RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events "It's not about oil or Iraq..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:
Oh, no, that's not true. That's been repeated so many times everyone thinks its true. That's Israeli speculation. There is no solid evidence to link Arafat to Hamas or other extremist attacks.

---

quote:

---

from TIME, April 8, 2002:


When the phone lines are up again [in Ramallah] Arafat need not worry about their being bugged --Israeli agents have been listening for years.

Israeli intelligence agents tell TIME they have had access to almost every phone call, fax or e-mail that has gone out of Arafat's West Bank headquarters, located in a military compound called Muqata'a in Ramallah, where he [Arafat] has been a virtual prisoner since December [2001].
They also claim to have human intelligence, "moles", working from the inside.
Israeli security sources say the phone and fax surveillance has supplied evidence that Arafat bankrolled groups that are part of his Fatah organization, even though he [Arafat] knew they would carry out terror attacks.

But the spying came up critically short in preventing attacks, because Arafat was never told precise details of any operation, say the sources.

Arafat was certainly aware that he was a surveillance target, and sometimes, according to the Israelis, he [Arafat] would say things over the phone with the intention of misdirecting them.
And Palestinian sources point out that all the globe-trotting Arafat used to do was necessary in part so he could hold face-to-face meetings and be assured the Israelis weren't listening. But Arafat wasn't always guarded. The Israeli spies not only heard the chairman's private phone conversations, but also were privy to some intense intramural squabbling. In one recent incident, Israeli agents listened in as an angry Arafat shoved his chief of preventive security in Gaza, Mohammad Dahlan.

The Israelis did get their hands on some interesting papers. Soldiers from the elite Egoz battalion located Arafat's personal files when they invaded the compound. Those documents are being analyzed by the Shin Bet domestic security service.
"Now we will be able to add what we knew about Arafat and his direct ties to terror, using what we'll find in the files", says a senior Israeli security official.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

In fact, his very inability to stop such attacks at opportune times suggests he has no control over them.

One thing this says is that his leadership is weak and largely symbolic, querying why anyone should bother deal with him since he cannot effectively broker a deal which would bind all players. But it also explains why the Palestinian Authority is so incapable of trying to disarm militants as required under the "peace plan". First, no Pal. extremists are listening to them. Second, the Israelis have wrecked their ability to police, with the incursions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

I see no one has mentioned the overwhelming vote in the emergency General Assembly session to try and compel Israel to withdraw its threat against Arafat. Only two votes against: Israel and the US. I think there were 30 odd abstentions, to be fair, but what does that tell you about world opinion on Arafat's symbolic importance?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:


If Arafat is assassinated, it would be disastrous for Israel. People trying to broker a fair peace in Europe and Russia, and other countries who think both Israelis and Palestinians deserve a homeland, would be marginalised against the Israelis.

Don't forget, for all that the Israelis think of Arafat as being a terrorist and unhelpful (the latter of which he surely is), Sharon is considered a war criminal by even European countries for his massacres of Arabs in Lebanon as a military commander [in Lebanon, in 1982]. For every Hamas suicide attack, which kills civilians, Israeli rocket strikes kill their targets and innocent bystanders. Everyone is as bad as each other in this mess.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

quote:

---

originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

That so often, man-or-woman-on-the-street Muslims, or "moderate" Muslims, so often voice belief in the same violent ideology as the radicalists.

Whether the man on the street Muslim would do the violence him/her-self, I find it bone-chilling that he/she approves of it. And I think it's with a twisted sense of "fairness" that the media tends to portray Muslims as less favorable on average to violence than they truly are.

---

I think that ties into the umma concept I talked about before. Muslims see their co-religionists under siege, in Chechnya, the Balkans, Palestine, eastern Turkistan (western China), and between India and Pakistan.

They emphathise with their fellow Muslims' struggles. They approve of the "freedom fighting", in the same way many American approved of the IRA's atrocious activities in Northern Ireland. (Many English people will never forgive the IRA for killing Lord Mountbatten. And who supplied the money for those bombs? Irish-Americans in Boston and New York.)

But would those moderate Muslims take up guns themselves? No, aside from the hardcore muhajadeen who kicked the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and who keep popping up all over the place.

---

quote:

---

Press release, from the Anti-Defamation League:

ADL CALLS U.N. RESOLUTION AGAINST ISRAEL "BIASED AND POLITICIZED"

New York, NY, May 8, 2002
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today deplored the blatantly biased resolution passed at the United Nations General Assembly emergency session which condemned Israel exclusively while ignoring Palestinian terrorism and violence.

The U.N. resolution passed as a Palestinian terrorist carried out a deadly suicide attack in Israel.

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

quote:

---

It is highly ironic that the U.N. General Assembly gathered to debate and pass yet another biased resolution, condemning Israel, while a Palestinian suicide bomber was carrying out an attack that killed at least 16 innocent Israeli civilians and injured scores more.

The United Nations has once again proved to be biased and politicized against Israel.
Time and again, the General Assembly has singled out Israel, and ignored continued Palestinian violence and terrorism.

We have repeatedly called on the General Assembly to act in a responsible manner. Yet time and again they demonstrate that [they] do not seek to constructively resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but rather only to create political drama and exacerbate tensions.

We express our appreciation to the United States, the Marshall Islands and Micronesia for joining Israel in voting "no."

---

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

---

quote:

---

TITLE: THE ROOTS OF TERRORISM IN NORTHERN IRELAND

I. Purpose: To provide a concise history of the sectarian
trouble in Northern Ireland, and an understanding of the
different perspectives of the Catholic and Protestant
communities, in order to highlight the exploitation of Irish
nationalism by terrorists.

II. Problem: Among Americans, particularly of Irish descent,
there remains a belief that Irish terrorists are "freedom
fighters". This misconception has resulted in significant
financial and moral support for the Provisional IRA in its
current campaign of violence.

---

quote:

---

In one way we are all fortunate that September 11 happened. It focussed the American mind to terrorism. Without their support, many countries, including the UK and Spain, suffered from terrorist attacks financed from both the US and other Western nations. Now the US has even clamped down on the IRA funding in the US. For decades, Irish Americans had financed the IRA.

---

quote:

---

They Are All Implicated
In the Grip of a Permanent War Economy
by SEYMOUR MELMAN

Now, at the start of the twenty-first century, every major aspect of American life is being shaped by our Permanent War Economy.

