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

quote:

---

Journalists Ordered to Give Sources to Scientist

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has ordered five journalists, including a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, to identify government sources for their articles about former nuclear weapons scientist Wen Ho Lee......
If upheld on appeal, the decision by U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson could also play into the furor surrounding allegations that the Bush administration leaked the name of a CIA operative to journalists to retaliate against her husband, a critic of the administration's Iraq policy.

The CIA employee and her husband, former State Department envoy Joseph C. Wilson IV, are considering legal action against the government, alleging that the leak invaded their privacy and caused emotional and other distress.

An attorney for the Wilsons, Christopher Wolf, said Jackson's ruling in the Lee case could strengthen the family's hand in any civil suit in trying to pinpoint the person who unmasked Wilson's wife.

"If we ever get a reporter in the witness chair under oath, and there is no other way to get the information, I think it is likely a court would order disclosure of the source," Wolf said, adding that no decision had yet been made about filing such a suit.

---

quote:

---

October 16, 2003


THE NATION
General Casts War in Religious Terms

The top soldier assigned to track down Bin Laden and Hussein is an evangelical Christian who speaks publicly of 'the army of God.'

By Richard T. Cooper, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has assigned the task of tracking down and eliminating Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other high-profile targets to an Army general who sees the war on terrorism as a clash between Judeo-Christian values and Satan.

Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, the new deputy undersecretary of Defense for intelligence, is a much-decorated and twice-wounded veteran of covert military operations. From the bloody 1993 clash with Muslim warlords in Somalia chronicled in "Black Hawk Down" and the hunt for Colombian drug czar Pablo Escobar to the ill-fated attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran in 1980, Boykin was in the thick of things.

Yet the former commander and 13-year veteran of the Army's top-secret Delta Force is also an outspoken evangelical Christian who appeared in dress uniform and polished jump boots before a religious group in Oregon in June to declare that radical Islamists hated the United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian and the enemy is a guy named Satan."

Discussing the battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia, Boykin told another audience, "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."

"We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this," Boykin said last year.

On at least one occasion, in Sandy, Ore., in June, Boykin said of President Bush: "He's in the White House because God put him there."

"God" - whomod

(actually the complete quote is this: "Why is this man in the White House? The Majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there?" He's in the White House because God put him there." Rhenquist the Father, Scalia the son (of a @$#&*) and Thomas the Wholly Ghost - whomod)


Boykin's penchant for casting the war on terrorism in religious terms appears to be at odds with Bush and an administration that have labored to insist that the war on terrorism is not a religious conflict.

Although the Army has seldom if ever taken official action against officers for outspoken expressions of religious opinion, outside experts see remarks such as Boykin's as sending exactly the wrong message to the Arab and Islamic world.

In his public remarks, Boykin has also said that radical Muslims who resort to terrorism are not representative of the Islamic faith.

He has compared Islamic extremists to "hooded Christians" who terrorized blacks, Catholics, Jews and others from beneath the robes of the Ku Klux Klan.

Boykin was not available for comment and did not respond to written questions from the Los Angeles Times submitted to him Wednesday.

"The first lesson is to recognize that whatever we say here is heard there, particularly anything perceived to be hostile to their basic religion, and they don't forget it," said Stephen P. Cohen, a member of the special panel named to study policy in the Arab and Muslim world for the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.

"The phrase 'Judeo-Christian' is a big mistake. It's basically the language of Bin Laden and his supporters," said Cohen, president of the Institute for Middle East Peace and Development in New York.

"They are constantly trying to create the impression that the Jews and Christians are getting together to beat up on Islam We have to be very careful that this doesn't become a clash between religions, a clash of civilizations."

Boykin's religious activities were first documented in detail by William N. Arkin, a former military intelligence analyst who writes on defense issues for The Times Opinion section.

Audio and videotapes of Boykin's appearances before religious groups over the last two years were obtained exclusively by NBC News, which reported on them Wednesday night on the "Nightly News with Tom Brokaw."

Arkin writes in an article on the op-ed page of today's Times that Boykin's appointment "is a frightening blunder at a time that there is widespread acknowledgment that America's position in the Islamic world has never been worse."

Boykin's promotion to lieutenant general and his appointment as deputy undersecretary of Defense for intelligence were confirmed by the Senate by voice vote in June.

An aide to the Senate Armed Services Committee said the appointment was not examined in detail.

Yet Boykin's explicitly Christian-evangelical language in public forums may become an issue now that he holds a high-level policy position in the Pentagon.

Officials at his level are often called upon to testify before Congress and appear in public forums.

Boykin's new job makes his role especially sensitive: He is charged with speeding up the flow of intelligence on terrorist leaders to combat teams in the field so that they can attack top-ranking terrorist leaders.

Since virtually all these leaders are Muslim, Boykin's words and actions are likely to draw special scrutiny in the Arab and Islamic world.

Bush, a born-again Christian, often uses religious language in his speeches, but he keeps references to God nonsectarian.

At one point, immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the president said he wanted to lead a "crusade" against terrorism.

But he quickly retracted the word when told that, to Muslim ears, it recalled the medieval Christian crusaders' brutal invasions of Islamic nations.

In that context, Boykin's reference to the God of Islam as "an idol" may be perceived as particularly inflammatory.

The president has made a point of praising Islam as "a religion of peace." He has invited Muslim clerics to the White House for Ramadan dinners and has criticized evangelicals who called Islam a dangerous faith.

The issue is still a sore spot in the Muslim world.

Pollster John Zogby says that public opinion surveys throughout the Arab and Islamic world show strong negative reactions to any statement by a U.S. official that suggests a conflict between religions or cultures.

