure there are no signs or symptoms. American tanks have depleted uranium on the sides, and the projectiles have DU in them. If an enemy vehicle gets hit, the area gets contaminated. Dead rounds are in the ground. The civilian populace is just now starting to learn about it. Hell, I didn't even know about DU until two years ago. You know how I found out about it? I read an article in Rolling Stone magazine. I just started inquiring about it, and I said "Holy s---!"

Q: Cluster bombs are also controversial. U.N. commissions have called for a ban. Were you acquainted with cluster bombs?

A: I had one of my Marines in my battalion who lost his leg from an ICBM.

Q: What's an ICBM?

A: A multi-purpose cluster bomb.

Q: What happened?

A: He stepped on it. We didn't get to training about clusters until about a month before I left.

Q: What kind of training?

A: They told us what they looked like, and not to step on them.

Q: Were you in any areas where they were dropped?

A: Oh, yeah. They were everywhere.

Q: Dropped from the air?

A: From the air as well as artillery.

Q: Are they dropped far away from cities, or inside the cities?

A: They are used everywhere. Now if you talked to a Marine artillery officer, he would give you the runaround, the politically correct answer. But for an average grunt, they're everywhere.

Q: Including inside the towns and cities?

A: Yes, if you were going into a city, you knew there were going to be ICBMs.

Q: Cluster bombs are anti-personnel weapons. They are not precise. They don't injure buildings, or hurt tanks. Only people and living things. There are a lot of undetonated duds and they go off after the battles are over.

A: Once the round leaves the tube, the cluster bomb has a mind of its own. There's always human error. I'm going to tell you: The armed forces are in a tight spot over there. It's starting to leak out about the civilian casualties that are taking place. The Iraqis know. I keep hearing reports from my Marine buddies inside that there were 200-something civilians killed in Fallujah. The military is scrambling right now to keep the raps on that. My understanding is Fallujah is just littered with civilian bodies.

Embedded reporters
Q: How are the embedded reporters responding?
A: I had embedded reporters in my unit, not my platoon. One we had was a South African reporter. He was scared s---less. We had an incident where one of them wanted to go home.

Q: Why?

A: It was when we started going into Baghdad. When he started seeing the civilian casualties, he started wigging out a little bit. It didn't start until we got on the outskirts of Baghdad and started taking civilian casualties.

Q: I would like to go back to the first incident, when the survivor asked why did you kill his brother. Was that the incident that pushed you over the edge, as you put it?

A: Oh, yeah. Later on I found out that was a typical day. I talked with my commanding officer after the incident. He came up to me and says: "Are you OK?" I said: "No, today is not a good day. We killed a bunch of civilians." He goes: "No, today was a good day." And when he said that, I said "Oh, my goodness, what the hell am I into?"

Q: Your feelings changed during the invasion. What was your state of mind before the invasion?

A: I was like every other troop. My president told me they got weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam threatened the free world, that he had all this might and could reach us anywhere. I just bought into the whole thing.

Q: What changed you?

A: The civilian casualties taking place. That was what made the difference. That was when I changed.

Q: Did the revelations that the government fabricated the evidence for war affect the troops?

A: Yes. I killed innocent people for our government. For what? What did I do? Where is the good coming out of it? I feel like I've had a hand in some sort of evil lie at the hands of our government. I just feel embarrassed, ashamed about it.

Showdown with superiors
Q: I understand that all the incidents - killing civilians at checkpoints, itchy fingers at the rally - weigh on you. What happened with your commanding officers? How did you deal with them?
A: There was an incident. It was right after the fall of Baghdad, when we went back down south. On the outskirts of Karbala, we had a morning meeting on the battle plan. I was not in a good mindset. All these things were going through my head - about what we were doing over there. About some of the things my troops were asking. I was holding it all inside. My lieutenant and I got into a conversation. The conversation was striking me wrong. And I lashed out. I looked at him and told him: "You know, I honestly feel that what we're doing is wrong over here. We're committing genocide."

He asked me something and I said that with the killing of civilians and the depleted uranium we're leaving over here, we're not going to have to worry about terrorists. He didn't like that. He got up and stormed off. And I knew right then and there that my career was over. I was talking to my commanding officer.

Q: What happened then?

A: After I talked to the top commander, I was kind of scurried away. I was basically put on house arrest. I didn't talk to other troops. I didn't want to hurt them. I didn't want to jeopardize them.

I want to help people. I felt strongly about it. I had to say something. When I was sent back to stateside, I went in front of the sergeant major. He's in charge of 3,500-plus Marines. "Sir," I told him, "I don't want your money. I don't want your benefits. What you did was wrong."

It was just a personal conviction with me. I've had an impeccable career. I chose to get out. And you know who I blame? I blame the president of the U.S. It's not the grunt. I blame the president because he said they had weapons of mass destruction. It was a lie.

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by buffknut
John, I am backing up my claims with links to articles that themselves link to more.I'm waiting for a link describing some of those "many reports" of found WMDs you claim.

Look, you're under no obligation to prove anything to me or anyone else. But changing the topic doesn't really do much to support your claim that there are many reports of found WMDs.

[LHardy]

Here's two for ya.

2 October A.D. 2003 | Associated Press, Kuwait City

Kuwait foils smuggling of chemicals, bio warheads from Iraq Associated Press Kuwait City, October 2

Kuwaiti security authorities have foiled an attempt to smuggle $60 million worth of chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to an unnamed European country, a Kuwaiti newspaper said on Wednesday. The pro-Government Al-Siyassah, quoting an unnamed security source, said the suspects had been watched by security since they arrived in Kuwait and were arrested "in due time." It did not say when or how the smugglers entered Kuwait or when they were arrested.

The paper said the smugglers might have had accomplices inside Kuwait. It said Interior Minister Sheik Nawwaf Al Ahmed Al Sabah would hand over the smuggled weapons to an FBI agent at a news conference, but did not say when.

Government officials could not be immediately reached for comment.

Iraqi Interior Minister Nouri Al-Badran met on Tuesday with Sheik Nawwaf and discussed cooperation between the two countries in security matters. His visit is the first by an Iraqi interior minister to Kuwait since 1990.

#2)
Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq
Monday, May 17, 2004


Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas (search) was also recently discovered.

Two people were treated for "minor exposure" after the sarin incident but no serious injuries were reported. Soldiers transporting the shell for inspection suffered symptoms consistent with low-level chemical exposure, which is what led to the discovery, a U.S. official told Fox News.

"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy."

The round detonated before it would be rendered inoperable, Kimmitt said, which caused a "very small dispersal of agent."

However, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and said more analysis was needed. If confirmed, it would be the first finding of a banned weapon upon which the United States based its case for war.

A senior Bush administration official told Fox News that the sarin gas shell is the second chemical weapon discovered recently.

Two weeks ago, U.S. military units discovered mustard gas that was used as part of an IED. Tests conducted by the Iraqi Survey Group (search) — a U.S. organization searching for weapons of mass destruction — and others concluded the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective."

They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas.

[WestSideJohn]

Thank you for that information.

Do you consider those finds as living up to the administration's pre-war claims of an iminent threat against the United States?

[buffknut]

So Avet,

I guess that means you agree with stevenco's assertion that our US American troops "burn their innocents".

And you buy into Massey's claim despite no corroboration. And even so, you are surprised that troops would fire at cars driving into roadblocks after all that has happened there. And you believe Hinzmann despite him obviously having a vested interest in making outrageous claims so that he could get asylum in Canada.

On a google search, I noticed al-jazeera itself loved his claims.

John,

I know you'll dismiss LHardy's references but at least you now see some of them. (hat tip to LHardy)

Y'know John, the WMD were there and went somewhere. You also know by now that every politician including Kerry believed they were there and every intelligence service including France believed it. I've shown the quotes here before. So you can't (credibly) deny they were there and everyone believed it to be true. And you know the UN commission gave up looking which doesn't mean they weren't there, just that they did not find them.

stevenco still has not defended or retracted his outrageous claim that our troops "burn their innocents" or backed up his claim of some other "truth" about 911. You have no trouble calling me out, yet are leaving his words stand.

I still see no one else here challenging stevenco (although I'll assume LHardy did).

totalfan, welcome to the fray. I do believe the sites I've mentioned frequently cite their references. I think over time you'll agree with me on that point. You may not agree with them but they do provide links. But I do thank you again for at least reading them.

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by buffknut
John, I know you'll dismiss LHardy's references but at least you now see some of them.Wrong again, chief. See my above post - I didn't dismiss his references at all. Apparently not everything "you know" turns out to be true.

[avet]

buffknut,
You DEMAND 100% corroboration for "anything" anybody else says that you "don't like".

Where's your corroboration? I posted "4" other articles from various sources, you just don't beleive it cause you "don't like" what it says.

Play a little role reversal(try really hard) - Iraq invaded us because we have WMD's ( we really don't, do we?) They felt scared we were going to use them on them (we'd "NEVER" use WMD's against "ANYONE" else, do we?)

After they occupied us, and fully disarmed us - (as was their "main goal" - ours was to remove Sadam), their occupied forces would "shoot to kill" ANY vehicles & their occupants - for "their own self protection".

YOUR OWN daughter\mother\father\son etc. was totally riddled in a hail of machine guns, ...on their way to work\school etc.

I'd be willing to bet "YOU" would be "the" very 1st person to call them
'ANIMALS'....'BARBARIANS'....ETC. (EVERY DIRTY ROTTEN NAME THAT EXISTS!!) & burn their flag, organize clandistine revolutionaries - "do whatever it takes" to GET THEM THE HELL OUT OF THE US !!!!!

All they were doing is..........."protecting themselves" !! RIGHT?

YOU appear to be so narrowminded to be able to see the entire "whole picture" - the costs - and the effects that this "endless" war has created.

As long as "you & your family" is safe & never, ever, has to hear, or be anywhere near a "single shot" - nothing "else" matters.

[buffknut]

So avet, I'll take that as a yes that you agree with stevenco that our troops "burn their innocents". Thank you for clarifying. Have a nice life.

John, your post and mine crossed as your response to LHardy came while I was in edit mode still. Sorry for the mixup. John, also I am interested in knowing whether you agree with avet and stevenco. You of course don't have to respond but I am curious.

[avet]

Who does the U.S. government, the coalition leader and self-proclaimed prophet of freedom for Iraq and the world, really value?

Am I as a soldier, a worker, a person, worth less because I'm not American?

In President Bush's eyes, the answer seems to be yes.

[avet]

Have a nice life.

You "have a nice life" !

JOIN UP & SERVE ...."if" you "really" believe what you say !!

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by buffknut
John, also I am interested in knowing whether you agree with avet and stevenco. You of course don't have to respond but I am curious. I'm sure there are examples of our troops doing things that would shock us. But, we've placed them in a near-impossible situation. We're expecting our soldiers to police a nation wracked with violence. They're targets surrounded by unknown dangers 24/7. And, we've often failed to provide them with the tools they need to stay alive, let alone succeed. Our troops are rising to this incredible challenge.

Of course there are going to be bad apples in any group that give the rest a stained reputation, especially when our men and women are under the constant stress of being in danger. So, while I acknowledge that things are going on that we shouldn't be proud of, and while I think we should do everything possible to root that out, I don't at all think it's representative of the military as a whole.

The problem is this: those few bad apples are the ones creating tomorrow's terrorists, and so it's critical that we root them out not only because it's the decent thing to do, but for our own future security as well.

Now keep in mind that this is completely independent of the "should we even be there" discussion.

[steven]

The real problem is the military is streched so thin there are people doing jobs they have niether the training experiance or maturity for.

A classic example is the infamous prison photos scandle. An E-6 (SSG) and his spc4 girlfriend have no business being in charge of a prison. That function is normally reserved for an E-8 (Master SGT) or E-9 (Sgt Major). For those of you that havent served in the military before the difference between the two is usally any where from 10 - 15 in years in age and experiance.

Nor should reservest being serving in these positions. One weekend a month in no way prepares you for dealing with hostile prisoners on a daily basis.

[biker]

I don't have any links or citations to add to this.

Last night, the guy in the campsite next to me was a reservist just back from his second posting to Kuwait. He's a flight engineer. Does missions over Iraq.

When I left this morning, I thanked him for what he was doing.

He said, "I love my job. I love the service. I love this country."

[steven]

Originally posted by biker
I don't have any links or citations to add to this.

Last night, the guy in the campsite next to me was a reservist just back from his second posting to Kuwait. He's a flight engineer. Does missions over Iraq.

When I left this morning, I thanked him for what he was doing.

He said, "I love my job. I love the service. I love this country."

......and that's great and I applaud him for it.

Doesn't change a word of what I said. a 25 yr old SSG reservist has no business running a wing much less an entire prison.

That he was openly dating a spc4 is further proof to anyone that served in the army that something going on there was terribly wrong.

[jbinbny]

Originally posted by Boost Buffalo
Linda, that's Lefty's editorial. Its comically shallow, its nothing but the same old tired liberal unfounded rhetoric. Its says nothing at all.



I agree completely! Nothing but garbage!

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by LHardy
Here's two for ya.

2 October A.D. 2003 | Associated Press, Kuwait City

Kuwait foils smuggling of chemicals, bio warheads from Iraq Associated Press Kuwait City, October 2

Kuwaiti security authorities have foiled an attempt to smuggle $60 million worth of chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to an unnamed European country, a Kuwaiti newspaper said on Wednesday. The pro-Government Al-Siyassah, quoting an unnamed security source, said the suspects had been watched by security since they arrived in Kuwait and were arrested "in due time." It did not say when or how the smugglers entered Kuwait or when they were arrested.

The paper said the smugglers might have had accomplices inside Kuwait. It said Interior Minister Sheik Nawwaf Al Ahmed Al Sabah would hand over the smuggled weapons to an FBI agent at a news conference, but did not say when.

Government officials could not be immediately reached for comment.

Iraqi Interior Minister Nouri Al-Badran met on Tuesday with Sheik Nawwaf and discussed cooperation between the two countries in security matters. His visit is the first by an Iraqi interior minister to Kuwait since 1990.