Civilian manufacturing industries are being swept away as a war-focused White House and a compliant Congress sponsor deindustrialization of the U.S. (1) They favor production--in Mexico and China, where government powers bar independent unions. As production of both consumer goods and capital goods is moved out of America, unions and whole communities are decimated. Ghost towns are created across the country. That process is far along in industries that once invented machine tools, radios, and even TV's. Now the decay proceeds in "new economy" industries like computers and "Palm" type devices. The U.S. firms that sell such equipment typically assemble components that are manufactured elsewhere.

Capital goods have special importance in all this, for those are the tools and machines used to produce everything else. Jon Rynn has calculated that by 2004, 50% of all the production equipment required in the United States will have to be imported, mainly from Germany and Japan. (2)

Meanwhile, government financing is lavished without stint to promote every kind of war industry, and foreign investing by U.S. firms. The war priorities have depleted medical and education staffs. U.S. medical planning now includes programs to recruit large numbers of nurses from India. (3) Shortages of housing have caused a swelling of the homeless population in every major city. State and city governments across the country have become trained to bend to the needs of the military--giving automatic approvals to its spending without limit. The same officials cannot find money for affordable housing.

The Permanent War Economy of the United States has endured since the end of World War II in 1945. Since then the U.S. has been at war--somewhere--every year, in Korea, Nicaragua, Vietnam, the Balkans, Afghanistan--all this to the accompaniment of shorter military forays in Africa, Chile, Grenada, Panama.

So it should come as no surprise that there is no public "space" for dialogue on how to improve the quality of our lives. Such topics are subordinate to "how to make war". Congress under both Republican and Democratic control has voted the same war priorities into the federal budget.

Bob Herbert, the New York Times columnist, reports on 5.5 million young Americans age 16 to 24--without work in 2003--undereducated, disconnected from society's mainstream, restless and unhappy, frustrated, angry, and sad. (4) This population, 5.5 million and growing, is the product of America's national politics that has stripped away as too costly the very things that might rescue this abandoned generation and train it for productive work. But that sort of thing is now treated as too costly. So this abandoned generation is now left to perform as fodder for well-budgeted police SWAT teams.

The mayor of New York City presides over a New York Transit Authority that is now in the midst of spending $3 to 4 billion on subway cars. If this manufacturing work were done in the U.S.--rather than by Kawasaki in Japan and Bombardier in Canada--it would generate, directly and indirectly, about 32,000 jobs. (5)

But nothing was heard from the city government when, after announcing a request for bids for the $3 billion plus contracts, not one U.S.-based firm offered a bid.

The production facilities and labor force that could deliver 6 new subway cars each week could produce 300 cars per year, and thereby provide new replacement cars for the New York Subway system in a twenty year cycle--for the 6,000 railcar fleet of the New York subway system. Such a production plan would also replace traditional rebuilding of railcars that has occupied maintenance shops of the New York Transit Authority.

Well-trained engineers are required to design the key subway transportation equipment. Therefore we must note that it is almost 25 years since the last book was published in the United States on these topics: Urban Public Transportation by Vukan Vuchic (Prentice Hall, 1981). What is true for the rail equipment industries is also true for every one of the industries targeted for deindustrialization during the second half of the twentieth century and early twenty-first century.

Do you suspect I am exaggerating this portrait of gloom and doom? See for yourself. Go to the stores that now sell great arrays of "high tech" merchandise. Pay attention to the boxes for these goods, which typically state where the contents are made. Try the largest libraries and see if you can find texts that contain instruction for production of the products that have been disappeared from U.S. manufacturing.

At this writing there is a lack of schools, teachers, and books dealing with rail transportation. Suitable textbooks will have to be translated from French, German or Japanese. In the United States, the traditional depositories of knowledge for these subjects have been wiped out. There are no workplaces that prospective workers can visit to become acquainted with the shape of a productive career devoted to making things, all of which are now imported.

We can learn something from the experience of the General Electric Company, in particular from the autobiography of Jack Welch.6 He hailed the profits brought to GE by locating their largest R&D labs in India. From a careful biography of Jack Welch's stewardship of General Electric we learn that "GE has either closed or sold 98 plants in the United States during the Welch era, 43% of the 228 it operated in 1980." (7) More recently we learn from Business Week8 that General Electric will have 20,000 workers in India alone by the year's end, and is moving towards a "big China R&D center." The type of work which is being moved by GE to the India and China facilities includes finance, information technology support, R&D for medical, lighting, and aircraft. Business Week reports, "for companies adept at managing a global workforce, the benefits can be huge.... Now, American Express, Dell Computer, Eastman Kodak, and other companies can offer round the clock customer care while keeping costs in check." For an array of major U.S. firms reviewed by Business Week, the trend of U.S. jobs being moved offshore is "a trend that's likely to grow." Here is the Business Week forecast for 2005. (9)

Life Sciences: 3,700
Legal: 14,000
Art, Design: 6,000
Management: 37,000
Business Operations: 61,000
Computer: 109,000
Architecture: 32,000
Sales: 29,000
Office Support: 295,000
Total: 588,000

By 2015, the number of white-collar jobs of U.S. firms slated for "moving offshore" is expected to be 3,300,000.

While the cost of labor has been regarded as a central issue in labor-intensive manufacturing operations, the picture is rather different with respect to the production and utilization of capital goods. On January 1, 2003, the New York Times reported, "China has awarded a potentially lucrative contract to lengthen the world's first commercial magnetic-levitation rail system to cities surrounding Shanghai." All this after the prime ministers of Germany and China took a test ride on the new high-speed train, which is propelled by magnets. The Times reported that "the train reached its designated maximum speed of 266 miles per hour over the nineteen miles between Shanghai financial district and its main international airport." The German firms that designed and produced the new Maglev train were Siemens and ThyssenKrupp. New Maglev trains covering 180 miles and costing more than $5 billion are being negotiated. The critical point here is that China, a country with one of the lowest wage rates in the world for industrial production work, is buying new railroad equipment from German firms which pay the highest production worker wage in the world. The full meaning of this situation has not registered in the United States. But the fact remains that high quality capital goods, backed by strong R&D, justify their higher prices.

There is no doubt about the main effects of a Permanent War Economy on the present and prospective production of consumer and capital goods in the United States. Myths, like a hoped-for inherent superiority for American-made goods, are simply melting away--daily. For the colossal $379 billion military budget now being organized in the United States will include funding new military bases around the world and the manufacture of a host of weapons of astonishing complexity and costliness. All these take up the available "economic space." Thus the newest major aircraft program--the Joint Strike Fighter--is expected to cost as much as $750 billion,10, a historically unmatched price. The new nuclear attack submarines, each longer than a football field, are now priced at $2.4 billion each.11 Look at the maps published in our newspapers of new foreign military bases built for American forces--each of them magnificently equipped for an unstated but long duration.