"To frame things in terms of good and evil, with the United States as good, is a nonstarter," Zogby said.

"It is exactly the wrong thing to do."

For the Army, the issue of officers expressing religious opinions publicly has been a sensitive problem for many years, according to a former head of the Army Judge Advocate General's office who is now retired but continues to serve in government as a civilian.

"The Army has struggled with this issue over the years. It gets really, really touchy because what you're talking about is freedom of expression," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"What usually happens is that somebody has a quiet chat with the person," the retired general said.




http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-general16oct16000427,1,6496191.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage

---

quote:

---

Thursday October 3, 2002
Guardian Weekly

Recently, those who have criticised the actions of the US government (myself included) have been called "anti-American". Anti-Americanism is in the process of being consecrated into an ideology. The term is usually used by the American establishment to discredit and, not falsely - but shall we say inaccurately - define its critics. Once someone is branded anti-American, the chances are that he or she will be judged before they're heard and the argument will be lost in the welter of bruised national pride.
What does the term mean? That you're anti-jazz? Or that you're opposed to free speech? That you don't delight in Toni Morrison or John Updike? That you have a quarrel with giant sequoias? Does it mean you don't admire the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who marched against nuclear weapons, or the thousands of war resisters who forced their government to withdraw from Vietnam? Does it mean that you hate all Americans?

This sly conflation of America's music, literature, the breathtaking physical beauty of the land, the ordinary pleasures of ordinary people with criticism of the US government's foreign policy is a deliberate and extremely effective strategy. It's like a retreating army taking cover in a heavily populated city, hoping that the prospect of hitting civilian targets will deter enemy fire.

To call someone anti-American, indeed, to be anti-American, is not just racist, it's a failure of the imagination. An inability to see the world in terms other than those that the establishment has set out for you: If you don't love us, you hate us. If you're not good, you're evil. If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists.

Last year, like many others, I too made the mistake of scoffing at this post-September 11 rhetoric, dismissing it as foolish. I've realised that it's not. It's actually a canny recruitment drive for a misconceived, dangerous war. Every day I'm taken aback at how many people believe that opposing the war in Afghanistan amounts to supporting terrorism.

Uppermost on everybody's mind, of course, particularly in the US, is the horror of what has come to be known as 9/11. Nearly 3,000 civilians lost their lives in that lethal terrorist strike. The grief is still deep. The rage still sharp. And a strange, deadly war is raging around the world. Yet, each person who has lost a loved one surely knows that no war, no act of revenge, will blunt the edges of their pain or bring their own loved ones back. War cannot avenge those who have died. War is only a brutal desecration of their memory.

To fuel yet another war - this time against Iraq - by manipulating people's grief, by packaging it for TV specials sponsored by corporations selling detergent or running shoes, is to cheapen and devalue grief, to drain it of meaning. We are seeing a pillaging of even the most private human feelings for political purpose. It is a terrible, violent thing for a state to do to its people.

The US government says that Saddam Hussein is a war criminal, a cruel military despot who has committed genocide against his own people. That's a fairly accurate description of the man. In 1988 he razed hundreds of villages in northern Iraq and killed thousands of Kurds. Today, we know that that same year the US government provided him with $500m in subsidies to buy American farm products. The next year, after he had successfully completed his genocidal campaign, the US government doubled its subsidy to $1bn. It also provided him with high-quality germ seed for anthrax, as well as helicopters and dual-use material that could be used to manufacture chemical and biological weapons.

It turns out that while Saddam was carrying out his worst atrocities, the US and British governments were his close allies. So what changed?

In August 1990 Saddam invaded Kuwait. His sin was not so much that he had committed an act of war, but that he acted independently, without orders from his masters. This display of independence was enough to upset the power equation in the Gulf. So it was decided that Saddam be exterminated, like a pet that has outlived its owner's affection.

What if Iraq does have a nuclear weapon? Does that justify a pre-emptive US strike? The US has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world. It's the only country in the world to have actually used them on civilian populations. If the US is justified in launching a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, why, any nuclear power is justified in carrying out a pre-emptive attack on any other. India could attack Pakistan, or the other way around.

Recently, the US played an important part in forcing India and Pakistan back from the brink of war. Is it so hard for it to take its own advice? Who is guilty of feckless moralising? Of preaching peace while it wages war? The US, which George Bush has called "the most peaceful nation on earth", has been at war with one country or another every year for the past 50 years.

Wars are never fought for altruistic reasons. They're usually fought for hegemony, for business. And then, of course, there's the business of war. In his book on globalisation, The Lexus And The Olive Tree, Tom Friedman says: "The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps." Perhaps this was written in a moment of vulnerability, but it's certainly the most succinct, accurate description of the project of corporate globalisation that I have read.

After September 11 and the war against terror, the hidden hand and fist have had their cover blown - and we have a clear view now of America's other weapon - the free market - bearing down on the developing world, with a clenched, unsmiling smile. The Task That Never Ends is America's perfect war, the perfect vehicle for the endless expansion of American imperialism.

As the disparity between the rich and poor grows, the hidden fist of the free market has its work cut out. Multinational corporations on the prowl for "sweetheart deals" that yield enormous profits cannot push them through in developing countries without the active connivance of state machinery. Today, corporate globalisation needs an international confederation of loyal, corrupt, preferably authoritarian governments in poorer countries, to push through unpopular reforms and quell the mutinies. It needs a press that pretends to be free. It needs courts that pretend to dispense justice. It needs nuclear bombs, standing armies, sterner immigration laws, and watchful coastal patrols to make sure that it is only money, goods, patents and services that are globalised - not the free movement of people, not a respect for human rights, not international treaties on racial discrimination or chemical and nuclear weapons, or greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, or, God forbid, justice. It's as though even a gesture towards international accountability would wreck the whole enterprise.