#2)
Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq
Monday, May 17, 2004


Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas (search) was also recently discovered.

Two people were treated for "minor exposure" after the sarin incident but no serious injuries were reported. Soldiers transporting the shell for inspection suffered symptoms consistent with low-level chemical exposure, which is what led to the discovery, a U.S. official told Fox News.

"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy."

The round detonated before it would be rendered inoperable, Kimmitt said, which caused a "very small dispersal of agent."

However, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and said more analysis was needed. If confirmed, it would be the first finding of a banned weapon upon which the United States based its case for war.

A senior Bush administration official told Fox News that the sarin gas shell is the second chemical weapon discovered recently.

Two weeks ago, U.S. military units discovered mustard gas that was used as part of an IED. Tests conducted by the Iraqi Survey Group (search) — a U.S. organization searching for weapons of mass destruction — and others concluded the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective."

They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas.

Hi. Here is Chapter Two of the first story you cited. I couldn't find anything on whether the news conference confirming the info the AP story imparted ever happened. Don't think it did.


Posted on 10/05/2003 5:27:28 PM PDT by kattracks

KUWAIT CITY, Oct 05, 2003 (AP WorldStream via COMTEX) -- Kuwait's Interior Ministry has denied a newspaper report that security officials foiled an attempt to smuggle US$60 million worth of chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to a European country. Maj. Adel al-Hashash, deputy manager of public relations at the Interior Ministry, told The Associated Press Sunday that the ministry has repeatedly denied the report.

The pro-government Al-Siyassah, quoting an unnamed security source, published the story Wednesday.

Al-Hashash said Information Minister Sheik Nawwaf Al Ahmed Al Sabah denied the newspaper report in comments to reporters Wednesday night, although he did not mention the weapons.

"We have some artifacts and that was written about in the papers," Al Sabah said in comments carried by local newspapers Thursday. "We will make sure all of it is correct. There are experts and officials who will examine these artifacts. There are matters that we must look into."

"That is our denial," Al-Hashash said Sunday.

Shawkat al-Hakem, Al-Siyassah managing editor, told the AP on Saturday that the minister's comments did not negate his paper's report. He said the paper stood by its story.


Regarding the second story. Was it anywhere besides FOX News? I couldn't find it written about anywhere else.

thanks

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by biker
I don't have any links or citations to add to this.

Last night, the guy in the campsite next to me was a reservist just back from his second posting to Kuwait. He's a flight engineer. Does missions over Iraq.

When I left this morning, I thanked him for what he was doing.

He said, "I love my job. I love the service. I love this country."

Sounds like he inspired you to enlist!

[Linda_D]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
Regarding the second story. Was it anywhere besides FOX News? I couldn't find it written about anywhere else.

I think that's because the field tests were proven wrong ... I remember an incident where US forces found what they thought were traces of chemicals for WMDs but that they turned out not to be. That news, of course, was not considered as big "news" as having found "some", so many news outlets ignored the story, particularly if it didn't fit their politics.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by Linda_D
I think that's because the field tests were proven wrong ... I remember an incident where US forces found what they thought were traces of chemicals for WMDs but that they turned out not to be. That news, of course, was not considered as big "news" as having found "some", so many news outlets ignored the story, particularly if it didn't fit their politics.

Thanks for the tip, Linda. I'll search again...

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by LHardy

#2)
Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq
Monday, May 17, 2004


Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas (search) was also recently discovered.

Two people were treated for "minor exposure" after the sarin incident but no serious injuries were reported. Soldiers transporting the shell for inspection suffered symptoms consistent with low-level chemical exposure, which is what led to the discovery, a U.S. official told Fox News.

"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy."

The round detonated before it would be rendered inoperable, Kimmitt said, which caused a "very small dispersal of agent."

However, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and said more analysis was needed. If confirmed, it would be the first finding of a banned weapon upon which the United States based its case for war.

A senior Bush administration official told Fox News that the sarin gas shell is the second chemical weapon discovered recently.

Two weeks ago, U.S. military units discovered mustard gas that was used as part of an IED. Tests conducted by the Iraqi Survey Group (search) — a U.S. organization searching for weapons of mass destruction — and others concluded the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective."

They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas.

Okay, now I think I can put this article into context. This was the first discovery of non-conventional weapons in Iraq since the invasion. And, of course, it worried everyone.

But I still don't see any evidence that more of this feared stockpile were found....

[biker]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
Sounds like he inspired you to enlist!

You denigrate his commitment.

The same tired comment you've made for weeks.

You ought to be ashamed to brush aside his work that's even on your behalf.

[avet]

EO 13303 Revisited

" President Bush has issued an Executive Order, so far completely unreported, that purports to grant broad legal immunity to oil companies operating in Iraq. The Order is, on its face, outrageous, and should be investigated.

Executive Order 13303, issued on May 22, 2003, claims to be essential to Iraqi reconstruction efforts. A cursory reading of the Order indicates that its real purpose is to protect oil companies by giving virtual impunity for any activities undertaken relating to Iraqi oil.

This Order, with broad language that seems to sweep aside federal statutes, including the Alien Tort Claims Act, has received no public attention. It has been brought to light by a researcher with the Sustainable Energy and Environment Network (SEEN).

Under this Order, an oil company complicit in human rights violations, or one that causes environmental damage, would be immune from lawsuits. The language of the Executive Order is so broad that it might as well have been written by lawyers for Halliburton, ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco.

In 13303, President Bush declares a national emergency as the basis for protecting the Development Fund for Iraq (an entity intended to fund reconstruction efforts with oil proceeds, overseen by an international board including World Bank officials) as well as all Iraqi petroleum, petroleum products, interests, proceeds, and contracts related to Iraqi petroleum. Claiming that interference with Iraqi petroleum, petroleum products, and interests therein jeopardizes reconstruction efforts in Iraq, EO 13303 offers a wide range of protections to certain persons, entities and assets associated with the Iraqi oil industry. The document is apparently intended as a sweeping grant of immunity to individuals, corporations, agencies and others involved in Iraqi oil sales, marketing, or other oil-related activities.

The Order provides protection at both the front end?the activities that generate the oil?as well as the back?the profits and proceeds that ensue. U.S. companies engaged in petroleum-related work in Iraq are purportedly given broad immunity from suits for environmental damage, workplace harms, contractual disputes, and numerous other wrongs. For example, a U.S. oil company benefiting from human rights abuses, no matter how egregious, apparently falls within the Order?s immunity from suit. Similarly, the Order purports to protect any assets derived from Iraqi oil from judgment, garnishment, or any other seizure in U.S. courts. For example, if a corporate entity or an individual engages in criminal activity in the U.S., its assets traceable to Iraqi oil are protected by this order. The list of situations in which a person or corporation could get away with, if not murder, then at least millions, is endless.

The title of the EO? Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest, is a sham. This EO may be about Iraq, but it's also about the oil industry exclusively. (Remember the Administration has claimed that the Iraq war had nothing to do with oil?) There is nothing at all about protecting humanitarian organizations, communications, computer or electrical companies, or other industries that are critical to Iraq's reconstruction. "
_______________________________________________
PRICE GOUGING

Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), which defends its pricing as fair, has a contract with the US Army Corps of Engineers to rebuild Iraq's oil sector. This has included importing gasoline products which are in short supply to the oil-rich nation.

"Millions of Americans want to help Iraqis but they don't want to be fleeced (by Halliburton)," Representative Henry Waxman of California, told a news conference in Washington on Wednesday.

Waxman said army documents showed that as of 18 September, the US had paid Halliburton $300 million to import about 190 million gallons (719 million litres) of gasoline into Iraq.

Accurate figure
Halliburton billed the government an average price of $1.59 per gallon (3.7 litres), excluding the company's fee of 2%-7%, said Waxman.

He said the average wholesale cost of gasoline during that period in the Middle East was about 71 cents a gallon, a figure an oil industry source told Reuters was accurate. That meant Halliburton was charging more than 90 cents a gallon to transport fuel into Iraq from Kuwait.

"When we checked with independent experts to see if this fee was reasonable, they were stunned," said Waxman, adding a reasonable transport cost would be 10 to 25 cents per gallon, especially as the US military was providing security.

"The overcharging by Halliburton is so extreme that one expert privately called it highway robbery"

A Halliburton spokeswoman defended the pricing as fair and said KBR had to transport gasoline through a "hostile environment" into Baghdad.
_________________________________________________

Halliburton announces 284 percent increase in war profits
25 July 2005

* The increase in profits was primarily due to the Pentagon's payment of "award fees" for what military officials call "good" or "very good" work done by KBR in the Middle East for America's taxpayers and the troops.

* Despite the scandals that plague KBR's military contracts, the Pentagon awarded $70 million in "award" fees to the company, along with four ratings of "excellent" and two ratings of "very good" for the troop logistics work under the Army's LOGCAP contract.

* Audits conducted by the Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency determined that KBR had $1 billion in "questioned" expenses (i.e. expenses which military auditors consider "unreasonable") and $442 million in "unsupported" expenses (i.e. expenses which military auditors have determined contain no receipt or any explanation on how the expenses were disbursed). But the top Pentagon brass ignored these audits and rewarded KBR's work anyway.

* Halliburton's earnings announcement comes on the heels of new reports showing the Iraq and Afghan wars have already cost U.S. taxpayers $314 billion and that another ten years of war will cost $700 billion.

* In another coup for Halliburton, a federal judge this month decided that whistleblowers may not sue U.S. companies for fraud if payment for services was made in Iraqi, not U.S., money. Halliburton was paid over $1 billion in Iraqi oil money during the first 15 months of the occupation.

The talents in graft, corruption, creative accounting and flouting the law are very useful to have when a patriotic company such as Halliburton gets in behind the real agenda of the "war in Iraq" and the "war on terror".

[WestSideJohn]

So, it looks like LHardy's information didn't stand up to scrutiny, and we're back at square one. If the information proving Iraq was an "iminent threat" to the United States was solid enough to start a war over, it should be a piece of cake to find and post here. Right? Right?

[stevenco]

It appears to be a waste of time trying to get pro-war people to see clearly. Insurgents are wrong, Al-Qaida is wrong and the U.S. military is wrong.

The protesters here and the peace loving Muslims there are right.

Only a few really want a war ( e.g. Al-Qaida, Bush Admin. ) and a bunch more are slow enough to think it is necessary because they bought it.

[biker]

Now there's a basis for a mass movement: protestors in the US and peace-loving Muslims!

(That's sarcasm for those of you in Rio Linda).

[stevenco]

If everyone (Insurgents, Al-Qaida, BushAdmin, et al) that was in favor of this war died, then there would be no war.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by biker
You denigrate his commitment.

The same tired comment you've made for weeks.

You ought to be ashamed to brush aside his work that's even on your behalf.

Duck and weave, duck and weave, biker -- anything to avoid a simple question:
Why haven't you enlisted? Don't forget, the military is relaxing its standards now, so if age is the issue -- well, maybe it won't be soon.

Given how few people show any willingness to sign up for Bush's war, I'd say the military needs the few true believers left, like you, now more than ever.

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by biker
Now there's a basis for a mass movement: protestors in the US and peace-loving Muslims!

(That's sarcasm for those of you in Rio Linda). Laugh all you want, but <i>we're</i> the ones who have been right about every aspect of this war so far. In the months before we invaded Iraq, I said:

<b>1.</b> we wouldn't find WMDs or any justification of the "iminent threat" claims
<b>2.</b> we would become bogged down in expensive, dangerous post-war chaos completely unlike the "cake-walk" promised by administration members
<b>3.</b> terrorism would actually rise, not fall

All three have proven true. I also said:

<b>4.</b> our invasion of Iraq would swell the ranks of the next generation(s) of anti-US terrorists

Only time will tell if I'm right here too, but so far I'm three for three. What have <i>you</i> predicted that has come true?

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by biker
Now there's a basis for a mass movement: protestors in the US and peace-loving Muslims!

(That's sarcasm for those of you in Rio Linda).

Why is that bad?

[LHardy]

Given how few people show any willingness to sign up for Bush's war, I'd say the military needs the few true believers left, like you, now more than ever.

New enlists maybe down but re-enlists are at all time high records.

Given the nature of terrorism and the fact we maybe attacked agian on our soil.
Will you sign up to defend your country, if attacked agian, or will you just allow it to continue and let other people die because you are afraid too?

Before you ask! I would have no fear of dying in defense of my family and my country! Even if I'm to old to fight front line I would fight however I best could.
Would I like to see my son/daughter die in this war? No but I would be honered that my family gave of itself for the good of everyone in the nation. Our sons/duaghters who have died hold the highest place of honor in this country.
Those who die for our country are selfless.
Those who complain about these deaths or selfish.

The french refused to die for their country and look what they got!
Hil Hitler!
Yeah and they thought Churchill was wrong.

[stevenco]

LHardy has a loose definintion of terrorism. See terrorism in Buffalo thread.

Hate=War
Evil=War
Stupidity=War
Greed=War:)

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by LHardy
Those who complain about these deaths or selfish.Then I'm selfish, because I'm sure as hell going to speak out against our troops - and innocent Iraqis - dying in a war we have no business being in.

[stevenco]

Originally posted by WestSideJohn
Then I'm selfish, because I'm sure as hell going to speak out against our troops dying in a war we have no business being in.

Anyone who types the phrase, "Those who complain about these deaths are selfish." is a complete and utter moron and there is no defending this type of thinking. It's just flat out psychotic.

"Don't complain about innocent people getting killed including women and children", thinks a sociopath.

"Killers on both sides are killing innocent people who hate war"- Steveco.

[speaker]

Originally posted by LHardy
[b]...Our sons/duaghters who have died hold the highest place of honor in this country...........
.

We could pile their graves high with occolades and diamonds and gold. It would be no use to those who have died, and I consider using the promise of honor and glory no better than telling the kids who are used for suicide bombing they will reside with 28 virgins and 10 young boys.

[therising]

Originally posted by LHardy
[b]
Those who complain about these deaths or selfish.