Anticipated costs of a U.S. war in Iraq reach a level of $682 billion. (12)This exceeds the combined cost for replacing severely damaged housing ($369 billion) and for electrifying the U.S. main line railroads ($250 billion).13 The next Pentagon budget for 2004 promises to checkmate the most fundamental unmet needs in the United States for medical care, housing, and the education of our children.

In President Bush's 2004 budget, the $379 billion military cost exceeds the sum of all other "discretionary" (non-mandatory) items in the Federal budget.

The publicly funded colleges and universities have been raising their fees every year toward the target level set by the Ivy League schools. None of this happens overnight, but the direction of development cannot be mistaken.

The United States is now a species of State Capitalism. The top federal government executives are a partnership of top political and corporate managers who operate a war economy to enlarge their power as their main continuing goal. The idea that the U.S. can afford guns and butter without limit is proven false every day. Unemployment levels that are the hallmark of deep depression are now visible as additional millions "leave" the labor force and are not counted as unemployed by the Federal government even though they are actually jobless. Hence, an 8% "unemployment" rate as counted by the Federal government actually refers to 16% jobless. Meanwhile, the infrastructure of American society shows decay that can no longer be concealed despite the practiced showmanship of leading public officials.

All this cannot be blamed on any particular former president or congress, for they are all implicated. Since World War II, they have all participated in furthering the Permanent War Economy.

Meanwhile, America's corporate managers have been proceeding with their very own profit-making business as usual. While millions of Americans suffered losses of savings and pension funds from the 2001-2 meltdown of corporate securities, the same events in the securities markets helped to create a new class of economic royalty. Corporate and government insiders used their positions to know when to buy and when to sell in the securities markets and thereby amass enormous personal profit. A new royalty was created, with royal outfitting: palaces (not just big houses); staffs of servants with butlers trained to oversee the underlings; lavish cars and other accoutrements as displayed in the New York Times advertising for luxury goods; and so on.

What can we expect from the new American royals? Mr. Gary Winnick, once chairman of Global Crossing, has shown the way. He gained a profit of $860 million by selling his company stock before the shares became worthless.14 He told a congressional committee that he "would write a check for $25 million to cover part of the retirement money several thousand employees lost when the stock collapsed." Said Winnick, "I call on other chairmen and CEOs of other companies to step up and write a check." (15)

Meanwhile, as demonstrated in the American Society of Civil Engineers' Report Card for America's Infrastructure, the services from roads, bridges, transit, energy supply, drinking water, etc., etc. are all in deteriorating condition, deserving a combined Report Card rating of D+. (16) All this is an important indicator of the opportunity cost, of what has been forgone, as a consequence of the Permanent War Economy.

Further evasion is out of order. We must come to grips with America's State Capitalism and its Permanent War Economy. Failing that, there is no hope for any constructive exit. We must marshal the money and human resources that are needed to restore jobs and production competence--industry by industry. That is why I called particular attention to the methods for reindustrialization as in the subway car manufacturing industry. Since all this is controlled by public money, an alert public, with energetic participation by alert unions, is strategically situated to trigger a reindustrialization process.

I am pleased to report that with initiatives from the Steelworkers and other unions, a Landmark Growth Capital Partners (LP) Fund has been formed to assemble retirement funds from trade unions and individuals to facilitate investments in worker-friendly industrial and other companies needing capital to modernize or expand. At this writing, $78 million is in hand, with near future prospects for additional funds of some $2 billion from unions and worker-friendly private capital funds. Tom Croft, who has been a director of the Heartland Labor-Capital Network informs us that the main prospective participating union pension funds include the Steelworkers, UNITE, International Union of Electrical Workers, United Mine Workers, United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1199 of Service Employees International Union, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and The City of New Haven Pension Fund. (17)

Seymour Melman is emeritus proessor of Industrial Engineeering at Columbia University. His latest book is After Capitalism: From Managerialism to Workplace Democracy. Visit his website: After Capitalism.

---

quote:

---

Tuesday September 23, 2003
The Guardian

Defence secretary Geoff Hoon yesterday admitted he did nothing to correct newspaper reports that Iraq could launch its weapons of mass destruction over long distances against British troops, though he knew the stories were wrong.
....
He admitted that at the time of publication of the dossier he knew that the claim that Iraq could launch the weapons within 45 minutes of an order referred only to "battlefield munitions" such as shells."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
We desperately need the U.N.'s help. This attitude by both Bush and his supporters of "my way or the highway" isn't going to win us any help and it certainly isn't good for Iraq or the region.

---

quote:

---

Media's dark cloud a danger
Falsely bleak reports reduce our chances of success in Iraq
By JIM MARSHALL



On Sept. 14, I flew from Baghdad to Kuwait with Sgt. Trevor A. Blumberg from Dearborn, Mich. He was in a body bag. He'd been ambushed and killed that afternoon. Sitting in the cargo bay of a C 130E, I found myself wondering whether the news media were somehow complicit in his death.

News media reports about our progress in Iraq have been bleak since shortly after the president's premature declaration of victory. These reports contrast sharply with reports of hope and progress presented to Congress by Department of Defense representatives -- a real disconnect, Vietnam déja vu. So I went to Iraq with six other members of Congress to see for myself.

The Iraq war has predictably evolved into a guerrilla conflict similar to Vietnam. Our currently stated objectives are to establish reasonable security and foster the creation of a secular, representative government with a stable market economy that provides broad opportunity throughout Iraqi society. Attaining these objectives in Iraq would inevitably transform the Arab world and immeasurably increase our future national security.

These are goals worthy of a fight, of sacrifice, of more lives lost now to save thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands in the future. In Mosul last Monday, a colonel in the 101st Airborne put it to me quite simply: "Sir, this is worth doing." No one I spoke with said anything different. And I spoke with all ranks.

But there will be more Blumbergs killed in action, many more. So it is worth doing only if we have a reasonable chance of success. And we do, but I'm afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded, the Blumbergs. Fair enough. But it is not balancing this bad news with "the rest of the story," the progress made daily, the good news. The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy.

During the conventional part of this conflict, embedded journalists reported the good, the bad and the ugly. Where are the embeds now that we are in the difficult part of the war, now that fair and balanced reporting is critically important to our chances of success? At the height of the conventional conflict, Fox News alone had 27 journalists embedded with U.S. troops (out of a total of 774 from all Western media). Today there are only 27 embedded journalists from all media combined.