Close to one year after the war against terror was officially flagged off in the ruins of Afghanistan, in country after country freedoms are being curtailed in the name of protecting freedom, civil liberties are being suspended in the name of protecting democracy. All kinds of dissent is being defined as "terrorism". The US secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, said that his mission in the war against terror was to persuade the world that Americans must be allowed to continue their way of life. When the maddened king stamps his foot, slaves tremble in their quarters. So, it's hard for me to say this, but the American way of life is simply not sustainable. Because it doesn't acknowledge that there is a world beyond America.

Fortunately, power has a shelf life. When the time comes, maybe this mighty empire will, like others before it, overreach itself and implode from within. It looks as though structural cracks have already appeared.

Soviet-style communism failed, not because it was intrinsically evil but because it was flawed. It allowed too few people to usurp too much power: 21st-century market-capitalism, American-style, will fail for the same reasons.

---

quote:

---

Drain the swamp and there will be no more mosquitoes

By attacking Iraq, the US will invite a new wave of terrorist attacks

Noam Chomsky
Monday September 9, 2002
The Guardian

September 11 shocked many Americans into an awareness that they had better pay much closer attention to what the US government does in the world and how it is perceived. Many issues have been opened for discussion that were not on the agenda before. That's all to the good.
It is also the merest sanity, if we hope to reduce the likelihood of future atrocities. It may be comforting to pretend that our enemies "hate our freedoms," as President Bush stated, but it is hardly wise to ignore the real world, which conveys different lessons.

The president is not the first to ask: "Why do they hate us?" In a staff discussion 44 years ago, President Eisenhower described "the campaign of hatred against us [in the Arab world], not by the governments but by the people". His National Security Council outlined the basic reasons: the US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is "opposing political or economic progress" because of its interest in controlling the oil resources of the region.

Post-September 11 surveys in the Arab world reveal that the same reasons hold today, compounded with resentment over specific policies. Strikingly, that is even true of privileged, western-oriented sectors in the region.

To cite just one recent example: in the August 1 issue of Far Eastern Economic Review, the internationally recognised regional specialist Ahmed Rashid writes that in Pakistan "there is growing anger that US support is allowing [Musharraf's] military regime to delay the promise of democracy".

Today we do ourselves few favours by choosing to believe that "they hate us" and "hate our freedoms". On the contrary, these are attitudes of people who like Americans and admire much about the US, including its freedoms. What they hate is official policies that deny them the freedoms to which they too aspire.

For such reasons, the post-September 11 rantings of Osama bin Laden - for example, about US support for corrupt and brutal regimes, or about the US "invasion" of Saudi Arabia - have a certain resonance, even among those who despise and fear him. From resentment, anger and frustration, terrorist bands hope to draw support and recruits.

We should also be aware that much of the world regards Washington as a terrorist regime. In recent years, the US has taken or backed actions in Colombia, Nicaragua, Panama, Sudan and Turkey, to name a few, that meet official US definitions of "terrorism" - that is, when Americans apply the term to enemies.

In the most sober establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, Samuel Huntington wrote in 1999: "While the US regularly denounces various countries as 'rogue states,' in the eyes of many countries it is becoming the rogue superpower ... the single greatest external threat to their societies."

Such perceptions are not changed by the fact that, on September 11, for the first time, a western country was subjected on home soil to a horrendous terrorist attack of a kind all too familiar to victims of western power. The attack goes far beyond what's sometimes called the "retail terror" of the IRA, FLN or Red Brigades.

The September 11 terrorism elicited harsh condemnation throughout the world and an outpouring of sympathy for the innocent victims. But with qualifications.

An international Gallup poll in late September found little support for "a military attack" by the US in Afghanistan. In Latin America, the region with the most experience of US intervention, support ranged from 2% in Mexico to 16% in Panama.

The current "campaign of hatred" in the Arab world is, of course, also fuelled by US policies toward Israel-Palestine and Iraq. The US has provided the crucial support for Israel's harsh military occupation, now in its 35th year.

One way for the US to lessen Israeli-Palestinian tensions would be to stop refusing to join the long-standing international consensus that calls for recognition of the right of all states in the region to live in peace and security, including a Palestinian state in the currently occupied territories (perhaps with minor and mutual border adjustments).

In Iraq, a decade of harsh sanctions under US pressure has strengthened Saddam Hussein while leading to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - perhaps more people "than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction throughout history", military analysts John and Karl Mueller wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1999.

Washington's present justifications to attack Iraq have far less credibility than when President Bush Sr was welcoming Saddam as an ally and a trading partner after he had committed his worst brutalities - as in Halabja, where Iraq attacked Kurds with poison gas in 1988. At the time, the murderer Saddam was more dangerous than he is today.

As for a US attack against Iraq, no one, including Donald Rumsfeld, can realistically guess the possible costs and consequences. Radical Islamist extremists surely hope that an attack on Iraq will kill many people and destroy much of the country, providing recruits for terrorist actions.

They presumably also welcome the "Bush doctrine" that proclaims the right of attack against potential threats, which are virtually limitless. The president has announced: "There's no telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland." That's true.

Threats are everywhere, even at home. The prescription for endless war poses a far greater danger to Americans than perceived enemies do, for reasons the terrorist organisations understand very well.

Twenty years ago, the former head of Israeli military intelligence, Yehoshaphat Harkabi, also a leading Arabist, made a point that still holds true. "To offer an honourable solution to the Palestinians respecting their right to self-determination: that is the solution of the problem of terrorism," he said. "When the swamp disappears, there will be no more mosquitoes."