Yikes, that's quite a statement.

Petty little people, complaining about death.

And the funniest thing is that YOU, I'm sure, claim to support the troops.

And you claim that those of us who dare to question the war -are "anti-American"

[stevenco]

...which is why it is a waste of time trying to talk to these people.
It doesn't matter what you tell them, you can't change the way they think because they are ill. They actually like what's going on.
They have a surprise waiting, though.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LHardy
[b]Given how few people show any willingness to sign up for Bush's war, I'd say the military needs the few true believers left, like you, now more than ever.

New enlists maybe down but re-enlists are at all time high records.

Given the nature of terrorism and the fact we maybe attacked agian on our soil.
Will you sign up to defend your country, if attacked agian, or will you just allow it to continue and let other people die because you are afraid too?

You're asking a question I can't answer. I'd have to know I was fighting the right enemy, which is not the case right now with Iraq.

Before you ask! I would have no fear of dying in defense of my family and my country! Even if I'm to old to fight front line I would fight however I best could.

And how exactly would that be?


Those who complain about these deaths or selfish.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. People complain about these deaths in Iraq because they care about our soliders and hate to see them die needlessly. I think those who send them off to war to die for them without good cause are the selfish ones.

[avet]

Thank GOD for the "Patriot Act" to "protect" us citizens from the evil of......"OURSELVES" ?!

We the citizens, have lost a lot of our rights, that were agreed upon and set up as the NATIONS POLICY - FROM DAY NUMBER ONE - and has been established & worked, for ...."decades". That's why we were "proud" Americans & it did work.

Now, we sit in constant "fear" & we are bankrupt to the tune of TRILLIONS - yet those who are DIRECTLY CONNECTED to the major crimes that got us "here", are FREE & were protected to the "UTMOST"! How DUMB is that?

"EVERYTHING" is classified a matter of "NATIONAL SECURITY" - what could "ever" in a million years, amount to be an anything better of a ....."GET OUT OF JAIL FREE" card ?

In the meantime, take down that "MY HOUSE IS MY CASTLE" sign in your overtaxed abode. It ain't yours "anymore", as it was seen fit to, by this nations administration.


============================================
The following is nothing but "pure conjecture" & "bs" from many various sources - (thought I'd save a certain few people the trouble of posting a "unrefutable" disclaimer ("It's all lies" !, that info is F.O.S. !, what a crock !, etc.,.....)
============================================
_______________________________________________
America was itself to blame for the events of September 11 because
the US administration was using "KID GLOVES" in tracking down Osama bin Laden and "other fanatics linked to Saudi Arabia", a special BBC investigation has alleged in a damning indictment of the two presidents Bush and American foreign policy.

The investigation, which featured in the BBC’s leading current affairs programme, Newsnight, said:
the FBI was told to "BACK OFF" investigating one of Osama bin Laden’s brothers, Abdullah, who was linked to "the Saudi-funded World Association of Muslim Youth (WAMY), a suspected terrorist organisation," whose accounts have still not frozen by the US treasury despite "being banned by Pakistan some weeks ago and India claiming it was linked to an organisation involved in bombing in Kashmir".

Newsnight said there was a long history of "shadowy" American connections with Saudi Arabia, not least the two presidents Bush’s "business dealings" with the bin Ladens and another more insidious link revealed by the former head of the American visa section in Jeddah.

The official said he had been concerned about visas issued to large numbers of "unqualified" men "with no family links or any links with America or Saudi Arabia", only to find out later that it "was not visa fraud" but part of a scheme in which young men "recruited by Osama bin Laden" were being sent for "terrorist training by the CIA" after which they were sent on to Afghanistan.

In a reiteration of a now well-known claim by one of George W Bush’s former business partners, the BBC said he made his first million 20 years ago on the back of a company financed by Osama’s elder brother, Salem.

But it added the more disturbing assertion that BOTH presidents Bush had LUCRATIVE STAKES along with the bin Ladens in Carlyle Corporation, a small private company which has gone on to become one of America's biggest defence contractors.
_________________________________________________
US agents told to back off bin Ladens

The BBC says that America's special agents BACKED AWAY from the bin Laden family soon after George W Bush became president.

The findings come from documents obtained from the FBI investigation of the US terror attacks by the Newsnight programme.

The papers show that despite the myth that Osama is the black sheep of the family, at least two other American-based members of it are suspected of links with a possible terrorist organisation.

Newsnight says it has uncovered a long history of shadowy connections between the State Department, the CIA and the Saudis.

The former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah from 1987 to 1989, Michael Springman, told the programme: "In Saudi Arabia I was REPEATEDLY ORDERED by high-level State Department officials to ISSUE VISAS to UNQUALIFIED applicants.
"People who had no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I complained there. I complained here in Washington to Main State, to the Inspector General and to Diplomatic Security and I was IGNORED."
_________________________________________________

How can it be that the former President of the US and the current President of the US have BUSINESS DEALINGS with characters that "need to be investigated"?

Their official line is that the Bin Ladens are above suspicion - apart from Osama, the black sheep, who they say hijacked the family name. That's fortunate for the Bush family and the Saudi royal household, whose LINKS with the Bin Ladens could otherwise prove embarrassing. But Newsnight has obtained evidence that the FBI was on the trail of other members of the] Bin Laden family for links to terrorist organisations before and after September 11th.

The FBI wanted to investigate these guys. This is not something that they didn't want to do - they wanted to, they WEREN'T "PERMITTED" TO.

Does the Bush family also have to worry about political blow-back? The younger Bush made his first million 20 years ago with an oil company partly funded by Salem Bin Laden's chief US representative. Young George also received fees as director of a subsidiary of Carlyle Corporation, a little known private company which has, in just a few years of its founding, become one of Americas biggest defence contractors. His father, Bush Senior, is also a paid advisor. And what became embarrassing was the revelation that the Bin Ladens held a stake in Carlyle, sold just after September 11.

I received a phone call from a high-placed member of a US intelligence agency. He tells me that while there's ALWAYS been CONSTRAINTS on investigating Saudis, under George Bush it's GOTTEN MUCH WORSE.
After the elections, the agencies were told to "BACK OFF" investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that angered agents.

FBI headquarters told us they could not comment on our findings. A spokesman said:
"There are lots of things that only the intelligence community knows and that no-one else ought to know.
__________________________________________________
FBI claims Bin Laden inquiry was frustrated
Officials told to 'back off' on Saudis before September 11

FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were PREVENTED for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11.
__________________________________________________
Minneapolis FBI agents who unsuccessfully sought an August 2001 warrant to search flight school student Zacarias Moussaoui's computer did so after learning that Phoenix FBI agents outlined similar concerns about other suspected terrorists in Arizona three weeks earlier.

Despite information that suspected al Qaeda terrorists were involved in flight training in two states, the warrant request — coming a month before the September 11 attacks on America — was rejected by FBI officials in Washington for a lack of "PROBABLE CAUSE".
_________________________________________________

The Weekly has learned that Chicago-based special agent Robert Wright has accused the agency of shutting down his 1998 criminal probe into alleged terrorist-training camps in Chicago and Kansas City. The apparent goal of the training camps, according to confidential documents obtained by the Weekly, was to recruit and train Palestinian-American youths, who would then slip into Israel. Recruits at these camps reportedly received weapons training and instruction in bomb-making techniques in the early 1990s. The bomb-making curriculum included the sort of explosives later used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. And government documents state that two trainees came from the Oklahoma City area.

Wright did say that FBI bureaucrats "intentionally and repeatedly thwarted his attempts to launch a more comprehensive investigation to identify and neutralize terrorists." And that "FBI management failed to take seriously the threat of terrorism in the U.S." Wright was careful not to illegally disclose any confidential details about what he knew, but tears filled his eyes as he apologized to the families of September 11 victims for the Bureau's mistakes leading up to 9/11.
_________________________________________________

FBI Agent: Bureau Prevented Terror Probe

Written just 13 days before the attacks, the e-mail goes on to lament,
"Let’s hope the [FBI’s] National Security Law Unit will stand behind their decisions then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, UBL [Osama bin Laden], is getting the MOST "PROTECTION".
_________________________________________________

ENJOY YOUR PROTECTION FROM EVIL ...."AMERICANS" ? Soon just talking about it will be a crime (I'm sorry, technically - it already "is", by their "interpretation" of the P.A. II)

[LHardy]

For what its' worth. Which is not much for you anti-war people.
I have friends and family fighting this war and everyday it is possible they won't return.
We who believe this war is just and right do more than any of you. We give our lives and families so you can have your "petty" complaints about a war you can't comprehend. All you see is oil and death. We see freedom and justice.
Innocent people die everyday in our streets from gangs and none of you complain about that. Yet when asked about the gang problems your comments are "boys' will be boys'" or "Just don't go into those neighborhoods". I quess death to innoccents only becomes important to you when war and freedom are involved. Then, you want to take a stand agianst death of innocents.

The right enemy totalfan? We have an enemy murder 3000 innocent people in one day and you ask about the right enemy. You guys need to wake up from the self induced haze in live in.

If this anti war crowd was around in WWII, we all would be speaking German or Japanese today.
For through your interpretations of why we should go to war; that war would have failed all your sniff tests.
Germany didn't attack us.
Japan attacked the island, not State of Hawaii. Not the US
We interned Japanese Americans.
We dropped a nuke on Japan- Democrat President- so it must be OK.

The terms of going to war in WWII are almost the same as the war today. Yet it is OK for Dem presidents to go to war but for the evil Bush republican NO way!

Then we should never have went after Hitler.

The President - No matter whom, is required to act in the best interest of the US national security. No matter what the rest of the world may think if that discision. Including the people of the US. That is his costitutional responsibility.
Oh and Congress gave it's blessing to fight this war. So why do you not chastise those Dems who voted to go to war. Don't say they where given false info. They all had the same info and came to the same conclusion. In fact many had the info from the Clinton Admin that also reccommended going to war with Saddam. That means Kerry and Kennedy. Oh but they don't want you to remember that.

I have never said that anyone claiming to be agianst this war makes them anti- amercan. You have the right to say you are agianst anything you wish.
Millions of our soldiers have died to give you that right.

But this statement is close to anti Amercan.
Stevenco posted:
It doesn't matter what you tell them, you can't change the way they think because they are ill. They actually like what's going on.
They have a surprise waiting, though.

It's OK for you to state your dislike for the war but those who do support the war are "ILL"?
We like what's going on? Yeah all of us with family and friends in this war are just sitting around with pom-poms and celebrating every death. Beheadings are really cool too.
Suprise? What surprise? Do you think you really know something?
I'll bet you hope that we are attacked here agian, don't you?
That would just make your day wouldn't it?
Only problem, that would prove the war to be justified.

You must be a very lonely person.

[steven]

Its a sad testament to how brainwashed some of you have become when you keep repeating "the war" "the War"

Here I go again......

*News Flash*The war is over don't you read the papers? Sadam is in jail the country is conquered. Calling it a war so it justifies the continuing deaths in Iraq serves only to make you feel better.

What the soldiers are doing now is called peace keeping or policing. Not what are armed forces are supposed to be doing, not what they are trained to do. This is what the UN is for.

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by LHardy
I'll bet you hope that we are attacked here again, don't you? That would just make your day wouldn't it?Good lord.

[buffknut]

LHardy,

It's useless to debate this issue on this forum. I've said many of the same things you have to no avail. They cannot understand that this war started years ago and we didn't start it.

Notice how stevenco (with support from avet) has yet to support his claim that our troops "burn their innocents" and his implication that there is some other "truth" about 911. And note that none of his other supporters on this forum have admonished him for such outrageous statements. That shows you where their head is and why it is pointless to argue with them.

Robert Spencer has a new book out titled something to the effect of "The politically incorrect guide to islam". I hope to buy it soon.

The "I hate Bush" crowd here can't get over the fact that most Americans do not agree with them and that the Democratic party that they are so fond of has been losing seats in the Senate, Congress, and Governorships. This will continue because they are out of touch with America, just as many (not all) of the people on this forum are.

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by buffknut
Notice how stevenco (with support from avet) has yet to support his claim that our troops "burn their innocents" and his implication that there is some other "truth" about 911. Careful, Nuttie... you might not want to bring up the topic of "supporting claims" when we're still waiting for you to support your ridiculous claim of "many reports" of found WMDs coming out of Iraq. LHardy posted two which promptly turned out to be false.

[therising]

LHardy, I've got to defend you here.

It's statements like this that just make you appear to be much more stupid than you really are:

I'll bet you hope that we are attacked here agian, don't you?

I know you're not that stupid. I have faith in you.

Regardless, someone disagrees with you, and that puts them on the side of the terrorists??


BTW - I know you're a Primary Challenge supporter/volunteer. It scares me to think that you may fit in with the mindset of the rest of the organization.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LHardy
For what its' worth. Which is not much for you anti-war people.
I have friends and family fighting this war and everyday it is possible they won't return.
We who believe this war is just and right do more than any of you. We give our lives and families so you can have your "petty" complaints about a war you can't comprehend.

***********
Wrong.

What makes you think people who oppose the war don't have family and/or friends in Iraq? They do. I know first hand. Scares me to death. So stop with the santimonious blather. Shame on you for making that assumption. You dishonor the families and friends who also have a personal stake in a war they oppose. There is nothing "petty" about the feelings of those against the war in Iraq and certainly they comprehend the war just fine.


********************


Innocent people die everyday in our streets from gangs and none of you complain about that. Yet when asked about the gang problems your comments are "boys' will be boys'" or "Just don't go into those neighborhoods". I quess death to innoccents only becomes important to you when war and freedom are involved. Then, you want to take a stand agianst death of innocents.

******************

Now you're just being odd.


Everyone I know complains about gangs and all those "libs" you hate so much will tell you they're rather spend money at home combating street crime than going overseas to attack someone without provocation.

******************


The right enemy totalfan? We have an enemy murder 3000 innocent people in one day and you ask about the right enemy. You guys need to wake up from the self induced haze in live in.