Throughout Iraq, American soldiers with their typical "can do" attitude and ingenuity are engaging in thousands upon thousands of small reconstruction projects, working with Iraqi contractors and citizens. Through decentralized decision-making by unit commanders, the 101st Airborne Division alone has spent nearly $23 million in just the past few months. This sum goes a very long way in Iraq. Hundreds upon hundreds of schools are being renovated, repainted, replumbed and reroofed. Imagine the effect that has on children and their parents.

Zogby International recently released the results of an August poll showing hope and progress. My own unscientific surveys told me the same thing. With virtually no exceptions, hundreds of Iraqis enthusiastically waved back at me as I sat in the open door of a helicopter traveling between Babylon and Baghdad. And I received a similar reception as I worked my way alone, shaking hands through a large crowd of refinery workers just to see their reaction.

We may need a few credible Baghdad Bobs to undo the harm done by our media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops.


-- U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) of Macon, a Vietnam combat veteran, is a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
Well they do say that 70% of Iraqi's support the U.S.

Still, the other 30% is still a pretty uncomfortable percentage to simply discount or downplay. Not to mention all the terrorists and general America-haters in the region now flocking over there for the sole purpose of doing THE WEST (not just America mind you as is demonstrated by the attacks on the U.N.) harm.

---

• 12 years of Iraq's defiance of the U.N.,
• 14 resolutions that called for Iraq's disarmament
• Stockpiles of WMD's that his government's inventory paperwork, and the U.N. said were missing, and Iraq's unwillingness for many years to account for them.
• Hussein's massive and systematic torture, murder and rape of his own citizens.
• Saddam Hussein's support of terrorism throughout the Arab region. His support of various Palestinian terror groups is well documented. Saddam Hussein made no secret to the world that he would give $15,000 to the family of any Palestinian who would suicide bomb Israel. I've seen news footage of many ceremonies where the check was given to a Palestinian family, post-bombing.
• It was no secret for many months before the war that the Bush administration intended this reconstruction of Iraq, in order to plant democracy in Iraq, and have it cause a domino effect, spreading democracy throughout the Arab region.

quote:

---

The Iraqis who support us (60% in the most recent poll I saw) WANT us to stay long enough to establish order, for at least another year. You have to really dig to find THAT truth reported. Most Iraqis are afraid we'll leave too soon, and that Saddam Fedayeen will rise up immediately after we leave, and re-establish a police state.
Wall Street Journal: "What do Iraqis really think. We asked them."
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110003991

---

quote:

---

Wall Street Journal: "What $87 Billion Buys.
Compare it to the price of another 9/11. "
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110003995 )

---

quote:

---

I saw an interview tonight on PBS News with Bernard Kerik, who for the past four months has served as interim minister of interior in Iraq, and he said he doesn't understand the outcry for progress. He said he has been able to do more for Iraq's police force in Baghdad in four months than he was able to do as police commissioner of New York City in FIVE YEARS.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/newshour_index.html
( under today's date, 9/17/2003, under "Securing Iraq" )

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
i actually liked his speech, there was speculatuion he would have to give France and some of the axis of weasels concessions in his speech and he did none of that. he pointed out clear and simple the Iraqis are no longer under a brutal dictator how anyone could disagree that is good is beyond me....

---

quote:

---

France, Germany and Russia were the three nations to whom Saddam Hussein's government owed the largest debt.
Gee, why did these nations oppose invading Iraq?
Out of the goodness of their hearts?
Or because they were reaping large profits by (while violating U.N. sanctions) doing business with Iraq?
It is not for an altruistic defense of international human rights and international law that Germany and France opposed the war. It was for their own self-interest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Once again, even with the U.N.'s cooperation, the U.S. will shoulder almost 100% of the cost of the war and re-construction.

Once again, Bush is pursuing assistance, not because the U.S. needs "bailed out", but for international approval, to further legitimize U.S. authority during reconstruction, and because liberal/Democrat opposition has insisted on seeking U.N. assistance, with the threat of with-holding military/re-construction funding if Bush does not request U.N. assistance. But I really think it's better to do the job correctly ourselves, rather than give anti-American countries inside the U.N. the opportunity to politically undermine the democracy we've already spent so much to do correctly in Iraq. The U.N. wasn't with us before the war, I don't trust them not to try and screw things up, just to humiliate the U.S.

---

quote:

---

France, Germany and Russia were the three nations to whom Saddam Hussein's government owed the largest debt.
Gee, why did these nations oppose invading Iraq?
Out of the goodness of their hearts?
Or because they were reaping large profits by (while violating U.N. sanctions) doing business with Iraq?
It is not for an altruistic defense of international human rights and international law that Germany and France opposed the war. It was for their own self-interest.

---

quote:

---

Kellogg Brown & Root, the company chosen last month by the Pentagon to extinguish oil well fires in Iraq, has a long history of supporting the same terrorist regimes vilified by the Bush administration and on at least one occasion defrauded the United States government to the tune of $2 million, according to public documents. Halliburton, headed by Dick Cheney before he became vice president, and it's KBR subsidiary did business with some of the world's most notorious governments and dictators – in countries such as Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Nigeria. The company has routinely skirted U.S. sanctions placed on these countries and lobbied the U.S. government to lift sanctions so it could set up new partnerships and create new business opportunities in these countries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

I'll take their informed logic over that of a bunch of liberal spin-meisters, who have been trying to trash Bush with one unfounded allegation after another, since the day he took office.
I'm really fed up with the bitter crying of wolf by Democrats.

---

quote:

---

Tuesday September 23, 2003
The Guardian

Defence secretary Geoff Hoon yesterday admitted he did nothing to correct newspaper reports that Iraq could launch its weapons of mass destruction over long distances against British troops, though he knew the stories were wrong.
....
He admitted that at the time of publication of the dossier he knew that the claim that Iraq could launch the weapons within 45 minutes of an order referred only to "battlefield munitions" such as shells."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

quote:

---

Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
i actually liked his speech, there was speculatuion he would have to give France and some of the axis of weasels concessions in his speech and he did none of that. he pointed out clear and simple the Iraqis are no longer under a brutal dictator how anyone could disagree that is good is beyond me....

---

I don't think anyone ever disagreed with that. It was my reason for supporting the war.

The problem is that it was never the coalition's reason for going to war until no WMDs were found.

---

Exactly. If I have time to research, i think i'll post a timeline of the ever shifting rationales for war by the Administration this past year. I just wish I didn't have to. Certainly peoples memories are farther reaching than this.