At the time, Israel enjoyed the virtual immunity from retaliation within the occupied territories that lasted until very recently. But Harkabi's warning was apt, and the lesson applies more generally.

Well before September 11 it was understood that with modern technology, the rich and powerful will lose their near monopoly of the means of violence and can expect to suffer atrocities on home soil.

If we insist on creating more swamps, there will be more mosquitoes, with awesome capacity for destruction.

If we devote our resources to draining the swamps, addressing the roots of the "campaigns of hatred", we can not only reduce the threats we face but also live up to ideals that we profess and that are not beyond reach if we choose to take them seriously.

---

quote:

---

Why We Hate Them

September 25, 2002

printer friendly

I'VE BEEN TOO busy fretting about "why they hate us" to follow the Democrats' latest objections to the war on terrorism. So it was nice to have Al Gore lay out their full traitorous case this week. To show we really mean business, Gore said we should not get sidetracked by a madman developing weapons of mass destruction who longs for our annihilation.

Rather, Gore thinks the U.S. military should spend the next 20 years sifting through rubble in Tora Bora until they produce Osama bin Laden's DNA. "I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task," he said, "simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted."

Al Bore wants to put the war on terrorism in a lockbox.

Gore also complained that Bush has made the "rest of the world" angry at us. Boo hoo hoo. He said foreigners are not worried about "what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we're going to do."


Help Us Out!
We're looking for videotaped copies of any and all of Ann's television appearances for a documentary about her. If you can help, e-mail Patrick at acdoc@verizon.net.
Treason


Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War..., Coulter
.

Sponsors
OtherSingles.com
Find a single conservative free!
Annoy a Liberal!
Peace Through Superior Firepower shirts

Start Advertising Now
.

E-Mail List




Good. They should be worried. They hate us? We hate them. Americans don't want to make Islamic fanatics love us. We want to make them die. There's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell angry fanatics. So sorry they're angry – wait until they see American anger. Japanese kamikaze pilots hated us once too. A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons, and now they are gentle little lambs. That got their attention.

Stewing over the "profound and troubling change in the attitude of the German electorate toward the United States," Gore ruefully noted that the German-American relationship is in "a dire crisis." Alas, the Germans hate us.

That's not all. According to Gore, the British hate us, too. Gore said Prime Minister Tony Blair is getting into "what they describe as serious trouble with the British electorate" because of his alliance with the U.S. ("Serious trouble" is British for "serious trouble.")

That same night, James Carville – the heart and soul of the Democratic Party – read from the identical talking points on "Crossfire": "The Koreans hate us. Now the Germans – you know that's one against Germany. You know what? You know what? If we had a foreign policy that tried to get people to like us, as opposed to irritating everybody in the damn world, it would be a lot better thing." (Hillary Clinton on James Carville: "Great human being.")

Perhaps we could get Djibouti to like us if we legalized clitorectomies for little girls. America is fighting for its survival and the Democrats are obsessing over why barbarians hate us.

The Democrats' scrolling series of objections to the war is utterly contradictory. On one hand, liberals say Bush is trying to build an "empire." But on the other hand, they are cross that we haven't turned Afghanistan into the 51st state yet. This follows their earlier argument that Afghanistan would be another Vietnam "quagmire."

The "empire" argument is wildly popular among the anti-American set. Maureen Dowd said Dick Cheney and "Rummy" were seeking "the perks of empire," hoping to install "lemon fizzes, cribbage and cricket by the Tower of Babel." She warned that invading Iraq would make them hate us: "How long can it be before the empire strikes back?"

Ah yes – we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction because otherwise they might get mad and seek our destruction.

Gore, too, says America will only create more enemies if "what we represent to the world is an empire." But then he complained that we have "abandoned almost all of Afghanistan" – rather than colonizing it, evidently. He seems to think it is our responsibility to "stabilize the nation of Afghanistan" and recommends that we "assemble a peacekeeping force large enough to pacify the countryside."

And then we bring in the lemon fizzes, cribbage and cricket?

After tiring themselves out all summer yapping about how Bush can't invade Iraq without first consulting Congress, now the Democrats are huffy that they might actually have to vote. On "Meet the Press" a few weeks ago, Sen. Hillary Clinton objected to having to vote on a war resolution before the November elections, saying, "I don't know that we want to put it in a political context."

Yes, it would be outrageous for politicians to have to inform the voters how they stand on important national security issues before an election.

Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said the Democrats would not have enough information to make an informed decision on Iraq – until January. The war will have to take a back seat to urgent issues like prescription drugs and classroom size until then. The Democratic Party simply cannot rouse itself to battle.

Instead of obsessing over why angry primitives hate Americans, a more fruitful area for Democrats to examine might be why Americans are beginning to hate Democrats.

---

quote:

---

Bob Bolerjack, editorial page editor at the Herald in Everett, Wash., said his paper had been "duped."

"I won't second-guess a layman, but someone inside our business would understand that you don't do that, that it isn't right," he said, adding that the paper "wants to present the thoughts of folks that are expressed in their own words, not the words of others."

---

Army Concerned About Suicides of U.S. Troops in Iraq

C'mon! Spin it Condi, spin it!

and as far as overall death counts. Are we still dividing them between during the war and "post-hostilities"?? Does the number look that much more palatable when you subdivide?

here's a death count that only goes as far as the 13th so it's not yet up to date:

http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx

At least be honest about the death rate. What? after we reach 100 "post-hostilities deaths" are we going to subdivide starting with when Turkey arrives to lend us a hand? Or will Bush land on another aircraft carrier to restart the body count?

Henry Waxman has been trying to get Halliburton's sweetheart deal, and disgusting overcharges investiagted for the last five months.