*******************

Wrong yet again. I supported attacking the Taliban, which was giving refuge to Bin Laden. I didn't and don't support attacking Iraq, which DID NOT have a role in 9/11, according to the 9/11 Commission and a whole lot of other experts you'd rather not listen to. Maybe if we'd concentrated on Afghanistan, we'd have gotten the real culprit behind 9/11.

**********************

If this anti war crowd was around in WWII, we all would be speaking German or Japanese today.
For through your interpretations of why we should go to war; that war would have failed all your sniff tests.
Germany didn't attack us.
Japan attacked the island, not State of Hawaii. Not the US
We interned Japanese Americans.
We dropped a nuke on Japan- Democrat President- so it must be OK.
***************************


Revisionist history. American was very much divided on joining WWII, until we were attacked -- repeat ATTACKED -- at Pearl Harbor. Then we actively joined the war, which included fighting Germany. As far as nuking Japan, surely you realize the right and wrong of that continues to dog this country.

*********************


The President - No matter whom, is required to act in the best interest of the US national security. No matter what the rest of the world may think if that discision. Including the people of the US. That is his costitutional responsibility.
********************
And it's our responsibility to voice our concerns, especially when, as in this case, whether it is far from certain that this war is in "the best interest of the US national security."

**********************
Oh and Congress gave it's blessing to fight this war. So why do you not chastise those Dems who voted to go to war. Don't say they where given false info. They all had the same info and came to the same conclusion. In fact many had the info from the Clinton Admin that also reccommended going to war with Saddam. That means Kerry and Kennedy. Oh but they don't want you to remember that.
***************************
Got me there. I don't remember Clinton recommending that we attack Iraq. I'll go back and refresh my memory.

********************

I have never said that anyone claiming to be agianst this war makes them anti- amercan. You have the right to say you are agianst anything you wish.
Millions of our soldiers have died to give you that right.

*********************
And died apparently to give you the right to criticize the citizenry for exercising that right. Don't you feel like a hypocrite?

*********************

But this statement is close to anti Amercan.
Stevenco posted:
[b]It doesn't matter what you tell them, you can't change the way they think because they are ill. They actually like what's going on.
They have a surprise waiting, though.

It's OK for you to state your dislike for the war but those who do support the war are "ILL"?
We like what's going on? Yeah all of us with family and friends in this war are just sitting around with pom-poms and celebrating every death. Beheadings are really cool too.

***************

Stop already. I have no idea if you are ill, but I wish you'd stop trying to claim the moral high ground because you have friends and family in this war. As I said before, lots of people who don't support the war are in the same place. How about showing a little respect for their feelings? Or don't they count since they don't agree with you?

[LHardy]

posted by TR:
I know you're a Primary Challenge supporter/volunteer. It scares me to think that you may fit in with the mindset of the rest of the organization.

This is not new TR: I like how you point out the obvious about me.

Now that we all know who I am and what I do.

Any of the rest of you have enough nerve to expose your true identity?
Tell me - What your real names are?
Where do you live?
What are you doing publicly?
Any takers at all?
I doubt it.

I need to be certain, because I'm fearfull that others at your place of buisness may support your opinions.

So has this message board come to the point that if anyone makes a statement, about anything at all, that statement will be tied to everything that individual is active in?
Is that really how WNYers' truely act and think?
I am disappointed if they do.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by LHardy
posted by TR:
I know you're a Primary Challenge supporter/volunteer. It scares me to think that you may fit in with the mindset of the rest of the organization.

This is not new TR: I like how you point out the obvious about me.

Now that we all know who I am and what I do.

Any of the rest of you have enough nerve to expose your true identity?
Tell me - What your real names are?
Where do you live?
What are you doing publicly?
Any takers at all?
I doubt it.

I need to be certain, because I'm fearfull that others at your place of buisness may support your opinions.

So has this message board come to the point that if anyone makes a statement, about anything at all, that statement will be tied to everything that individual is active in?
Is that really how WNYers' truely act and think?
I am disappointed if they do.

I, for one, still have no idea who you are in real life. But all people have many layers. If I met you, I couldn't say I knew the real you just because I'd been exposed to one layer -- the one that posts on this board.

Granted, it's a layer I don't agree with, but I'm not arrogant enough to think that's all there is to you.

You are right about one thing: I wouldn't my real identity known. It would be a mistake for me.

[speaker]

We all love what this symbolizes--

[stevenco]

Originally posted by LHardy
We give our lives and families so you can have your "petty" complaints about a war .

You are so brave, Hardy. You say WE give our lives and families.

You gave your life for this war? Okay.
You gave your family to this war - very brave.

[steven]

Originally posted by LHardy
Now that we all know who I am and what I do.

Any of the rest of you have enough nerve to expose your true identity?
Tell me - What your real names are?
Where do you live?
What are you doing publicly?
Any takers at all?
I doubt it.


As unimaginitive as it may be my name really is steven I am retired military I live on the west side (if you want my street adress pm me) I have no problem with anyone knowing who I really am. I went to the PC rally and the no new tax rally and introduced myself around so a lot of folks on the board are aware of who I am in real life.

Why would anyone care?

[biker]

Levi:

I just read the past two day's posts and I can see no instance where you called anyone who is against the war or against Bush "UnAmerican".

Yet here and on other posts, they continue to accuse you of this. Must be part of the playbook.

Or maybe they feel they are.

Just like the very strong peace movement in the US in the 1930s. Didn't hear too much from them in the 1940s or 50s, didja?

Just one response to a jab someone gave you.

About interning the Japanese during WWII. I've been raised and reinforced for decades that it was just wrong to do. As proof: there were no Japanese sabotage attempts during the war.

This past year, another interpretation occurred to me:

Internment Worked!!!

But that wouldn't satisfy the lib ethos of feeling guilty.

Even though we were attacked.

Sound familiar?

[stevenco]

Originally posted by stevenco
You are so brave, Hardy. You say WE give our lives and families.

You gave your life for this war? Okay.
You gave your family to this war - very brave.

If you would've given your life for this war, We wouldn't have to read your stupidity. Thanks for the sacrifice. It's brave men like you who fight from your keyboard that keep us free.

Linda is a trouble maker. Look what she started. A thread entitled "the real reason behind the Iraq invasion." was destined to start a war.:)

[biker]

Keep talking, Hardy!!!

[stevenco]

Yeah, just keep talkin', Hardy.

[biker]

Iraq was a series of bad choices. None good.

And none made with perfect knowledge.

Bush made choices based on the best information he had. Information that was concurred with by the British, the French, the Russians.

After the fact, pinheads are saying "he got us to agree to war, by lying to us."

So that they have a built-in excuse for all the Dems who voted in favor of the war, too.

There were no good choices to be made with regard to Iraq. Bush chose the least worst.

Clinton--by doing next to nothing---allowed al-Qaida to gather strength, nurture its sick complaints and plan. Then it could become more lethal.

Bush-thank you and press on. The enemy is trying to hide. And it has a fifth column here.

But perservere.

[LHardy]

Stevenco:

When I said "we" you know full well in context it refers to americans, not me specifically.
I am sorry that you failed reading comprehension. Must be a product of your schooling. They do have remedial classes that can help you.

As far as me giving my life for this war agianst terrorism. I have no fear of death or dying. I would be proud to die for America and my family. That would even include you stevenco.
I would rather die fighting then die by a car bomb or plane crashing into a building, without even given the chance to fight back.

What the hell does this mean stevenco:
You gave your family to this war - very brave.

Do you tell this to all families that have sons/duaghters fighting on your behalf?

Steven - How about your last name? First names don't mean anything. I know many people by that name.
If you have no problem post it here, why the need to pm you?

Still no real takers. As stevenco points out- How very Brave of all of you.

All of you are willing to take a stand from behind an alias. Well how about just putting up your real identities and standing firm on your convictions? Can't do it can you? - Very brave!

[speaker]

Why don't you just stick to the point, hardy, without all the name calling and dares you fall back on.

[stevenco]

Hardy, you are the one with the Reading and writing problem. You say "we" then say something immature about my comprehension because I didn't know you actuallly meant, "they"-the ones who are actually fighting-American's-as though anti=war people are not Americans.
LHardy, I am smarter than you are. That's a fact. So get off it.

As far as your wanting to have people post their real names and addresses because they disagree with you, well that's just REALLY screwed up. That's aggressive psychotic thinking like a war monger. Do you want to INVADE the homes of posters who disagree with you? The administration has my full name and address which will do just fine. There are alot of psychos out there which is why anonymity\usernames are used on the internet so you don't post it for everyone and anyone. Do you understand this? Not posting your personal info doesn't mean one hides behind his statements. I don't care what your real name is and I could care less where you live or what you do. You want to continue this debate then we'll do it in a civil way. If you want to take shots at schooling et al , then put me on igoroe like you said you did you big fat liar.

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by LHardy
I'll bet you hope that we are attacked here agian, don't you? That would just make your day wouldn't it?Originally posted by LHardy
Those who complain about these deaths are selfish.Originally posted by LHardy
We who believe this war is just and right do more than any of you. Absolute and utter nonsense.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LHardy

What the hell does this mean stevenco:
[b]You gave your family to this war - very brave.

I think what he is saying is that you volunteered your family to go out and fight this war -- and yet, here you are, apparently not posting from Iraq.

As near as I can tell, you're baiting board members about revealing their true identities to distract from the call by your opponents to go and sign up to fight in Iraq since you've already volunteered your family.

Frankly, it did sound from your post like you were sending your family off to war, but I don't think you were being literal. I don't know you, but I can't imagine you packing your family off to war without also going.

[LHardy]

Speaker posted:
without all the name calling and dares you fall back on.


I have not done any name calling speaker.
Stevenco is famous for that.
Dares - You bet!

[Boost Buffalo]

you libs claim that our brave defender's deaths are wasted fighting for America's safety.

Each year, 40,000 +/- Americans are wasted on the thruways, with 40% being alcohol related. Why not crusade against these wasted lives, rather that politicize against our fighting men and women in time of war against terror?

Each year, well over 400,000 Americans lose their lives from smoking tobacco. Another complete waste of good lives, and nary a peep out of you libs. Rather, you attack our brave defenders of freedom fighting the terrorists. The terrorists that want you hanged, beheaded or burned.

When will you libs put your wayward politics aside and speak up for America, rather than for the terrorists?

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by Boost Buffalo
You libs claim that our brave defender's deaths are wasted fighting for America's safety.See, that's the thing. They're not fighting for America's safety. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. They were not an "iminent threat" to the United States. There was no "smoking gun."

The real war on terror is in Afghanistan. The war in Iraq diverted money, manpower and attention from the real war on terror. The war in Iraq guaranteed a new generation of anti-American terrorists. The war in Iraq has made us less safe, not more safe.

And, you can question my patriotism from now until the end of time, but it won't change the facts, and it won't divert people's attention from the issue any more. People are finally wising up.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Boost Buffalo
[B]you libs claim that our brave defender's deaths are wasted fighting for America's safety. QUOTE]


Why is it you refuse to listen to explanations? Once again: Not only so-called "libs" oppose the fighting in Iraq. But, aside from that, opponents feel we are fighting in the wrong place!

Osama was the architect of 9/11. Not Saddam.

It's one thing to disagree with someone. It's another to constantly distort what your opponents say. Do you do it on purpose, or have you just not listened to anything from the other side?

[buffknut]

Hello Boost Buffalo and welcome to the fray.

You will find, as LHardy has found, that it is useless to argue with the "I hate Bush" posters here. Keep in mind that they tacitly agree with stevenco's assertion that our troops "burn their innocents" and with stevenco's claim of some other "truth" about 9/11. Since none of them have called him out on these outrageous claims, then one can only assume they agree. And that is the mentality of those you are engaging in debate with.

9/11 apparently wasn't enough for them to understand the threat as they prefer to put their faith with those who wish to kill us and their supporters.

Here is an interesting roundup of some pictures that they probably don't want to believe.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000894.html

Forgive the posters here as you must remember that they have been fed years of propaganda by a biased liberal media and its Hollywood elite partners. On the other hand, I've provided them with many links to the new modern media where truth reigns. Sites such as:
www.littlegreenfootballs.com
www.polipundit.com
www.instapundit.com
www.powerlineblog.com
www.jihadwatch.com
www.publiuspundit.com

[steven]

Originally posted by LHardy
Steven - How about your last name? First names don't mean anything. I know many people by that name.
If you have no problem post it here, why the need to pm you?

Still no real takers.


Now your just being silly, You asked for someone's real name. I'll be more than happy to provide my real name, address etc. So you can stop being a drama queen its yours for the asking.

Otherwise you can head down to LaSalle park any mon-wed-fri at 6pm during football season and see me down there. I VP the west side little league.

Of course I wont put my address on a web page, no one should unless there ready to be spammed to death.

Now be a good girl, push the PM Button send me your info and I'll be more than happy to send you mine. .......Maybe if your nice I will let you buy me a beer

[Linda_D]

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
...
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis ***uyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Those of you who think the Iraq invasion was about the "War on Terror", I suggest you read the paragraphs from this letter, which appeared on the website NewAmericanCentury in 1998 (I posted it previously on this thread, but I don't think you guys read it). Pay special attention to the colored and bolded sentences and phrases. Tell me this isn't exactly what the Bush Administration did even though the US was supposed to be fighting al-Qaeda and its supporters (like the Taliban in Afghanistan) and even though Saddam Hussein had little if any connection to al-Qaeda compared to countries like Iran and our supposed ally, Saudi Arabia!

Check out the names of the signees. These aren't "liberals". The ten names in bold type are or have been members of the Bush administration in one capacity or another. I've put Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton's names in red so that you can see that these war mongers didn't just occupy minor positions, but were key players in the invasion of Iraq.