Wolfowitz Shifts Rationales on Iraq War. With Weapons Unfound, Talk of Threat Gives Way to Rhetoric on Hussein, Democracy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62681-2003Sep11.html

Behind the changing rationales for war

This is recent shifts in rationale. My memory goes back a bit further so i'll keep digging. It's unfortunate that the Administration die-hards, as if given their talking points, all shift the rationale right alongside the Administration without missing a beat as if that were their rationale all along as well. I know in message board discussions with neocons, the talk of "kill them all" gave way to "saving the poor Iraqi's" the minute the Administration shifted their rationale.

*sigh* yes yes, I know. "Liberal slander". Heaven forbid that any journalists actually pay attention and keep a journal of events and statements by public officials. We all know these journalists are all a bunch of liberal traitors out to destroy America, anyways.

Finally I think I need to correct Dave on one small point:

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave
The hundreds of thousands of people in cities around the world demostrated against the war not to support the French companies who did illegally did business in Iraq. They did it because they hate war.

---

quote:

---

Between six and 10 million people are thought to have marched in up to 60 countries over the weekend - the largest demonstrations of their kind since the Vietnam War.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2765215.stm

---

quote:

---

Global protests against war on Iraq

Thousands of small and large global protests against war in general or war on Iraq were held in 2003, voicing popular opposition to war on Iraq.
On January 18, demonstrations against war in general or the expected war in Iraq in particular took place in villages, towns, and cities around the world, including Tokyo, Moscow, Paris, London, Dublin, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Cologne, Bonn, Gothenburg, Florence, Oslo, Rotterdam, Istanbul and Cairo. NION and ANSWER held anti-war protests in Washington D.C. and San Francisco, California. In San Francisco, between 150,000 and 200,000 people attended the demonstration. The San Francisco police had originally estimated the crowd size at 55,000, but admitted later that they had badly underestimated the number and changed their estimate to 150,000.


February 15 protest attendance
Barcelona 1,300,000
Rome 1,000,000
London =750,000
Madrid =660,000
Berlin =500,000
Sydney 250,000†
Seville =200,000
Damascus 200,000
Montreal 150,000
San Francisco 150,000†
Melbourne 150,000†
Paris 100,000
New York =100,000
Oviedo 100,000
Dublin 100,000
Glasgow 80,000
Oslo 60,000
Brussels 50,000
Bern 40,000
Stockholm 35,000
Copenhagen 25,000
Vancouver 20,000
Helsinki 15,000
Vienna 15,000
Toronto 10,000
Amsterdam 10,000
Austin 10,000
Tokyo 5,000
Cape Town 5,000
Johannesburg 4,000
Quebec City 3,000
Dhaka 2,000
Ottawa 2,000
Kiev 2,000
Chicoutimi 1,500
†: 14th or 16th February
Source: The Globe and Mail and others

http://history.searchbeat.com/anti-war-protests-2003.htm

---

quote:

---

People throughout the world have thronged to anti-war demonstrations on February 14-16 [2003]. in numbers that even protest organizers thought unimaginable. Based on conservative estimates, more than 12 million people have taken part in the largest coordinated anti-war demonstration in history.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Dissent/Largest_Antiwar_Protest.html

---

"Size of protest, it's like deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group" - George W. Bush 02/03

Arrogance. Pure and simple. But hey, it plays to the Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh crowd.

Here. i'll give you Bushie's one from the always repugnanat Michael Ramirez, political cartoonist for the L.A. Times. Just to show the liberal bias rampant in American media (and of course in California). :lol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

quote:

---

Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
i actually liked his speech, there was speculation he would have to give France and some of the axis of weasels concessions in his speech and he did none of that. he pointed out clear and simple the Iraqis are no longer under a brutal dictator. how anyone could disagree that is good is beyond me....

---

I don't think anyone ever disagreed with that. It was my reason for supporting the war.

The problem is that it was never the coalition's reason for going to war until no WMDs were found.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

And what about the rest of the bastards in the world? What about Burma, North Korea or Liberia? There are plenty of other wankers to depose. But where are the threats of invasion against them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy:

France, Germany and Russia were the three nations to whom Saddam Hussein's government owed the largest debt.
Gee, why did these nations oppose invading Iraq?
Out of the goodness of their hearts?
Or because they were reaping large profits by (while violating U.N. sanctions) doing business with Iraq?
It is not for an altruistic defense of international human rights and international law that Germany and France opposed the war. It was for their own self-interest.

---

I really find this argument absolutely repulsive, every time I see it.

Germany, France and Russia were not opposing a war because a very small number of companies based in those countries were illegally doing business in Iraq.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

They opposed a war because there was no proof of WMDs. There still isn't.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Dave:

They opposed a war because international law is built on respect of sovereignty, and has been for 300 years.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Dave:

And they opposed the war because of intense public oppposition in their countries towards the war. No one likes warmongers.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Dave:


The hundreds of thousands of people in cities around the world demostrated against the war not to support the French companies who illegally did business in Iraq. They did it because they hate war.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Dave:

This argument set out by Dave is disgusting. Lets acknowledge it for what it is. It stinks of embarrassment in the face of allegations, real or unfounded, that the US might have spent taxpayers' money to invade a country to the profit of the US oil industry, and squirmingly endeavours to throw the profit motive back against those who hate war.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Dave:


It is pathetic, and evasive. It tries to make people who oppose war as a valid instrument of diplomacy look like they're motivated by greed.

It is a grubby, grubby lie.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Whomod, I see you filibustered around the real issues for three posts.

Pretty much everything you posted can be dismissed simply as liberal spin of the truth.

---

quote:

---

Halliburton's Activities in Nations that Sponsor Terrorism

In press accounts and SEC filings, Halliburton and its
subsidiaries have been linked to three nations known for their
support of terrorism: Iran, Iraq, and Libya. Since at least the
1980s, federal laws have prohibited U.S. companies from doing
business in one or more of these countries. Yet Halliburton
appears to have sought to circumvent these restrictions by
setting up subsidiaries in foreign countries and territories such
as the Cayman Islands. These actions started as early as 1984;
they appear to have continued during the period between 1995 and
2000, when Vice President Cheney headed the company; and they are
apparently ongoing even today.