Stymied at every turn by those ever-patriotic Republicans.

• Add it to the 9/11 report.
• Cheney's energy papers.
• The censored EPA report on the health hazards of 9/11.
• Independant hearings on the allegations and intelligence Bush used to justify the war to begin with.
• Rumsfeld's illegal attempts to keep his nonworking $12 billion dollar "missle defense shield" from Congressional oversight.
• The leak probe given over to Roves former employer.

quote:

---

USEFUL IDIOTS
weekly commentary, by Hal Lindsey


The Red Cross has broken with tradition, and has publicly demanded the Guantanamo Bay detainees either be charged or released.

Last week, Christophe Girod, top Red Cross official in the United States, said the detention of enemy combatants from Afghanistan is "a major problem."

He complained about "the open-endedness of the situation and its impact on ‘the mental health’ of the [al Qaida inmate] population.”

Amazingly, the ‘Useful Idiots’ out there are crawling out of the woodwork again to agree.

Now, I want to clarify, I don't call them Useful Idiots, the Islamic fundamentalists call them Useful Idiots. Because whatever propaganda they're pushing at the moment, these people jump on the bandwagon to promote it, and actually help the enemy's cause.
So we don't look at them as Useful Idiots. We look at them as Useless Idiots.

First, let's look at the the mental health problem charge.
These combatants [the al Qaida prisoners] took on the army of the United States of America. Any mental health problems they have now are secondary.

If they could, they would still be turning hijacked airplanes into cruise missiles.
Second, the fact these terrorists are detained may be the reason the Red Cross hasn’t had to respond to another terror attack against American civilians.

On September 4, the Department of Homeland Security issued a quiet warning to the nation’s law enforcement agencies of a probable new al-Qaeda attack in the works. Thanks in large measure to intelligence obtained from the Guantanamo Bay Camp X-Ray detainees, it has not happened.

In a recent AP interview, Homeland Security official William Parrish cited information obtained from detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

He said, "We have received a lot of good information from these detainees over the past several weeks and corroborated the fact there were active plans, ongoing, to conduct another attack in the United States.” After the 9/11 attacks there was a great hue and cry: “Why didn’t we prevent it?”

If we HAD prevented it, we wouldn’t know that we did. How many 9/11 type events HAVE been prevented?
Nobody knows.
That’s how successes in this unique new war are defined.

War is a terrible thing, but we didn’t start this one. It is one that is gains power as it feeds upon itself, like a forest fire.

The Muslim Fundamentalist Imams are stoking the flames into a roaring inferno of hate toward the Christian culture of the West. They have made this into a “holy Jihad against the Judeo-Christian culture.

The detainees are combatants in this war.

This war is not over—it has just begun. And thanks to the fact that neither the useful idiot squads nor the Red Cross are in charge of the detainees, we’re still winning.

Misguided sympathy is wasted on the Devil, in my opinion. It’s clearly a case of their “mental health” or our survival.

__________________

There are a lot of people arguing that the recent David Kaye report [on what the U.S. military found, post-invasion in Iraq, regarding Saddam's WMD programs] proves the Bush administration went to war with Saddam under false pretexts.

To listen to the liberal mainstream, the Iraq war was an utter disaster. Before it began, they predicted it would result in chaos. It's hard to imagine how anyone can think himself a patriot, because he criticizes his country in the international arena.
But that is exactly how the Useful Idiots see themselves.
If they can only prove that the United States government is corrupt and untrustworthy, then they could bring in their guys to fix it all.
It doesn't matter what damage is done to U.S. credibility abroad.
And apparently it doesn't matter that it was their guys who got us into this mess in the first place.

To them, a patriot is one who speaks out against his country, even when it is unpopular to do so. To them, that is the hallmark of patriotism. If it offends the administration and the military, then it is synonymous with patriotism.
When the war turned into a big success, the Useful Idiots pronounced the occupation to be the new disaster.
Now many Americans believe that the Iraqis hate the occupation, and that the Bush administration dropped the ball on winning the peace. That's what the American public hears from the mainstream press.

This week, the administration went on the offensive. Pointing out that the only thing David Kaye didn't find was physical weapons of mass destruction.

The Kaye inspection team found reams of documentation of Saddam's ongoing WMD programs.

They found deadly biological weapons stored in private home refrigerators.

The investigative team also found hundreds of examples proving that Iraq was in material breach of U.N. sanctions.

Had those had been found [before the war] by chief U.N. inspector Hans Clouseau Blix, the U.N. standard for invading Iraq would have been met in the first place.

Now the Useful Idiots who were so helpful to Saddam Hussein's propaganda effort before the war have begun to emerge from the woodwork.
To listen to them, Saddam was misunderstood. They ask: Why did we go there? Where is the smoking gun?
What they fail to understand is exactly what they are demanding when they insist on having a smoking gun.

[i]The World Trade Center was a smoking gun.

You see, the problem is, guns don't smoke until AFTER they are fired.

The Bush administration took flack for not preventing the last smoking gun from being fired [9/11/2001].
Now the Useful Idiots are criticizing the Bush Administration for NOT WAITING for the next gun to be fired.
Does anyone recognize the inconsistency here?

The administration knew that the war in Iraq would attract al Qaida like a magnet. Detractors of the war lamented of the dangers that would pose, should that occur. Many are today crowing, about how right they were. They're screaming, from Paris to Berlin to the headquarters of the Democratic Party.

Whether or not weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq is irrelevant. There were ample grounds to remove Saddam, apart from WMD. Nobody misses him, except his business partners in Paris, Berlin and Moscow.