This letter contains the neo-con warmongers' own words and signatures. Bill Clinton wisely ignored them. George W. Bush unwisely embraced them -- and will continue to do so because he confuses obstinacy with principle -- and American soldiers and Iraqi civilians will continue to die so a bunch of chickenhawks can spin their expensive dreams of empire. That's what you're supporting when you blindly accept GWB's Iraq policy.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by Linda_D
Those of you who think the Iraq invasion was about the "War on Terror", I suggest you read the paragraphs from this letter, which appeared on the website NewAmericanCentury in 1998 (I posted it previously on this thread, but I don't think you guys read it). Pay special attention to the colored and bolded sentences and phrases. Tell me this isn't exactly what the Bush Administration did even though the US was supposed to be fighting al-Qaeda and its supporters (like the Taliban in Afghanistan) and even though Saddam Hussein had little if any connection to al-Qaeda compared to countries like Iran and our supposed ally, Saudi Arabia!

Check out the names of the signees. These aren't "liberals". The ten names in bold type are or have been members of the Bush administration in one capacity or another. I've put Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton's names in red so that you can see that these war mongers didn't just occupy minor positions, but were key players in the invasion of Iraq.

This letter contains the neo-con warmongers' own words and signatures. Bill Clinton wisely ignored them. George W. Bush unwisely embraced them -- and will continue to do so because he confuses obstinacy with principle -- and American soldiers and Iraqi civilians will continue to die so a bunch of chickenhawks can spin their expensive dreams of empire. That's what you're supporting when you blindly accept GWB's Iraq policy.

Sorry if this sounds naive, but why the laser-like focus on Iraq by the Bushies? Wasn't, isn't, Iran more dangerous to our national security?

[therising]

Originally posted by Boost Buffalo
you libs claim that our brave defender's deaths are wasted fighting for America's safety.

Each year, 40,000 +/- Americans are wasted on the thruways, with 40% being alcohol related. Why not crusade against these wasted lives, rather that politicize against our fighting men and women in time of war against terror?

Each year, well over 400,000 Americans lose their lives from smoking tobacco. Another complete waste of good lives, and nary a peep out of you libs. Rather, you attack our brave defenders of freedom fighting the terrorists. The terrorists that want you hanged, beheaded or burned.

When will you libs put your wayward politics aside and speak up for America, rather than for the terrorists?

Duck, weave...

Wonderful logic.
That's like saying "I only murdered 2 people, why don't you fight tobacco laws - they kill hundreds of thousands each year"

[Linda_D]

Originally posted by therising
Duck, weave...

Wonderful logic.
That's like saying "I only murdered 2 people, why don't you fight tobacco laws - they kill hundreds of thousands each year"

tr, you have captured Boost's logic perfectly!

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by buffknut
Hello Boost Buffalo and welcome to the fray.

You will find, as LHardy has found, that it is useless to argue with the "I hate Bush" posters here. Keep in mind that they tacitly agree with stevenco's assertion that our troops "burn their innocents" and with stevenco's claim of some other "truth" about 9/11.
Since none of them have called him out on these outrageous claims, then one can only assume they agree. And that is the mentality of those you are engaging in debate with.

9/11 apparently wasn't enough for them to understand the threat as they prefer to put their faith with those who wish to kill us and their supporters.

Here is an interesting roundup of some pictures that they probably don't want to believe.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000894.html

Forgive the posters here as you must remember that they have been fed years of propaganda by a biased liberal media and its Hollywood elite partners. On the other hand, I've provided them with many links to the new modern media where truth reigns. Sites such as:
www.littlegreenfootballs.com
www.polipundit.com
www.instapundit.com
www.powerlineblog.com
www.jihadwatch.com
www.publiuspundit.com

Oh well, so much for our mutal respect, Buffknut. I hate Bush -- yup, a lot!!! -- but lumping me in with those who discuss burning innocents, or whatever it is, or stevenco and his 9/11 scenario is very disrespectful.

Why do you insist on lumping everyone with views different than yours into one category? I wish you understood how harmful that is, but -- on the other hand -- I guess it is also simpler and probably very empowering to you.

And here I thought it was possible to find common ground with you. My mistake, but I'm only human.

As Bush once said (and, praise be to Allah, never repeated that I know of):

"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."—Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

So, I guess I'd have to say I won't be fooled again (which is what I am assuming Bush was attempting to say).

[WestSideJohn]

Invading Iraq to fight terror is like declaring war on hula dancers and invading Vermont. Meanwhile the real battle against terrorism is pushed to the back burner while we spend time, money, attention and manpower in Iraq. Then - to the suprise of nobody with a brain - terrorism goes up instead of down and Osama bin Laden remains a free man.

Putting aside the morality (or lack thereof) of this invasion, it was <i>still</i> a stupid thing to do from a tactical standpoint.

That's why we see so many of the pro-war folks questioning patriotism, making insults, and twisting words. It's all they've got.

[buffknut]

totalfan,

Then I will assume you do not agree with stevenco. That's all I asked is for feedback. I do not really believe that anyone agrees with stevenco but I do not feel his assertions can go unchallenged. I will try to re-gain your respect, if not agreement.

Here's another interesting visual:

http://billroggio.com/flashplayer.php?media=alqaeda&w=640&h=480

I still think we agree on more than we disagree. I hope you have continued to read some of the sites I've mentioned and that perhaps your frame of reference is changing. But if not, we will just have to agree to disagree on this topic at least.

[speaker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Boost Buffalo
you libs claim that our brave defender's deaths are wasted fighting for America's safety.

Each year, 40,000 +/- Americans are wasted on the thruways, with 40% being alcohol related. Why not crusade against these wasted lives, rather that politicize against our fighting men and women in time of war against terror?

Each year, well over 400,000 Americans lose their lives from smoking tobacco. Another complete waste of good lives, and nary a peep out of you libs. Rather, you attack our brave defenders of freedom fighting the terrorists. The terrorists that want you hanged, beheaded or burned.

When will you libs put your wayward politics aside and speak up for America, rather than for the terrorists? [/QUOTE

Ok, then let's do what we can do reduce the number of US deaths per annum and GET OUT OF IRAQ--we can work slowly on the tobacco and traffic deaths. How about the gun laws in the country? Would it help to make guns harder to buy?

[Boost Buffalo]

Originally posted by speaker
[
Ok, then let's do what we can do reduce the number of US deaths per annum and GET OUT OF IRAQ--we can work slowly on the tobacco and traffic deaths. How about the gun laws in the country? Would it help to make guns harder to buy?

to get out of Iraq? We'll win that war and install democracy. That's the goal. Its said to be the terrorists'/tyrant dictator's/al-qaida's biggest fear.

[ERIEMAN]

Originally posted by Boost Buffalo
to get out of Iraq? We'll win that war and install democracy. That's the goal. Its said to be the terrorists'/tyrant dictator's/al-qaida's biggest fear.

why don't we install a monarchy?

[Boost Buffalo]

Originally posted by ERIEMAN
why don't we install a monarchy?

monarchy? No, they're out.

Democracy is in vogue now...government by the people, for the people. It seems to work the best.

[Boost Buffalo]

Originally posted by therising
Duck, weave...

Wonderful logic.
That's like saying "I only murdered 2 people, why don't you fight tobacco laws - they kill hundreds of thousands each year"

murder? you're suggesting our defenders are murdering?

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by Boost Buffalo
Democracy is in vogue now... government by the people, for the people. It seems to work the best. If it works the best, why don't we have one here in the United States instead of a Representational Republic?

[Boost Buffalo]

Originally posted by WestSideJohn
If it works the best, why don't we have one here in the United States instead of a Representational Republic?

I have to assume you're joking

[WestSideJohn]

No, I'm not joking. The United States of America is not a Democracy. It's a Representational Republic.

[Boost Buffalo]

Originally posted by WestSideJohn
No, I'm not joking. The United States of America is not a Democracy. It's a Representational Republic.

what do you think a republic is?

[avet]

THESE ARE A FEW OF THE "FACTS" - IF THEY AIN'T - PLEASE ! PROVE THEM WRONG - I'M OPEN TO ...ANY ""LOGIC"".

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

On Sept 11 Vice Pres Dick Cheney was in "complete control" of NORAD. IT WAS THE FIRST TIME '"EVER"', IN U.S. HISTORY, THAT A PRES. OR VICE PRES WAS ALLOWED TO BE IN COMPLETE CONTROL OVER NORAD SINCE 1957. THAT POWER WAS GIVEN TO DICK (he "ordered" Rumsfield to give him that power - & REMOVED THAT POWER FROM THE GENERALS - SO THEY COULD DO ...."NOTHING")... ------- JUST 3 MONTHS BEFORE 911. Norad was told to stand down on 911 -- IT WAS JUST A ......"DRILL" !!


BUSH SAID RIGHT AFTER 911:
----quote on nat'l tv-----

"We knew they hated us,.......but there was .......eh......... nobody in our government, at least,....... and I don't think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings.........on such a massive scale"

---BUT----

then WHY were they "previously" practicing that very EXACT SAME SCENARIO (using the Twin Towers & Pentagon as targets) Yep - here it is again ......"pure coincidence"

They practiced using the Twin Towers as a "target" FOR TWO YEARS PRIOR TO 911.
They practiced drills using the Pentagon just FIVE MONTHS BEFORE 911 (Nov 2000) & on the very "SAME DAY" AS 911 ???
(mere freekin "pure coincidence" - again).

So what he said, in his quote, is a flat out ...."lie".


One of the first lines in ANY investigation is 'cui bono' - WHO STANDS TO GAIN OR PROFIT

MARVIN BUSH was running "security" for the WORLD TRADE CENTER COMPLEX - his contract ended exactly on 911
(mere freekin "pure coincidence" - again)

BUSH SENIOR belonged to the CARLISLE GROUP & was in a meeting sitting across the Bin Laden Family during 911, who also belonged to the CARLISLE GROUP at the time.
(mere freekin "pure coincidence" - again)

JEB BUSH declared "marshall law" in Florida TWO DAYS BEFORE 911 - it wasn't announced until after 911
(mere freekin "pure coincidence" - again)

On Sept 13th General Mahmoud Ahmad, the CIA controlled head of Pakistan intelligence, arrived in Wash D.C. - just days after he for a fact, WIRED THE LEAD HIJACKER, Mohammed Atta ......$100,000 . He was in "direct contact" with G. Tenent, Porter Goss (present director of the CIA). On the morning of 911, he was having "breakfast" with Sen. Bob Graham & Porter Goss. WHY????
(it's just... mere freekin "pure coincidence" - again)

RECORD OPTIONS TRADING just prior to 911 - the money trail led back to CIA controlled co's., lead by A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard (the A.B. Brown (Alex Brown) investment arm of the banking giant Deutschebank/A.B. Brown had been headed until 1998 by the man who is now the Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency - A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard. In fact, Krongard is but one name in a long history of CIA interconnections to stock trading and the world's financial markets.)
This story was dropped like a "hot potato".
Buzzy has publicly defended, "on record", to ....."let everyone leave Osama Bin Laden ...."alone".
(mere freekin "pure coincidence" - again)

Hundreds were "specifically" told to NOT SHOW UP TO WORK IN THE TOWERS ON 911 - PRIOR TO THE EVENT. Four hours before the 1st plane crash, Israelies were givin "instant messages" to ....GET OUT !! ------It's on the records.
(mere freekin "pure coincidence" - again)

Larry Silverstein "only" owned Bldg #7, but just a few months before 911, bought the "entire" complex, and took out a WORLD RECORD AMOUNT OF INSURANCE on ALL SEVEN OF THEM.
(mere freekin "pure coincidence" - again)

Bldg #7 was the command center bunker for R. Gulliania -he was told many hours before the fire even started, & collapse to "get out" & move to a F.E.M.A. command center, SET UP JUST THE ....."NIGHT BEFORE" 911. It totally collapses in "classic" controlled explosion fashion, in mere "minutes" from a few small fires (it was never hit by "anything").
(mere freekin "pure coincidence" - again)

U of N.Y. & the U.S. Geological Surveyors BOTH pick up what was ..."classical patterns" on their seismographs of "controlled explosions"
(mere freekin "pure coincidence" - again)

"NEVER" in the --total history--- of buildings - "past" or "present" - has a group of multiple buildings - "perfectly collapsed" in of itself, in pure "classic" controlled demolition fashion, as they did on 911. #7 had just a few small fires - yet collapsed like all the others in just a few hrs. One of the architechs of the Twin Towers, went on record to say, they designed the bldgs to take "multiple" direct strikes from jumbo jets
(mere freekin "pure coincidence" - again)

The FIRE ENGINEERS ORGANIZATION that underwrote the towers said, on record, that there is "no way" that jet fuel burning in the towers caused the collapse (the heat that could supposedly melt steel girders - but still allow the many people standing in openings & broken windows NOT BE INSTANTLY INCINERATED!) & .....TO "STOP" HAULING AWAY THE DEBRI - STOP HAULING AWAY THE EVIDENCE OF THE "CRIME SCENE" !! Rudolph G. has made huge profits, & was made VERY, very, rich after 911. He (was a previous prosecutor - and knows the law) overseen eliminating any & ALL of the debri - "totally".
(mere freekin "pure coincidence" - again)

MANY, many, firefighters, policemen, & eyewitnesses - were "SILENCED" by the government. WHY??? EYEWITNESSES ARE ALWAYS EXTREMELY & HIGHLY "CRUCIAL" IN ANY NORMAL INVESTIGATION. Way too many reported "SECONDARY" followup explosions. Firefighter tapes (that were "confiscated" by the feds - except for a few - WHY SHOULD THE GOV NEED TO CONFISACATE "ANY" TAPES - GIVE ME """ONE""" GOOD FREEKIN REASON - WHY !!!!!!!) Three out of four FLIGHT DATA RECORDERS WERE FOUND BY RESCUE WORKERS - THEY WERE "ORDERED" TO LOAD THEM ONTO FBI VEHICLES & "ORDERED" TO "KEEP THEIR MOUTHES ...SHUT!! FOR WHAT REASONABLE "REASON" WOULD THEY WANT TO KEEP THEM A "TOTAL SECRET", OTHER THAN - SIMPLY A COVERUP ???