In 1990, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, President
George H.W. Bush imposed economic sanctions, including a complete
trade embargo, on Iraq. The sanctions ban the export of goods,
technology, and services to Iraq. Criminal penalties for
violating the Iraqi sanctions range up to 12 years in jail and
$1,000,000 in fines.[9]

Despite these sanctions, the Washington Post has reported
that Halliburton performed work in Iraq while Vice President
Cheney was leading the company. Halliburton had stakes in two
companies that signed contracts to sell over $73 million in oil
production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Mr. Cheney was
CEO. The companies were subsidiaries of a joint venture between
Dresser industries - which Halliburton acquired in 1998 - and
Ingersoll-Rand, another large equipment maker. From 1997 through
mid-2000, the subsidiaries sold water and sewage treatment pumps,
spare parts for oil facilities, and pipeline equipment to Iraq.[10]

The Vice President initially tried to deny this involvement
in Iran. In July 2002, he stated on national television: "I had a
firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even - even
arrangements that were supposedly legal.... [W]e've not done any
business in Iraq since the sanctions [were] imposed, and I had a
standing policy that I wouldn't do that."[11] A month later,
confronted with an admission by a Halliburton spokesman that the
company indeed did business with Iraq, Vice President Cheney
admitted that "[w]hen we took over Dresser, we inherited two
joint ventures with Ingersoll-Rand that were selling some parts
into Iraq," but he said he did not know of this at the time. Mr.
Cheney also said that "[s]hortly after we took control of
Dresser, we divested ourselves of those two companies."[12]

Both of these statements, however, have been contradicted by
other evidence. Two former senior executives of the Halliburton
subsidiaries say they knew of no policy against doing business
with Iraq.[13] One of the executives also said that he was certain
that Mr. Cheney would have known about the business with Iraq.[14]
Furthermore, Halliburton did not divest itself of the
subsidiaries "shortly" after Halliburton took control of Dresser.
Instead, the firms traded with Iraq for more than a year under
Mr. Cheney, signing almost $30 million in contracts.[15]

9 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets
Control, Iraq: What You Need to Know about the U.S. Embargo (Mar.
12, 2003).

10 Firm 's Iraq Deals Greater than Cheney Has Said, Washington
Post (June 23, 2001).

11 This Week, ABC News (July 30, 2000).

12 This Week, ABC News (Aug. 27, 2000).

13 Firm 's Iraq Deals Greater than Cheney Has Said, supra note
10.

14 Id.

15 Id.


http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/corporations/2003-May/000033.html

---

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave the Wonder Boy
And mass populations of liberal schmucks protesting in cities across the world (half-informed, who are probably motivated more by undigested liberal propaganda and emotion than a real understanding of the truth, and what's really being attempted for the greater good of the entire middle east in Iraq).
These protests, however large, are still a fraction of the population of the countries where they occurred.

---

As opposed to 70% of the informed American public solidly behind Bush for most of the year because they assumed, based on unbiased reports and conservative half-truths & statements, that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

Nice to see you can dismiss the masses (the other 30%, the so called "liberal schmucks befuddled by liberal propaganda :lol: ) who prophetically said it was b.s.) just as easily as Bush can.

I thought I'd also get back to your "it's us or them" comments sometime. Because to me that sounds like a recipe for wholsale Crusade style genocide. We're up against a violent fanatical offshoot of Islam and their leaders who are encouraging them to attack the west (most of who preach, teach, and reside in SAUDI ARABIA) not against the whole of the Middle East, lest they destroy us first, like you and Ann Coulter seem to think we are.

quote:

---

Ann Coulter & Peter Fenn, Crossfire:
CNN, November 23, 2001

FENN: Let me ask you one very simple question. You have written, and I quote, “We should
invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.”
COULTER: Yeah, that was a good one.
FENN: Now, I just have one very simple question. Who is “they”?
COULTER: The sentence before that sentence says who they are. And that is the terrorists, the people
cheering and dancing in the street.
FIEGER: Convert them to Christianity?
COULTER: The ones we happen to be killing right now. Thank God for the Green Berets.
FIEGER: What’s the difference between you and bin Laden?

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

“This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular
terrorist attack. … We don’t need long investigations of the forensic evidence to determine with
scientific accuracy the person or persons who ordered this specific attack. … We should invade their
countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and
punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s
war. And this is war.”

“We oughta be discussing whether they should be tortured.”

“That’s the whole point here, to kill them. And we will kill them. … Our objective is to kill him and we
kill him. … So we need to kill them and we are killing them. … kill all these other fanatics who are
running over there. … These are precisely the people we want to kill.”

“Even fanatical Muslim terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do.”

“When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the
death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by
making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn into outright traitors.”

“According to initial buoyant reports in early February, enraged travelers rose up in a savage attack on
the secretary of transportation. Hope was dashed when later reports indicated that the irritated travelers
were actually rival warlords, the airport was the Kabul Airport, and Norman Mineta was still with us.”

“We have a national debate about whether Clinton ‘did it,’ even though all sentient people know he did
… otherwise there would only be debates about whether to impeach or assassinate.”

---

quote:

---

JQ. Your story is pretty much identical to the "exporting America" segment of Lou Dobbs' show on CNN. Pretty sobering segments for ANY America(inc.)n.

---

quote:

---

And the true evil is republicans, right?. Play on, maestro.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
What i find amazing in all your attacks on my viewpoints and in all your EXTREME ones is that most people here side with you. I guess 9/11 really did scare the beejezzus out of everyone to where cr@p like that above gets credence but the pattern of lies and half-truths by the Administration gets pass after pass because "it's all about the ends, stupid".

---

quote:

---

Whomod, as usual your shrill liberal rhetoric does have a thin toehold in fact. But again, it strays far from the facts and jumps to wild conclusions.
Whereas if the Clinton administration had done the same things, you'd be praising their courage and defense of our freedom.

You're welcome to believe whatever you want, unpatriotic as it is. I've spent a considerable portion of this topic laying out my own perspective, obviously falling on deaf ears.

And regarding the Islamic world, I firmly believe it's not a "radical sect" but the whole of Islam itself that is our enemy. As I've pointed out with articles to back it, a majority of Islamic world is hostile to us, and openly praises al Qaida terrorism.
Brutal governments, wars, suicide bombings, poor treatment of women, and other conditions that give pause to foreign investors and internally repress and stall economic growth, are all rooted in Islamic beliefs and culture, that is holding nations of the Islamic world down, and threatening other countries, as their gospel is spread through Islamic fundamentalism and terror (Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Sudan, Pakistan, Chechnya, The Phillipines, Indonesia, etc.)