The average Iraqi is overjoyed at Saddam's removal. And U.S. forces remaining in Iraq are drawing terrorists to Iraq like a magnet. They take an honest look at the evidence and apply a little common sense.

Today, trained, professional and well-equipped warriors in the field are absorbing attacks against our interests.

Unarmed, untrained and unprepared civilians in the homeland are NOT absorbing them.

The cost to the administration, in political terms, has been enormous.

The White House warned the nation in the days following 9/11 that the war would be costly, long, and often conducted in secret. The policy of the Bush administration, we were told, was to fight the war with al Qaida outside our borders.
The partisans who smell blood in the water ignore the fact that the promise is being kept.

Never mind that all this carping is hurting our national security. And all of this, despite the fact that we're fighting the very war that Bush promised we would fight against al Qaida.

We should thank God that we're NOT fighting in the homeland.

President Bush killed two birds with one stone. First he removed Saddam. Then he lured al Qaida into a trap. The war with al Qaida is being fought outside the homeland, as promised.

The Useful Idiots here at home are demanding that the Bush administration pull out our forces and bring them home. That wouldn't end the battle. The enemy would still be out there -- AT BEST.

It would only shift the battle right back where it began: In the American homeland.

_____________

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
In answer to Whomod's wrongheaded notion that he's the "true" patriot here...

---

quote:

---

Ekeus theorizes that Saddam decided years ago that keeping mustard gas and other poisons in barrels was unstable and corrosive, and also hard to conceal. Therefore, rather than store large stocks of weapons of mass destruction, he would adapt the program to retain an infrastructure (laboratories, equipment, trained scientists, detailed plans) that could ``break out'' and ramp up production when needed. The model is Japanese ``just in time'' manufacturing, where you save on inventory by making and delivering stuff in immediate response to orders. Except that Saddam's business was toxins, not Toyotas.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20031010.shtml

---

quote:

---

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm.
He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming.

It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials.
He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide. The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving.

From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.

Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.) The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.)
And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups. We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.)

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.)

Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season. In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril; from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country. Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers. Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. (Applause.)

We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not know -- we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history. May He guide us now. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END 10:08 P.M. EST

---

quote:

---

And clearly, as in every other speech Bush has made (all transcribed at www.whitehouse.gov ) there are many documented reasons for invading Iraq, NOT solely WMD's, as Democrats and a Democrat-biased press maliciously and slanderously allege, over and over.

---

quote:

---

What is the morale of U.S. troops in Iraq?

Answers vary. High-ranking visitors to the country, including Department of Defense and congressional officials, have said it is outstanding.

Some troops on the ground have begged to differ, writing to Stars and Stripes and to others about what they call low morale on their part and on the part of their units.

There was a correlation between such things as local services and release dates on the one hand, and morale on the other.

Stars and Stripes sent a team of reporters to Iraq to try to ascertain the states of both conditions and morale. Troops were asked about morale, among many other issues, in a 17-point questionnaire, which was filled out and returned by nearly 2,000 persons.

The results varied, sometimes dramatically:

¶ Among the largest group surveyed, Army troops, the results looked much like a bell curve. Twenty-seven percent said their personal morale was “high” or “very high.” Thirty-three percent said it was “low” or “very low.” The largest percentage fell in the middle, saying it was “average.”

¶ Among the second largest group, reservists and National Guard members, the differences were much starker. Only 15 percent said their own morale was “high” or “very high,” while 48 percent said it was “low” or “very low.”

¶ Among Marines, the next largest group, 44 percent said their morale was “high” or “very high,” and only 14 percent said it was “low” or “very low.”

¶ Among airmen, the smallest of the four major groups surveyed because fewer questionnaires were allowed to be circulated to them, the results were also very positive. Thirty-nine percent said their morale was “high” or “very high,” and only 6 percent said it was “low” or “very low.”

¶ Very few Navy servicemembers could be found to question in Iraq.

The questionnaire findings can’t be projected to all the servicemembers in Iraq. Still, the reporting of “lows” among the two largest groups surveyed, Army and Reserve/National Guard, seemed significant. The views of these troops, at least, appeared to contrast sharply with those of the visiting VIPs.

Respondents to the survey were not given a definition of morale. They responded according to what they interpreted the word to mean. Some believe morale reflects the degree of well-being felt by the servicemember. On the other hand, commanders say that in measuring morale, they want to know if the servicemember is following orders and getting the job done.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. officer in Iraq, said that low morale isn’t an issue because troops are fulfilling the mission.

“Morale is … not necessarily giving them Baskin-Robbins,” he said in a Stars and Stripes interview. “Sometimes it’s being able to train them hard and keep them focused in a combat environment so they can survive.

“So at its most fundamental level within our Army, taking care of soldiers and their morale could have very few worldly comforts. But the morale of the soldier is good. He’s being taken care of, he’s accomplishing his mission, he’s being successful in the warfighting.”

Other military leaders say they are always looking at ways to improve the morale of their troops. “Morale begins with caring leaders looking their soldiers in the eye,” said Lt. Col. Jim Cassella, a Pentagon spokesman. “When senior leaders visit the troops in Iraq, they relate that the troops tell them that morale is good, a fact that’s backed up by re-enlistment and retention rates.”

(These rates have been acceptable or good for the services overall. Figures for re-enlistments in Iraq are not available yet, officials said. In the Stripes survey, half or more respondents from the Army, Marines and Reserves said they were unlikely to stay in the service. Officials say re-enlistments normally drop after conflicts.)

Cassella said that leaders visiting Iraq seek out the opinions of troops. Some say the views expressed may be distorted as a result of the nature of the get-togethers, “dog and pony shows,” in the words of combat engineer Pfc. Roger Hunsaker.