PRE 911 warnings were given by the French - the British - Egypt - the Italians - the Russians - the Israeli's - India - EVEN THE TALEBAN SAID 2 MONTHS BEFORE 911 - "STOP OSAMA, HE'S ABOUT TO ATTACK YOU !!" but what they "didn't" know, was - he was working for ...Bush etc.,
-----but-----
Conda Rice & Bush said ........"they never heard of such a plan" !
(mere freekin "pure coincidence" - again)

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

Many ordinary citizens have been prosecuted & convicted with a "hell of a lot" less, .....mere "pure coincidence".

Enjoy your rights that you "think" you have, for all they have to do is label you, in a very broad, interpitave way, a "terrorist" -
& then you have ...."NONE WHATSOEVER" !

Send your thanks to Osama Bin Laden, the "barbarian" they "vowed" to catch, for that! (who BTW, is still ....."FREE")
(mere freekin "pure coincidence" - again)

As long as we got to stop Sadam...that's what counts (logical ??)

[buffknut]

John,

I assume then that you are some tactical whiz (maybe those years of playing Stratego) who knows better than the leaders of our armed services. It's always great to use 20/20 hindsight to say you had a better tactical solution. I'm curious (not really) what your tactics would have been.

How can you possibly evaluate tactics for a campaign that's only 2 years old? And how is it stupid when we basically over-ran their military and achieved elections on time? The only reason this drags on is because we are too nice, in essence, too moral. We obviously could just nuke them and be done with it.

So you believe we are immoral or at least Bush is as I know that's what you really mean. So what does that say of the troops that continue the fight and continue to re-enlist. Knowing it was immoral in your words, doesn't that make them immoral. I mean, they KNOW it's immoral don't they? If they don't, they must be stupid because YOU know it's immoral and you are right as rain on this topic - no remote possibility that you are not right.

Tactics are always debatable and there is risk in any one you choose. Trial and error is still the main way of learning. I'm sure that you know that, although you may not want to admit it.

I think this thread has played itself out. I've been reading similar threads on other sites and they are bashing away just as we are. We should all agree that we disagree and hope that the course we are on is the right one.

I'll bet you guys are excited about getting Hillary as the next President aren't you? What will you do if a {gasp} Republican wins in 2008?

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by buffknut
How can you possibly evaluate tactics for a campaign that's only 2 years old?Why not? The pro-war folks feel perfectly comfortable proclaiming "mission accomplished."

So you believe we are immoral or at least Bush is as I know that's what you really mean.Uh, I said no such thing.

Knowing it was immoral in your words, doesn't that make them immoral. Uh, I said no such thing.

Call me when some posters who know how to read show up.

[avet]

I'm curious (not really) why you believe every lie, & every apparent "coverup" comming out of this administration. There is no "logic" in anything they do.
Everything they do - profits ......"THEM ONLY"
VERY, VERY, "BIG- BIGTIME"

Do you know exactly how much the Carlyle Group profits are ? Try finding it.

Where's their "sacrifice" for the cause ?? Their gains & profits are "our" sacrifices & ...lives.

______________________________________

'cui bono' - WHO STANDS TO GAIN OR PROFIT....
_______________________________________

has been used in every legal court, all around the world, long before even Rome was built.

It has "suddenly" start to be totally "ignored", when dealing with the irrational "government" ???

WE MUST FIGHT & KILL TO JAM DEMOCRACY DOWN EVERYBODY ELSE'S THROAT?
They'll LEARN TO "LOVE DEMOCRACY" - EVEN IF IT ....."KILLS" THEM ALL !!!!!!!!

They got their "purple fingers" on tv - (now let's keep total control of their country, lives, & resources).

That alone is worth many, many, future BILLION$ in profits at the taxpayers expense, to all the companies supporting(?) the troops.

They all are making huge RECORD PROFITS - aren't they ?
Am I lying ?

They CUT FUNDING to the troops dying for democracy - didn't they?
Am I lying?

They didn't provide the necessary equipment to the troops that were there - did they??
It took a TV newscast (& a brave soldier) to have people ....know that fact, didn't it?

(maybe it's all those years of playing Monopoly)

[speaker]

Originally posted by buffknut
??????????????????????????????????



[QUOTE]I'll bet you guys are excited about getting Hillary as the next President aren't you? What will you do if a {gasp} Republican wins in 2008? ]

I agree--it has played itself out.

Something tells me you fellas, boost, buffnut, hardy, have nothing much else to say. You've been horsing around for a few posts. But keep talking, if you want.

[avet]

We are supposed to be "the model", and expect all others to become ..."democracies".

I guess, you can't have a working "democracy" without the...

KILLINGS, the TORTURES, and people not keeping ...."SECRETS".

We just "send ours out", just like the laundry.
It's easier, and besides, we don't have to depend on "untrained kids" to do the job ...."quietly".

_____________________________________________

Exclusive: Secret Memo—Send to Be Tortured
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8769416/site/newsweek/

An FBI agent warned superiors in a memo three years ago that U.S. officials who discussed plans to ship terror suspects to foreign nations that practice torture could be prosecuted for conspiring to violate U.S. law, according to a copy of the memo obtained by NEWSWEEK. The strongly worded memo, written by an FBI supervisor then assigned to Guantanamo, is the latest in a series of documents that have recently surfaced reflecting unease among some government lawyers and FBI agents over tactics being used in the war on terror.

This memo appears to be the first that directly questions the legal premises of the Bush administration policy of "extraordinary rendition"—a secret program under which terror suspects are transferred to foreign countries that have been widely criticized for practicing torture.

_____________________________________________

Pentagon bans anonymous quotes in press releases

"Any statements that included comments by third parties must identify them and have their permission to use them, it said."



The memo also stated that press statements should be drafted by "trained public affairs professionals" and not delegated to others.

Well it looks like all news coming out now will be "the official line" and not allow for any slip throughs of information not previously approved from the higher ups.

Many witnesses and people making such statements will now be afraid to do so in light of identification and possible retribution.

_____________________________________________


Third prosecutor critical of Guantanamo trials

A third US military prosecutor has walked out of the commissions process set up to try Guantanamo Bay detainees because of concerns it was unfair, the ABC has learned.
Air Force Captain Carrie Wolf chose to take a reassignment along with other prosecutors.

_____________________________________________


"...this is just the tip of the iceberg and more and more issues and problems surrounding the trials will come to light over the next fews weeks."

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by buffknut
totalfan,

Then I will assume you do not agree with stevenco. That's all I asked is for feedback. I do not really believe that anyone agrees with stevenco but I do not feel his assertions can go unchallenged. I will try to re-gain your respect, if not agreement.

Here's another interesting visual:

http://billroggio.com/flashplayer.php?media=alqaeda&w=640&h=480

I still think we agree on more than we disagree. I hope you have continued to read some of the sites I've mentioned and that perhaps your frame of reference is changing. But if not, we will just have to agree to disagree on this topic at least.

Buffknut,

I don't know if my frame of reference is changing. Still, the comments you object to as noted above seem to me to be beside the point.

I don't know what either of those posters believe, or why.

I do know I have many questions about the status or our country and the war on terror.

We'll never agree on Bush. But somewhere out there (hate to sound all X-Files on you) is reality. Whether people support the war on Iraq or not, I think nearly everyone agrees these are dangerous times.

But is anyone interested in moving forward? Doesn't seem like it to me.

I think it's just more fun to come out from our corners, hiss and spit at our "enemies" and retreat back to our corners.

Furthermore, I really do believe that there is no such thing as trying to compromise with our more ardent Republicans.

What Dems regard as being reasonable and willing to compromise, Republicans see as weakness-- something to be trashed and rolled over like so much debris.

If you doubt me, look at the reaction to what Sen. Dodd said when talking about Roberts.

He was actually sort of supporting Roberts, but misspoke about the right to privacy and the constitution.

Rush, Biker et all savaged Dodd. If Dodd is smart -- maybe resigned to reality is a better description -- he'll never try to reach a non-partisan opinion again.


And I would understand why -- completely.

[speaker]

The pro war people are closing their eyes to all of the nightmare in Iraq.
And don't suggest we go to websites and read books by all of those pro war propagandists. I've read some and looked at some. Sheer garbage which you have traded in your principles for.

[Boost Buffalo]

Originally posted by speaker
]

I agree--it has played itself out.

Something tells me you fellas, boost, buffnut, hardy, have nothing much else to say. You've been horsing around for a few posts. But keep talking, if you want.

The only thing played out is you wayward liberals. You ultra negative types say the same nonsense over and over again.

America is fighting the proven deadly al-qaida terrorist network in the once threatening hellhole and soon to be democratic Iraq and all you libs can say is our soldiers are murderers and Bush is stealing oil and nobody really knows anything except the disgraced and displaced liberals, etc etc etc.

You liberals are nowhere. You appreciate nothing. You acknowledge no benefit. All you offer is kicking, crying, and accusing your country.

[ERIEMAN]

Originally posted by Boost Buffalo
The only thing played out is you wayward liberals. You ultra negative types say the same nonsense over and over again.

America is fighting the proven deadly al-qaida terrorist network in the once threatening hellhole and soon to be democratic Iraq and all you libs can say is our soldiers are murderers and Bush is stealing oil and nobody really knows anything except the disgraced and displaced liberals, etc etc etc.

You liberals are nowhere. You appreciate nothing. You acknowledge no benefit. All you offer is kicking, crying, and accusing your country.

You have proven time and again that you have NO idea what you are talking about. You make things up as you go along.

[Boost Buffalo]

Originally posted by ERIEMAN
You have proven time and again that you have NO idea what you are talking about. You make things up as you go along.

your non-stop ultra negative liberal rhetoric is whats been proven false, time and time again. Keep up the good work.:rolleyes:

[ERIEMAN]

Originally posted by Boost Buffalo
your non-stop ultra negative liberal rhetoric is whats been proven false, time and time again. Keep up the good work.:rolleyes:

I'm not liberal. and you have ZERO idea what you are talking about.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by Boost Buffalo
The only thing played out is you wayward liberals. You ultra negative types say the same nonsense over and over again.

America is fighting the proven deadly al-qaida terrorist network in the once threatening hellhole and soon to be democratic Iraq and all you libs can say is our soldiers are murderers and Bush is stealing oil and nobody really knows anything except the disgraced and displaced liberals, etc etc etc.

You liberals are nowhere. You appreciate nothing. You acknowledge no benefit. All you offer is kicking, crying, and accusing your country.

I officially give up on you Boost Buffalo.

Do yourself a favor. Move to totalitarian regime. No opposing views are allowed there, which would seem to suit your mindset. Just remember: That's not democracy.

[avet]

I'd like to hear your ultra positive rhetoric DENY & PROVE WRONG ..."ANY" of the "FACTS" below.

I won't hold my breath & will prepare my ears for the eventual ...."namecalling" only!

_______________________________________________
'Al Qaeda': How the Pentagon/ CIA Made an 'Enemy'

Al-Qaida, (sic) literally 'the database,' was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians," admits former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, whose Foreign Office portfolio included control of British Intelligence Agency MI-6 and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).

In other words, the so-called Al Qaeda, which has been promoted by the Media Cartel as the cause of all bombings and terrorism since the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001, is simply a database of CIA trained "terrorists" (or "freedom fighters," depending on your perspective) which has become a convenient Global Boogeyman for the 21st Century.
________________________________________________

in August 2001, immediately after reading a memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US", President George Bush went bass fishing - and NEVER called a meeting to discuss the issue.

A month later, on September 11, when he was told that the terrorists had attacked, Bush spent the next seven minutes reading a children's book, "The Pet Goat", with a group of schoolchildren.

When it comes to going after the men who were behind 9/11 and who continue to wage a jihad against the US, Bush has REPEATEDLY turned a "BLIND EYE" to the forces behind terrorism, SHIELDED the people who funded al-Qaida, obstructed investigations and diverted resources from the battle against it.

________________________________________________

17 of the 19 hijackers came from SAUDI ARABIA.

Bush's friendship with the SAUDI Royal Family is well known. A hard hitting story should be done on this with a demand to have these redacted statements to be allowed to be made known. Who are they protecting and why?

One key reason is the Bush-Saudi relationship, the like of which is UNPRECEDENTED in US politics. NEVER before has a president of the US - much less two from the same family - had such close ties with another foreign power.

Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the US and a powerful member of the royal family, has been a close friend of George Bush Sr for more than 20 years. Nicknamed Bandar Bush, he drops by the Bush residences in Kennebunkport, Maine, and Crawford, Texas, not to mention the White House. He and Bush senior go on hunting trips together.

Then there's the money. More than $1.4 BILLION of financial transactions have gone from the House of Saud to corporations and institutions tied to the Bushes and their allies - largely to companies such as the
Carlyle Group, Halliburton, and HarkenEnergy.

....the 9/11 commission found, the Bush administration failed "to develop a strategy to counter SAUDI terrorist financing"

________________________________________________

Thanks to Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia and the Failure of America's War on Terror, a new book by Senator Bob Graham, we know that the SAUDIS may have played an even bigger role in 9/11 than previously reported. As a member of the Senate intelligence committee, Graham said he learned that "evidence of official Saudi support" for at least two of the 19 hijackers was "incontrovertible".

As co-chairman of the joint House-Senate panel investigating 9/11, Graham found his efforts to get to the bottom of the Saudi role in 9/11 again and again WERE QUASHED by the BUSH administration. When his committee tried to subpoena a key witness who happened to be an FBI informant, the FBI REFUSED to cooperate. "It was the only time in my senatorial experience that the FBI has refused to deliver a congressional subpoena," Graham told Salon.com in a recent interview.
"The FBI wasn't acting on its own," he added,

"but had been directed by the White House NOT TO COPERATE."

In the end, 27 pages of the report on the role of the Saudis in 9/11 were CLASSIFIED by the White House and NOT released to the public.
According to Graham, the Bush administration may have censored the material because
it did not want the public to be aware of Saudi support for the 9/11 terrorists.

"There has been a long-term special relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia," he said, "and that relationship has probably REACHED A NEW HIGH under the George W Bush administration, in part because of the long and close family relationship that the Bushes have had with the Saudi royal family."