The more true Muslims are to their beliefs, the more dangerous they are to the rest of the world, and to themselves.
Again, my eternal image of Islam is 9/11/2001. And more so the 90% of the Palestinian population cheering the deaths of 3000 Americans in the West bank and Gaza, rather than the fanatics who flew jets into buildings.
There was a cover story in TIME magazine a few months ago questioning whether Saudi Arabia is our friend or enemy. And discussing the Saudi sect of Islam called Wahabism, and how spread of wahabism through missionaries has brought terrorism to every corner of the Muslim world and beyond, including al Qaida, Chechnya and the Phillipines.

---

quote:

---

And again, if the rhetoric you spew had been allowed in the 1940's, we would have lost World War II:
Hey, Hitler isn't a real threat, we should spend that money at home. It costs too much!
If your kind were around then, we'd be having this conversation now in German. If we were deemed racially pure enough to be allowed to live.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
What i find amazing in all your attacks on my viewpoints and in all your EXTREME ones is that most people here side with you. I guess 9/11 really did scare the beejezzus out of everyone to where cr@p like that above gets credence but the pattern of lies and half-truths by the Administration gets pass after pass because "it's all about the ends, stupid".

---

whomod, what i find about your political posts is that you speak on this issue as if you're the biblical representation of truth. our typhoid-feverish friend also sometimes slips into that mode.

like, as if whatever you say is not only right, but clearly and undeniably right to such an inane and obvious degree no mortal could possibly counter.

thus, the meager gathering of individuals here that do attempt to speak against your wishes are breaking the laws of logic.

not to disappoint you, but... that aint kosher.

---

quote:

---

im not saying your points or claims or theories or postulates (math?) are wrong. hell, i haven't a damn clue. but your thinking that this is a clear-cut, "how can you possibly disagree" issue is not only unfair and uncalled for... its not right.

this is obviously a torn scenario. argued and debated by thousands of people much more intelligent than ... well... me. i mean, let us not forget, we're all justa buncha internet message board posters, after all, who have little-to-no access on behind the scenes info.

wonder dave's posts have been very similar from the other side of the fence, though i don't typically see his posts using the same condescending "what are you thinking?!" tone. not as much, anyway. (granted, since on this issue i'm more inclined to side closer with the wonder dave, my views are more than likely skewed, just like everyone else's)

---

quote:

---

now, to address the "pot, meet mr. kettle" argument... i dont mean to attack you or overly critique you or anything similar. im not posting here with a furled (furled?) brow or finger-fists. and, shit, if you'd like to keep posting however you're comfortable, by all means! i permit free reign, and you're ... permitted! dont change on my account.

what i am trying to do is just share a little third-person-perspective on how your arguments (in here -- haven't noticed a similar attitude in other of your posts) come across sometimes.

---

quote:

---

MAHER: I want to read you a quote, because I’m not saying whether you’re going to get into this or not, but Howard Dean, who is apparently the front runner now for the Democrats, he said last week, he said, “In Vermont, politics is much further to the left.” He said, “A Vermont centrist is an American liberal.”

And then his campaign manager came out and said, “That’s not an admission he’s a liberal.” [laughter] Which, quite frankly, pissed me off. Because somehow they hijacked that word, “liberal.”

Now, you’re a Democrat. You said that last week.

CLARK: Absolutely.

MAHER: Okay. [applause] I’m just – I’m just wondering, of all the people who has the credentials to say, “liberal” is not a bad word, I’m wondering if I could get you to say that.

CLARK: Well, I’ll say it right now.

MAHER: Good for you.

CLARK: We live in a liberal democracy.

MAHER: Right.

CLARK: That’s what we created in this country. [applause] That’s our—

MAHER: That’s right. Thank you.

CLARK: That’s in our Constitution. [applause continue] Let me follow on this, okay? I think we should be very clear on this. You know, this country was founded on the principals of the Enlightenment.

MAHER: Right.

CLARK: It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn’t founded on the idea that someone would get stuck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can’t lose that in this country. We’ve got to get it back. [applause]

MAHER: Thank you.

CLARK: I’d like to follow that. Can I follow that?

MAHER: Yes.

CLARK: Because, you know, a lot of people have said, “What are you interested in? Why would you even consider running?” And they say, “Isn’t it just about Iraq?” It really isn’t. Iraq is part of it. I think the foreign policy has serious problems.

MAHER: Right.

CLARK: But I think the economy and the way the administration has dealt with the economy has serious problems. But more fundamental than that, it’s about what kind of country we want to live in. I think this nation wants open, transparent government. I think it likes a two-party system. I think it likes to hear reasoned dialogue, not labeling, name-calling and hateful politics. [applause] And I think 2004 is the election that voters have to put that back in.

---

quote:

---

my personal opinion, as i've said before, is that i really hate posting in threads like this because thats often the viewpoint taken by many of the protagonists. its silly for me to post, because, why bother? no one is listening. i'm only posting here again now because i'm retarded (one and all, feel free to quote that in a signature).

but i think if maybe each half was a little more willing to understand the rule of "just cuz i say it, doesn't make it true," ...this thread'd be a lot more pleasant to frequent.

...minus the bill mahr pics.

---

I had to post the Bill Maher pic because......TA DAA, I like his smirk. I'll counter your smirk with mine and all that
His website has finally updated his show transcripts by the way. This by far was my favourite ep. of the season. The one with Gen. Wesley Clark, Wolf Blitzer (trying to look dignified all throughout), D.L. Hughley and Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard (w/ Al Franken via sattellite).
http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/print/t_hbo_realtime_090503.htm

This thread is oodles of pleasure! !10! pages. This is a sucessful thread Rob!

I don't think my intention is that i'm right and you're wrong, just that sometimes I think the Administration isn't being entirely factual and I have to bring it up. However feelings towards the Administration get internalized is entirely up to each indivudual I guess. I remeber back in the 9th grade, i'd routinely laugh at Culture Club and one guy that would hang around our group of freinds (who was a HUGE fan) would take it as a personal attack on him wheras I didn't have a clue anyone would ever equate dislike of a bad pop band=attack on me. Pop bands are fallible and sometimes full of shit, and so are people. No one is infallible and not everyone is honest, no matter what letter (R or D) comes after his name on the eveing news. To beleive otherwise is wishful thinking or even downright delusional. To belelive that discourse and political parties in America are now a matter or right or wrong or even life or death IMO is dangerous and completely unacfceptable and UnAmerican. Shit, I was watching the Cali debate and McClintock made the most sense out of any of the canidates. Should I remind myself that i'm being treasonous to "my side" if I think so?

But honestly, the whole of Islam is our enemy?? And i'm the unpleasant one??