“When congressional delegations came through,” said one 36-year-old artillery master sergeant who asked not to be identified, commanders “hand-picked the soldiers who would go. They stacked the deck.”

Others on the ground in Iraq think top leaders are right more times than they are given credit for.

“I heard that reporters/politicians were trying to say morale was down out here,” Petty Officer Matthew W. Early wrote on his questionnaire at Camp Get Some in southern Iraq. “What do people back home expect us to feel after a war? Are we supposed to be as happy here as we are with our friends and families back home? Hell no.

“Of course, when confronted by reporters, we’re going to voice our opinions about our situation. Unfortunately, some people like to complain about how they live or what they don’t have. The complaint concerning morale is the voice of the minority, not the majority.”

In the Stripes survey, troops consistently rated their unit’s morale as lower than their own. John Kay, marketing director for the Army Research Institute, said, “Soldiers always rate self [personal] morale higher than unit morale. This is nothing new.”

Troops may wish to report what they perceive as the true morale situation without getting themselves into trouble, a way of saying, “I’m OK, but the unit’s not.”

Some of the gap can also be the result of hearing other troops complain, compounding the impression that unit morale is low, even if each complainer believes his or her own morale is better.

“Both are true,” said Charles Moskos, a military sociologist with Northwestern University.

The military studies morale regularly, but “the further you go up the chain in the officer corps, the reality of day-to-day morale cannot register completely,” said Lt. Col. Daniel Smith, retired chief of research for the Center for Defense Information. “Whereas when you talk to the platoon sergeants, platoon leaders and even company commanders, you get a better sense of the true state of affairs. Do the weapons work? Are they getting hot meals? Are they getting enough rest? Are their leaders competent and not taking unnecessary risks?”

Unlike some officials who have visited Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, during a September stop in Iraq, spoke not about morale per se, but about the importance of the mission and about sacrifice.

“You’re people ... who weren’t drafted, you weren’t conscripted, you searched your souls and decided that you wanted to step forward and serve your country,” he told the 4th Infantry Division, according to a Pentagon transcript.

Another speech to air assault soldiers of the 101st Airborne division echoed the sentiment:

“The important thing I would also add is that every one of you is a volunteer. You all asked to do this, and that is impressive and it's appreciated.”

---

quote:

---

The other evidence listed in the speech is overwhelming for Saddam's guilt, with or without those 16 words.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa".

---

quote:

---

and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al-Qaida.

---

Those damn liberals are just a bunch of "Bush hating" terrorist loving traitors who don't know what they're talking about!


claiming Iraq was consorting with Al-Qaeda (refuted by the CIA),

saying Iraq was acquiring aluminum tubes to make nuclear bombs (refuted by scientists and UN inspectors)

producing satellite photos of alleged chemical-weapons sites (that on-the-spot investigations proved to have no chemical weapons)

citing mobile chemical-weapons labs (that turned out to have no chemical weapons)

giving worthless leads to UN weapons inspectors

claiming that Iraq was seeking enriched uranium (citing documents that turned out to be crude forgeries)

and finally but hardly least of all

referring to a British dossier as evidence (a dossier that turned out to have been plagiarized from a 12-year-old thesis written by a college student)

Honestly, I don't know what those damned liberals always go on and on and on about Bush lying. I just don't see it. They must really hate Bush I guess.


The Republican National Committee was also hard at work trying to stop those treasonous "liberals" from running some ads from the DNC that tried to embarass Bush by gross extreme misreprentation. Remember, if you're not with us, you're against us!

Here's the letter its lawyer sent to TV
stations.

quote:

---

Dear Station Manager:

It has come to our attention that your station will begin airing
false and misleading advertisements on July 21, 2003, paid for by the
Democratic National Committee. The advertisement in question
misrepresents President George W. Bush's January 28, 2003, State of
the Union address. The advertisement states that President Bush
said, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
uranium from Africa." In fact, President Bush said, "The British
government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa." By selectively
quoting President Bush, the advertisement is deliberately false and
misleading. Furthermore, the British government continues to stand by
its intelligence and asserts that it believes the intelligence is
genuine.

The Democratic National Committee certainly has a legitimate First
Amendment right to participate in political debate, but it has no
right to willfully spread false information in a deliberate attempt
to mislead the American people. These advertisements will not be run
by legally qualified candidates; therefore, your station is under no
legal obligation to air them. On the contrary, as an FCC licensee you
have the responsibility to exercise independent editorial judgment to
not only oversee and protect the American marketplace of ideas,
essential for the health of our democracy, but also to avoid
deliberate misrepresentations of the facts. Such obligations must be
taken seriously.

This letter puts you on notice that the information contained in the
above-cited advertisement is false and misleading; therefore, you are
obligated to refrain from airing this advertisement.
Respectfully,

Caroline C. Hunter
Counsel

(the treasonous ad:

http://www.democrats.org/truth/ )

---

quote:

---

We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence

---

Of course we do! We don't need no steenking U.N.! We're the U.S. We've got nukes and a Texan in the White House! Frankly, i'm sick to death of all these liberals running around undermining our country. We need more real patriots like Britney Spears who love their country and their President.

quote:

---

SPEARS: Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.

---

You said it! What an all American girl!

quote:

---

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.-chartered nuclear watchdog, reported in a Jan. 8 preliminary assessment that the tubes were "not directly suitable" for uranium enrichment but were "consistent" with making ordinary artillery rockets-a finding that meshed with Iraq's official explanation for the tubes.

---

quote:

---

I, too want to know at any time if my government (Democrat or Republican) has acted unjustly, and would accept the proof of that with anger and sadness.
In contrast to that, your absolute glee at urinating on the integrity of the Bush administration really rubs me the wrong way.