Graham writes:
"It was as if the president's loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America's safety."

If that is the case, no wonder the Bush-Cheney ticket is counting on ...."fear".

[Boost Buffalo]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001


Do yourself a favor. Move to totalitarian regime. No opposing views are allowed there, which would seem to suit your mindset. Just remember: That's not democracy.

No thanks, I love our country and our democracy. Its you thats having trouble with it, not me.

[avet]

Then there's the money. More than $1.4 BILLION of financial transactions have gone from the House of Saud to corporations and institutions tied to the Bushes and their allies - largely to companies such as the
Carlyle Group,Halliburton , and HarkenEnergy.


No thanks, I love our country and our democracy.

How can you not love a system that makes you money, while others are doing all the ....suffering & dying.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by Boost Buffalo
No thanks, I love our country and our democracy. Its you thats having trouble with it, not me.

No. I'm not having trouble with democracy, just your convenient interpretation of it, which allows for only set of views -- yours.

I still think you'd be happier in a totalitarian system (as long as you're part of the ruling elite, of course. Otherwise......)

[Boost Buffalo]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
No. I'm not having trouble with democracy, just your convenient interpretation of it, which allows for only set of views -- yours.

I still think you'd be happier in a totalitarian system (as long as you're part of the ruling elite, of course. Otherwise......)

It seems you are having trouble. Since I dont agree with you, you feel I should move to a totalitarian style country...LOL I dont think so. You libs are funny characters at times

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
I'm not having trouble with democracy, just your convenient interpretation of it, which allows for only set of views -- yours.That's right on the money. Democracy is government of and by the people, and the people are going to have diverse values and opinions and interests and viewpoints. So if Boostie <i>really</i> valued Democracy as much as he claims to, he wouldn't label anyone who disagrees with him as a terrorist sympathiser. His words betray him.

[LHardy]

More reasons for Iraq invasion:

JEFF JACOBY
Iraq through Iraqis' eyes
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | December 16, 2004
A YEAR AFTER Saddam Hussein was captured, how goes the liberation of Iraq?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/12/16/iraq_through_iraqis_eyes/[/url]

Rebels Aided By Allies in Syria, U.S. Says
Baathists Reportedly Relay Money, Support
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 8, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45326-2004Dec7.html

Probe: Oil funds paid for bombers
By Desmond Butler
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Probe: Oil funds paid for bombers
http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/middleeastreports/s_273762.html[/url]

And finally just to keep you guys busy reading

• July 16, 1979: Shortly after Saddam seized power, fifteen top party leaders who allegedly conspired against him were executed by firing squad.
• 1980: Iraqi forces invade neighboring Iran on September 22nd, sparking eight years of war that left an estimated one million dead. Chemical attacks against Iran kill as many as 5,000.
• 1983: Government launches campaign against members of the Kurdish Barzani tribe for helping Iran launch offensive in northern Iraq. Estimated 8,000 killed, many buried in mass graves.
• 1986 through '88: Scorched-earth offensive known as Anfal that includes chemical attacks on Kurds, estimated 180,000 Kurds killed many buried in mass graves in the south.
• 1988: Chemical weapons attack against Kurdish town of Halabja, or Halabja kills an estimated 5,000 civilians on March 28 -- and this does not touch on those who lived and were disfigured and ruined for the rest of their lives.
• 1990: Saddam orders invasion of Kuwait on August 2nd.
• 1990: Iraqi forces fire Scud missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia.
• 1990: Iraqi soldiers allegedly torture summarily execute hundreds of Kuwaitis and set Kuwaiti oil wells ablaze.
• 1991: Some 60,000 people believed killed when Saddam violently crushes rebellion by Shi'ite Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north at close of Gulf War.
• 1992: Draining of marshes in southern Iraq driving population known as "Marsh Arabs" from their homes and wiping out their way of life. Tens of thousands killed.
• 1996: Two of Saddam's sons-in-law are killed on February 20th after they return from Jordan where they fled and exposed the campaign to hide banned weapons from the United Nations.

[LHardy]

A little more for ya!

Iraq's tortured children
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/2058253.stm

Iraq: Devastation of Marsh Arabs
http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/iraq012503.htm

Iraqis pour out tales of Saddam's torture chambers
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-13-saddam-secrets-usat_x.htm

Scientific First: Soil Samples Taken from Bomb Craters in Northern Iraq Reveal Nerve Gas - Even Four Years Later
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqgas/

Iraq's Brutal Decrees
Amputation, Branding and the Death Penalty
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1995/IRAQ955.htm

[Linda_D]

Originally posted by LHardy
More reasons for Iraq invasion:

• July 16, 1979: Shortly after Saddam seized power, fifteen top party leaders who allegedly conspired against him were executed by firing squad.
• 1980: Iraqi forces invade neighboring Iran on September 22nd, sparking eight years of war that left an estimated one million dead. Chemical attacks against Iran kill as many as 5,000.
• 1983: Government launches campaign against members of the Kurdish Barzani tribe for helping Iran launch offensive in northern Iraq. Estimated 8,000 killed, many buried in mass graves.
• 1986 through '88: Scorched-earth offensive known as Anfal that includes chemical attacks on Kurds, estimated 180,000 Kurds killed many buried in mass graves in the south.
• 1988: Chemical weapons attack against Kurdish town of Halabja, or Halabja kills an estimated 5,000 civilians on March 28 -- and this does not touch on those who lived and were disfigured and ruined for the rest of their lives.
• 1990: Saddam orders invasion of Kuwait on August 2nd.
• 1990: Iraqi forces fire Scud missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia.
• 1990: Iraqi soldiers allegedly torture summarily execute hundreds of Kuwaitis and set Kuwaiti oil wells ablaze.
• 1991: Some 60,000 people believed killed when Saddam violently crushes rebellion by Shi'ite Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north at close of Gulf War.
• 1992: Draining of marshes in southern Iraq driving population known as "Marsh Arabs" from their homes and wiping out their way of life. Tens of thousands killed.
• 1996: Two of Saddam's sons-in-law are killed on February 20th after they return from Jordan where they fled and exposed the campaign to hide banned weapons from the United Nations.

Let's see if I have this right ...

According to Levi, we should have invaded Iraq because when Jimmy Carter was POTUS Saddam Hussein executed 15 of his henchmen and then went to war against Iran ...

According to Levi, we should have invaded Iraq because when Ronnie Reagan was POTUS, Saddam was such a good "friend" to the US that we sold him all kind of military hardware as well as the chemicals to make WMDs so he could butcher his own people ...

According to Levi, we should have invaded Iraq because when GHW Bush was POTUS Saddam Hussein went after the Marsh Arabs ...

According to Levi, we should have invaded Iraq because when Bill Clinton was POTUS Saddam Hussein killed a couple of his sons-in-law ...

Well, these are new ones, Levi. Not sensible excuses, but new ones, nonetheless.

FYI -- for those of you who don't know your POTUS chronology ...
Jimmy Carter, Democrat, POTUS, 1977-1981
Ronald Reagan, Republican, POTUS, 1981-1989
George H.W. Bush, Republican, POTUS, 1989-1993
William J. Clinton, Democrat, POTUS, 1993-2001

[LHardy]

Linda;
Individually they aren't reasons for war. Taken together and compiled with all the other info I posted below what you quoted are reasons.
Clintons reasons for going to war in Bosnia where fewer than that. In fact it was only because Human rights actvists felt that we needed to stop the ethnic cleansing.
That is also sighted in my list.
The fact that Saddam killed 60,000.
You have choosen only a few of the many items I have pointed out. I can give more reasons but since you haven't read all the ones I have posted; I will wait until they are exhausted by everyone who will be posting opposing views.:)

[steven]

There is ethnic cleansing going on in half the countries of Africa why are we not invading them? Why are we not invading china? North Korea? Laos? half of S. America? Turkey? The list goes on and on and on and on. Your really funny when you try to play the humanitarian angle.

Fair warning next time someone someone dredges up an article about some Iraqi getting assassinated beheaded or whatever I will counter with one of the thousands of articles of US service members being killed in this stupid peace keeping mission you keep trying to portray as some type of holy war.

7 Marines die in Iraq, 6 from same Ohio unit
Loss of reservists pushes U.S. death toll past 1,800
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050803/1041478.asp

See the byline? Ask yourself when in the history of this country where reservist ever used for peace keeping duty?

BTW
steven - You have 0 new message(s) since your last visit.

If your going to be as drama Queen and call people out, back it up.

[WestSideJohn]

Here's another thing to consider. We really have to pin down the reason we're there... is it humanitarian (i.e. liberating the Iraqis) or is it to fight terrorism?

That clicking you hear is the sound of our pro-war posters typing "both." But it can't be both, and here's why.

Different objectives call for different strategies. A war waged to liberate an oppressed people from a cruel tyrant is going to be fought much differently than a war waged to punish a country for acts of aggression or a war waged to discourage future acts of aggression.

In trying to achieve all of these goals, we're achieving none of them.

Even if we put aside the discussion of "should we be there" there's still the giant problem of us doing this all the wrong way. We're creating a whole new generation of anti-American terrorists. We're making the world a more dangerous place, not a safer place. The numbers already bear this out.

[buffknut]

John,

What are the numbers that bear this all out?

I just don't understand you. 9/11 was BEFORE Iraq. Don't you realize their goal was to kill 50,000 not 3,000? And in 1993 when they first bombed WTC, do you think they only intended to kill 6 (I think that's the number)? How can you claim we are not safer? I don't know if we are safer so how do you?

I have no idea what strategy to use when fighting but yet you claim to know that there are two different ones.

Why do you blame America (actually I know you blame Bush) for the terrorists actions?

Should we put our heads in the sand and maybe those poor misunderstood "religion of peace" followers (aka serial mass-murderers) will just leave us alone?

Been there, Clinton tried that.

[WNYresident]

I don't know if we are safer so how do you?


Here is what people don't understand. We will never be safe no matter how much money we spend.

[Boost Buffalo]

Originally posted by WestSideJohn


We're creating a whole new generation of anti-American terrorists. We're making the world a more dangerous place, not a safer place. The numbers already bear this out.

I'd like to see where this came from too.

Naturally, wsj and the "boys" blame America, thats a given for everything... but where's the stated backup for this?

Keep kicking America, libs, its what you do best...the terrorists love it. And good luck in '08.

[Boost Buffalo]

Originally posted by WNYresident
Here is what people don't understand. We will never be safe no matter how much money we spend.

right, its a crazy hostile world, no doubt. Its always been. But passiveness is certainly not the answer to survival, thats a fact.

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by Boost Buffalo
<b>I'd like to see where this came from too.</b>It came from the United States State Department. See the bottom of this post for a link.

The State Department had issued a report indicating that terrorist attacks had declined from 346 in 2001 to 198 in 2002 to 190 in 2003. The 2003 figure would have represented the lowest level in over 34 years. Sounds great, right? The only problem was that the report was incorrect, and that terrorism had actually risen - sharply. Part of the reason is - amazingly - that the State Department only included part of the year in the report.

“There’s a new terrorist threat information center that compiles this data under the CIA. And we are still trying to determine what went wrong with the data and why we didn’t catch it in the State Department,” (Secretary of State Colin) Powell said Sunday. “It’s a very big mistake. And we are not happy about this big mistake,” he added. “<b>But based on the data we had within the report, there was a suggestion that the number of incidents had dropped and it was the lowest since 1969,” he added. “That turns out not to have been correct. We were wrong. We will correct it.</b>”

Naturally, wsj and the "boys" blame AmericaYou're a liar. Maybe you should peruse those Ten Commandments you want displayed so badly.

State Department's Terrorism Report (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5183158)

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by buffknut
John, why do you blame America (actually I know you blame Bush) for the terrorists actions?Good lord, more nonsense from Buffknut. I don't Blame President Bush for terrorist actions. I blame terrorists.

[LHardy]

hmmm

[Boost Buffalo]

Originally posted by WestSideJohn
It came from the United States State Department. See the bottom of this post for a link.

The State Department had issued a report indicating that terrorist attacks had declined from 346 in 2001 to 198 in 2002 to 190 in 2003. The 2003 figure would have represented the lowest level in over 34 years. Sounds great, right? The only problem was that the report was incorrect, and that terrorism had actually risen - sharply. Part of the reason is - amazingly - that the State Department only included part of the year in the report.

“There’s a new terrorist threat information center that compiles this data under the CIA. And we are still trying to determine what went wrong with the data and why we didn’t catch it in the State Department,” (Secretary of State Colin) Powell said Sunday. “It’s a very big mistake. And we are not happy about this big mistake,” he added. “<b>But based on the data we had within the report, there was a suggestion that the number of incidents had dropped and it was the lowest since 1969,” he added. “That turns out not to have been correct. We were wrong. We will correct it.</b>”

You're a liar. Maybe you should peruse those Ten Commandments you want displayed so badly.

State Department's Terrorism Report (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5183158)

where am I lying you damn fool. Lol

Your cut and paste doesnt claim we created more terrorists. It states attacks are on the rise. They have been for some time now, and the closer we get to a democratic Iraq, the more desperate the remaining terrorists will be, its predictable.

Its said a free Iraq will have a huge adverse effect on the mid east's dictator tyrants and terrorists, for obvious reasons.

And your wayward liberal politics and your erroneous conclusions along with your constant demeaning of America wont get you any respect, so stop acting so surprised.

[steven]

Originally posted by WNYresident
Here is what people don't understand. We will never be safe no matter how much money we spend.

A voice of reason

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by Boost Buffalo
where am I lying you damn fool. And your wayward liberal politics and your erroneous conclusions along with <b>your constant demeaning of America </b>wont get you any respect, so stop acting so surprised.You just answered your own question.

[speaker]

Originally posted by Boost Buffalo
where am I lying you damn fool. Lol

Its said a free Iraq will have a huge adverse effect on the mid east's dictator tyrants and terrorists, for obvious reasons.

And your wayward liberal politics and your erroneous conclusions along with your constant demeaning of America wont get you any respect, so stop acting so surprised.