BSAMS: Youy know that's just silly. No one want Sadaam to return. The argument is that it could have been handled more diplomatically, with the cooperation of the U.N., un-unilaterally, and (IMO) more honestly. We'd certainly be in better shape post-war, Sadaam would be dealt with (or not-honestly I gave a rats arse about Sadaam, I'm concerned with Bin Laden, the Saudi's and the Paki's 3 sources that have infinetely more to do with 9/11 than sadaam did if he ever did at all!), we wouldn't be single-handedly footing the massive bill and draining of military resources and the Administration wouldn't be on the defensive right now, that's for certain. Whatever side of the political spectrum you're on, you can see that this war wasn't exactly well thought out past the fighting (and utopian vision) part.

As far as the Kay report... What can I say. I'll let the downplaying of it's signifigance as of late speak for itself (but of course i'll provide a few reminders of the past).

quote:

---

"Dr. Kay will be putting out a report in the very near future, and I look forward to seeing it, as everyone else does." - Colin Powell

[Kay has been]"compiling massive amounts of documents about Iraq's history of weapons of mass destruction" - White House spokesman Scott McClellan

"I would not count on reports" from Kay. "I suppose there may be interim reports". "I don't know when those will be, and I don't know what the public nature of them will be." - Condaleeza Rice on Monday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
Not asking disrespectfully but asking nonethless, may I ask why Dave TWB and some of the more condescending "liberals are stupid" posters don't get the same speech?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
I'm a bit lost here... The only time I used a quote about kettles calling pots black was in regards to breaking UN resolutions and doing buisness with ....yadda yadda

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
I don't think my intention is that i'm right and you're wrong, just that sometimes I think the Administration isn't being entirely factual and I have to bring it up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
This thread is oodles of pleasure! !10! pages. This is a sucessful thread Rob!

---

quote:

---

Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to investigate a report that Iraq (news - web sites) was trying to obtain uranium from Niger, but returned to say it was highly doubtful.


The Washington Post reported on Sunday that two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and revealed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife -- apparently in retaliation for his conclusion, which undermined the position of the White House.

Rice Knew 'Nothing' About CIA Agent Leak

---

This is some crazy shit!

With that much phone calling to so many reporters, I don't see this story getting anything but bigger. I'll hold my breath on Asscroft uncovering anything though.

And apparently in the midst of this affair, Bush seems incredibly unconcerned, as to whether anyone in his White House broke the law or even to the safety of Wilson's wife:

quote:

---

"Bush had no plans to ask staff members whether they were involved in revealing the name of Wilson's wife."

---

quote:

---

Originally Posted over @ Yahoo News
>>Americans are failing their duty as citizens in a democracy if we simply trust these people with decisions this important. It is time to correct our mistake. <<

Americans failed the moment they fell prey to the game of hating the opposing side, just because it was the other side.

---

quote:

---

Asked if the White House was not concerned that top officials might have done such a thing, Rice said she did not recall any discussions of the matter.


"I don't remember any such conversations," Rice said.


Rice also said top officials "didn't remember" in the case of the president's State of the Union address in January, in which he said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

---

quote:

---

"The Intelligence Protection Act, passed in 1982, imposes maximum penalties of 10 years in prison and $50,000 in fines for unauthorized disclosure by government employees with access to classified information."

"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.

A source said reporters quoted a leaker as describing Wilson's wife as "fair game."

It is rare for one Bush administration official to turn on another. Asked about the motive for describing the leaks, the senior official said the leaks were "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility."

He [Wilson]said that if Novak's account is accurate, the leak was part of "a deliberate attempt on the part of the White House to intimidate others and make them think twice about coming forward."

Sources said that some of the other journalists who received the leak did not use the information because they were uncomfortable with unmasking an undercover agent or because they did not consider the information relevant to Wilson's report about Niger.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has been pushing the FBI to investigate the disclosure since July, said yesterday that it "not only put an agent's life in danger, but many of that agent's sources and contacts."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11208-2003Sep27.html

---

quote:

---

The naming of the intelligence officer's identity by syndicated columnist Robert Novak came shortly after her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, undermined Bush's claim that Iraq (news - web sites) had tried to buy uranium in Africa.


Wilson has publicly blamed Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, for the leak, although Wilson did say Monday he did not know whether Rove personally was the source of Novak's information, only that he thought Rove had "condoned it."

A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said FBI (news - web sites) officials are trying to determine whether there was a violation of the law and, if so, then whether a full-blown criminal investigation is warranted, the official said.

Asked whether Bush should fire any official found to have leaked the information, McClellan said: "They should be pursued to the fullest extent by the Department of Justice. The president expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct — and that would not be."


Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said the matter should be investigated from someone outside the Bush administration.


"If there was ever a case that demanded a special counsel, this is it," he said.


The Justice Department had no immediate comment on Schumer's request.

The flap began in January when Bush said in his State of the Union address that British intelligence officials had learned that Iraq had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium in Africa.

In an opinion piece published in July by The New York Times, Wilson said he told the CIA long before Bush's address that the British reports were suspect and the administration has since said the assertion should not have been in Bush's speech.

A week after Wilson went public with his criticism Novak, quoting anonymous government sources, said Wilson's wife was a CIA operative working on the issue of weapons of mass destruction.

The Washington Post on Sunday quoted an unidentified senior administration official as saying two top White House officials called at least a half-dozen journalists and revealed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had said in a late August speech in Seattle that he suspected Rove, but on Monday he backtracked somewhat from that assertion.

"I did not mean at that time to imply that I thought that Karl Rove was the source or the authorizer, just that I thought that it came from the White House, and Karl Rove was the personification of the White House political operation," Wilson said in a telephone interview.

But then he added: "I have people, who I have confidence in, who have indicated to me that he (Rove), at a minimum, condoned it and certainly did nothing to put a stop to it for a week after it was out there.

"Among the phone calls I received were those that said `White House sources are saying that it's not about the 16 words, it's about Wilson and his wife.' And two people called me up and specifically mentioned Rove's name," he said.

Wilson said that neither he or his wife had been contacted by the Justice Department, or the White House.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
i blame the liberal media.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
After reading that one quote above at Yahoo Politics I woke up today remebering something Rob posted and hopefully he'll come by and perhaps continue in conversation about it. I recall that you mentioned that it was personally frustrating for you that no WMD's have been found yet. Why is that so? Because you want there to be irrefutable proof that the administration isn't lying or because you are starting to doubt them and you want your faith restored? Or perhaps some other reason. I dunno, perhaps I want to beleive that people can be swayed by developing news and revelations and that we all aern't partisan warriors on opposing sides, immovable as stone.

---