"Its"said.....??????--when will Iraq be free of the insurgents, boost?

" liberal politics "??--democracy for real, boost-2 party system and all

"your erroneous conclusions along with your constant demeaning of America "--where has there been any of this?

You are ranting, now boost--just keep chanting rush's credo--it's sort of like a religion

[avet]

it's sort of like a religion
More like a very "sick cult".

It's all compromised of "have mores"
Who are now profiting way more
Wanting more "endless" war
To make more "endless" profits

Did ANY of them ever SERVE their nation...NO!
They are ALL ..."have not's", including their sons & daughters, but they all ..."WANT" - more "WARS" ($$$)!


VERY KEY FACTS -

They ungodly skyrocketing costs are "completely" funded by the TAXPAYERS,
----yet----
they keep "ALL" their profits ...."TAXFREE" !

Show me a "better" ......"$ystem".

The administration is all - "DIRECTLY" - tied with the profiting war machine,
and - "DIRECTLY" - tied with... every single one of the "evil" culprits. TRUE - yes or no?

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by Boost Buffalo
Since I dont agree with you, you feel I should move to a totalitarian style country

Boost Buffalo, I'm just looking after your own happiness!

Poor thing. You really do seem so unhappy here, dealing with all those pesky "other" opinions.

[LHardy]

Avet:

You seem to be agianst anything that is done by big corps at war or not. You constantly are screaming about big profits and big money earned by these corps.
Without big corps many americans in unions or otherwise, could kiss those cushey high paying jobs good-bye. Forget even high paying. How about just plain old jobs period.

by Avet: Did ANY of them ever SERVE their nation...NO!
They are ALL ..."have not's", including their sons & daughters, but they all ..."WANT" - more "WARS" ($$$)!

This statement also has no basis in fact. If you have proof provided it. How do you know that "ALL" these people have no sons/daughters in the service or if they themselves have never served?

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by LHardy
How do you know that "ALL" these people have no sons/daughters in the service or if they themselves have never served? Probably the same way you claim to know:
<b>We who believe this war is just and right do more than any of you. We give our lives and families so you can have your "petty" complaints about a war you can't comprehend.</b>LHardy, if you want to make broad generalizations, hey, that's certainly your right. But it strikes me as hypocritical to complain when someone else does the very same thing you did in an earlier post. Are the rules different for people who disagree with your point of view?

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by WestSideJohn
Probably the same way you claim to know:
LHardy, if you want to make broad generalizations, hey, that's certainly your right. But it strikes me as hypocritical to complain when someone else does the very same thing you did in an earlier post. Are the rules different for people who disagree with your point of view?


Bravo, WestSideJohn!

[avet]

You seem to be agianst anything that is done by big corps at war or not. You constantly are screaming about big profits and big money earned by these corps. Without big corps many americans in unions or otherwise, could kiss those cushey high paying jobs good-bye. Forget even high paying. How about just plain old jobs period.

Without big corps many americans WOULD STILL BE EQUITABLE IN THE PAY SCALE, HAVE THE "PRIVACY" THAT WE HAD BEFORE, & BE IN UNGODLY DEBT TO FUND THEIR "TAXBREAKS" (WHATEVER THE TAX "SHELTERS DON'T APPLY TOO) THAT THEY SO TRUELY THINK THEY ..."DESERVE".
_______________________________________________

Corporate CEOs, to keep up with their greed, took the lion's share of the profits by tightening the corporate belt, that is, firing workers, forcing other workers to work harder and longer hours, outsourcing, and migrating to greener pastures overseas for cheap labor.

This required two paychecks for families to keep up with rising costs in basic necessities, education, and having a life. Wages, however, did not keep up with the consumerist appetites, aroused by Madison Avenue ads, for instant gratification. Bankruptcy "WAS" an option, with 80% of business filing for Chapter 11 by the second year of their creation.

Taxes are never enough. The national debt is a bottomless pit. It jumped to $5 trillions in the 1980s. The 'big' spenders Reagan/Bush I and corporate friends increased military spending by $2 1/2 trillions and cut social programs by $2 1/2 trillions.The beneficiaries? Military spending benefits the defense industry.

At the turn of the 21st Century, this assault is unprecedented in U.S. history, carried out with vengeance. Tax breaks in the trillions of dollars for big corporations (military contractors and oil companies) and cutbacks in social programs (welfare, education, health, and the environment).

The problematic from 1970s to 2000 was how much to cut social programs (thought to be too dangerous by the moderate faction of the corporate elite) and how much to give to the corporate elite. The economy is being bankrupt. The dollar is at its lowest. Workers will continue to be stressed out, overworked or unemployed.

"Bulletin: No W.M.D. Found (1/13/05)." Its official. No links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Not official. War was the 'only', since the White House rejected all the other options. The lies on W.M.D. and the links to Al Qaeda, and the war gave the Republicans four more years in the White House. The billions of dollars in profits for the oil and defense industries will continue. The result: anti-Americanism is at an all time high at the turn of the 21st century.

During the Cold War Washington used militarism and the 'free world' propaganda to impose its policies. This propaganda is dead. Anti-communism lost is 'luster' in Vietnam and ended with the collapse of the SU in the early 90s. The 'war on terrorism', as a substitute for anti-communism, lost its credibility with the lies on W.M.D., the war, and the tortures at Abu Ghraib. Washington is left with militarism, the only option in promoting US interests.

Militarism is self-defeating. 'Shock and Awe' did not work in Iraq. It worked here, at home. But the cracks are already visible. The Pentagon, the most cash-fed institution, is already going through a crisis, a breakdown. The National Guard recruitment went down by 30%. Volunteers are not 'volunteering'. Those in war zones want out, except those 'quoted' on Fox News. Death is everywhere, in their minds, the minute they step out of the barracks, get on a humvee, go on a mission. 'Allies' and enemies cannot be distinguished, as in Vietnam.

The military draft is the way to go in a democracy. Rich and poor are equal in a democracy, we are told. Well, not quite. Many sons and daughters of the rich and powerful did not go to Vietnam. The poor join (volunteer) to make something of themselves, get an education, get out of the house. Young people cannot conceive of death. Yet, it is mostly 19-22 year olds seen on the TV screen. 1/3 of these 955,609 volunteers sent to do battle in Afghanistan and Iraq were sent back a second (and a third) time (NYTimes, 12/20/04). How long can the Pentagon recycle these National Guard and Reserve units to do the fighting for the tough White House draft dodgers?

The Pentagon is now hitting on young boys and girls. Channel 13 News Hour (12/13/04) documented desperate military recruiters, out in full force, in high schools, luring young 17-18-19 year olds to join the military. The benefits? 'Blow-up things, drive cool vehicles, and travel'! An additional $15,000 for each recruit, if they joined (the new mercenary army). Kids are told 'the US is a nation at war'. If they join, they do their patriotic duty, even go to college. Some kids, potential recruits, are called at home, more than once. Afghanistan or Iraq are not mentioned. Video games are brought to the schools, so these kids could get a taste of 'real' war games, shooting planes or hitting targets, the usual 'dot hitting dot' seen in video games. They could be heroes, for their country. Dead heroes? Not mentioned. If they are 'lucky' to return home with legs or arms amputated or scarred psychologically for life, they might even envy the dead. If a high school authority does not allow recruiters with their trucks, trailers, and video games to visit these school recruiting sites, federal funds for these high schools are cut off.

These kids are from poor families, white, ethnics, Latinos, African-Americans. No money, no connections, no future. To the White House and their champions (Republicans, corporate-owned media, and right-wing religious fundamentalists (mostly men), these kids are doing God's work, killing others. The fate of veterans in civilian life? A big chunk of the military appropriations ($2.5 trillion for 2006-2011) is for new weapons and to recruit young men and women, not for veterans' benefits.

I finally did get Bush's message 'no child left behind'. A career in the military is an honorable option for an 18 or 19 year old kid. A kid in uniform, with a gun, blowing up people! Or, getting blown up, then forgotten, dead or alive! It's a career. A uniform and a gun can do wonders to the ego of a young person. It needs sustenance. I donned the uniform in my early 20s for three years, as a volunteer in the US army, for adventure. So many kids today, without money or career, without discipline or family moorings, and no future. No one will be left behind by the Bush White House.

This time the Pentagon is up front. It needs to soil the Iraqi landscape with young blood, thousands of Americans, but mostly of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men and women killing each other in a civil war, a small price for oil, profits, and power for the political-military-industrial complex.

The US accumulated debt to foreign investors is $3.3 trillion, 28% of the gross domestic product, double in 4 years, projected to be 64% by 2014. Our economy and our social programs are in trouble. The 'manufactured crisis' to invade Iraq is now staged by the White House to attack social security, Medicare, health, education, and the environment. 'Cut-backs' in social programs, tax breaks for the rich, and militarism and the war on terrorism at home and abroad is the only talk in town, Washington.

The US is still ahead in militarism, selling more weapons for money than all competitors. "This year, the United States spent nearly as much on its military as all other countries combined. No other nation possesses, or aspires to, anything like the reach of American armed forces (NYTimes, 12/26/04)." Militarism is a parasitic industry. It is 'mega-bucks' for the defense contractors. It is not like investing in education, agriculture, health, and the environment, where the return is healthy and intelligent citizens.

The White House lies, militarism, and tortures in Iraq are blatant. 'Anti-Americanism' is the mirror of this barbarism. Imposing imperial America on the world through guns, not through persuasion, example, and economic and social development will lead to a deepening crisis and curtailment of civil liberties at home. The mixing of nationalism, religious fundamentalism, and militarism will lead to an 'America uber alles' ideology at home and imperialism abroad.

Imperialism and democracy do not mix.
________________________________________________
Consumer Group & Author Reveal Corporation's Invisible Hand Behind Attack On Individual's Legal Rights

The growing attempt to roll back legal rights for individuals in state house across the nation is being surreptitiously coordinated by America's largest corporations through the use of front groups, a national consumer group
"The invisible hand of the corporation is trying to steal more than the individual's money, but their legal freedoms as well,"
________________________________________
"George W. Bush wants to radically revise American law, including complete repeal of the New Deal, and take us back to the economic legal system that prevailed at the turn of the 19th century -- Robber Barons Redux."

While we have been absorbed in the silly circus of cultural issues and the riveting questions of the war, we've also been getting our pockets picked. Big time.

"What, me worry?"
The U.S. is over $7 trillion in debt (no problem); China buys $1 billion worth of U.S. treasury bills a day (thanks for floating us); Americans love the prices at Wal-Mart (made in China, cute!); the Chinese save 50 percent of their domestic product; the average American has $9,000 on his credit cards; our economy is fueled by a fragile housing bubble; the minimum wage is $5.15 per hour ... ; taxpayers who earn over $1 million saved $30K under Bush tax cuts; the war in Iraq costs $9 billion a month; by 2040, our kids will be unable to do more than pay the interest on the national debt ... ; bankruptcy reform makes it impossible to escape your debts; in Darfur [Sudan], people earn $1.25 a day.

We face structural economic problems as serious as those that destroyed the late Soviet Union and that, like the USSR before its breakup, our leaders cannot talk about these problems honestly. "[Our] weakening position in the global trading system is obvious and ominous, yet leaders in politics, business, finance and the news media are not willing to discuss candidly what is happening and why. Instead they recycle the usual bromides about the benefits of free trade and assurances that everything will work out for the best."

"Washington defines 'national interest' primarily in terms of advancing the global reach of our multinational enterprises."
Problem is, our multinational corporations increasingly work against the interests of Americans themselves.
In addition to outsourcing jobs, the companies locate sham headquarters in off-shore tax havens to avoid paying taxes. The only restraints we have ever had on multinational corporations are government regulation and the right to sue the bastards for the various kinds of harm they cause. It is precisely those two forms of control that are being not just undermined but tossed out entirely by an increasingly activist right-wing judiciary.
_________________________________________________
Big Business Becoming Big Brother

The government is increasingly using corporations to do its surveillance work, allowing it to get around restrictions that protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans, according to a report released Monday by the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization that works to protect civil liberties.

Data aggregators -- companies that aggregate information from numerous private and public databases -- and private companies that collect information about their customers are increasingly giving or selling data to the government to augment its surveillance capabilities and help it track the activities of people.

Because laws that restrict government data collection don't apply to private industry, the government is able to bypass restrictions on domestic surveillance. Congress needs to close such loopholes, the ACLU said, before the exchange of information gets out of hand.

Last year, JetBlue Airways acknowledged that it secretly gave defense contractor Torch Concepts 5 million passenger itineraries for a government project on passenger profiling without the consent of the passengers. The contractor augmented the data with passengers' Social Security numbers, income information and other personal data to test the feasibility of a screening system called CAPPS II. That project was slated to launch later this year until the government scrapped it. Other airlines also contributed data to the project.

Information about the data-sharing project came to light only by accident. Critics like Stanley say there are many other government projects like this that are proceeding in secret.

The report listed three ways in which government agencies obtain data from the private sector: by purchasing the data, by obtaining a court order or simply by asking for it. Corporations freely share information with government agencies because they don't want to appear to be unpatriotic, they hope to obtain future lucrative Homeland Security contracts with the government or they fear increased government scrutiny of their business practices if they don't share.

But corporations aren't the only ones giving private data to the government. In 2002, the Professional Association of Diving Instructors voluntarily gave the FBI the names and addresses of about 2 million people who had studied scuba diving in previous years. And a 2002 survey found that nearly 200 colleges and universities gave the FBI information about students. Most of these institutions provided the information voluntarily without having received a subpoena.

These days, the increasing amount of electronic data that is collected and stored, along with developments in software technology, make it easy for the government to sort through mounds of data quickly to profile individuals through their connections and activities.

Although the Privacy Act of 1974 prohibits the government from keeping dossiers on Americans unless they are the specific target of an investigation, the government circumvents the legislation by piggybacking on private-sector data collection.

And no laws prevent companies from voluntarily sharing most data with the government.

"The government is increasingly ... turning to private companies, which are not subject to the law, and buying or compelling the transfer of private data that it could not collect itself," the report states.