---

quote:

---

the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants. 5

On February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell stood before the UN and laid out, in very precise language, the reasons the United States felt the Security Council should back an invasion of Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein. One reason quickly gobbled up and endorsed by the American public, was that Saddam Hussein stood behind the September 11 attacks. Hussein became viewed as responsible for the deaths of 3,044, more so than even the elusive and uncapturable bin Laden.

Using Colin Powell’s words as evidence and his Power Point presentation as fact, Philadelphia attorneys from the Beasley Law Firm sued bin Laden and Hussein in absentia for nearly $104 million. 6 Never mind that the UN rejected Colin Powell’s evidence before Beasley’s case was ever brought before a judge.

Remarking in his May 7, 2003 decision, Judge Harold Baer stated the attorneys "have shown, albeit barely ... that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida." 6

The suit was brought on behalf of the families of September 11 victims George Eric Smith, 38 (an analyst for SunGard Asset Management), and Timothy Soulas, 35 (a senior managing director and partner at Cantor Fitzgerald Securities).10 The Beasley Law Firm used three key pieces of evidence to sway the judge in the case. Evidence the judge himself concluded, “contained multiple layers of hearsay." 8

The first evidence provided came from reports that 9-11 hijacker, Mohammad Atta supposedly met Iraqi Consul Al-Ani in Prague April 8, 2001. In this meeting, Mohammad Atta received money from the Consul as well as a vial of anthrax for the attacks. 2

Both the FBI and the CIA deny that Mohammad Atta ever left the United States in April, 2001. The US government was able to track Atta’s movements using his phones and credit card records. The records all show Atta in the United States during the time he was reported to be in Prague. 2

The Beasley Law Firm used former CIA Director James Woolsey as a specialist in their case. On the stand he countered his agency’s posistion, “I think what we’re talking about is car rental records,” as proof the Prague rental records existed. Currently, Woolsey, a supporting member of the Project for a New American Century, is waiting for Bush to appoint him as information ministry in Iraq9, two biases that throw further doubt on his expertise. Judge Baer went on record stating there “remains some dispute about whether this meeting actually occurred.” 8

Rumsfeld, once a strong supporter of the Muhammad Atta/Prague link, admitted to journalist Robert Novak May 13, 2002, that he was no longer sure of the connection. Even the Prague government, who had Al-Ani under surveillance, has officially stated the meeting didn’t happen. 2



The second link in the chain used to bind al-Queda and Iraq is the evidence Colin Powell supplied to the United Nations February 5, 2003. In his presentation, Powell states that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, infamous ricin specialist and known associate of bin Laden, helped Kurdish terrorist organization Ansar al-Islam set up camps. These camps were located in “northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq.”5

In his argument to the UN, Powell contradicts himself. How could Hussein be giving support to a terrorist organization founded by the Kurds, a group of people he’s worked to exterminate with the Anfal campaigns, and located in an area he has no control over? Mr. Powell’s answer for this incongruity? “Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization Ansar al-Islam that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000, this agent offered al-Qaida safe haven in the region.” 5

Yet, “Two of the highest-ranking leaders of Al Qaeda in American custody have told the C.I.A. in separate interrogations that the terrorist organization did not work jointly with the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein.” This information wasn’t something that came out after our March 19, 2003 attack on Hussein. It was known a year ago when the al Qaida suspects were interrogated by the CIA. 7

Granted the words of two terrorists should be taken with a grain of salt; after all, they could be protecting Hussein. Even bin Laden’s pre September 11, 2001 statement; that Iraq's ruling Ba'athist party ran contrary to his own religion and was an 'apostate regime,' could be a smoke screen set up to lead us away from the truth. 1

When Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (the ricin specialist) traveled to Iraq in May, 2002 US intelligence officials were adamant there was no evidence that al- Zarqawi was in contact with Saddam's government or indeed that Saddam even knew he was there. 1

So what about the contradictory words of Powel himself? U.S. News & World Report reported that as Mr. Powell rehearsed the case, he became so frustrated by the dubious intelligence about Saddam that he tossed several pages into the air and declared, "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit!"11

All of this was reported in April of 2003. The lawsuit was not ruled on by Judge Baer until May 7, 2003. But because the finding of ricin and botulinum topped headlines, while the actual findings are still unknown, it is easy to see how the information was manipulated to win $104 million from a country where one out of four children born live weighs less than five pounds, promising short lives, illness and impaired development.



The third piece of evidence used by Beasley came from defectors descriptions of the two terrorist training camps in Iraq. The first; detail of Ansar al-Islam could easily have been provided by the United States since the camp operated in the so-called no-fly zone, protected by U.S. and British warplanes.

But what about Salman Pak? According to the Beasley Law Firm, Salman Pak, a known bio-weapons production facility also house the shell of a commercial airplane used for terrorist training. Attorney Jim Beasley asks, “What's an airliner doing within a highly secure bioweapons facility that has no runways? In fact, there are multiple eyewitnesses who have stated that non-Iraqi Islamic fundamentalists from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States were brought to Salman Pak to learn the “art” of hijacking in groups of 4-5 men.”14

But as a former C.I.A. station chief was quick to point out, “That’s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff. They train in basements. You don’t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.”4

The Salman Pak airplane is interesting because the Defense Intelligence Agency leaked a statement from a defector claiming he had trained with al Queda terrorists in the late nineteen-nineties at Salman Pak. The defector purported that the Iraqis received instructions in the use of chemical and biological weapons from these al-Queda terrorists. When C.I.A. agents visited the defector with their own interpreter, they got a shock, “He says, ‘No, that’s not what I said, I worked at a fedayeen camp; it wasn’t Al Queda.’ He never saw any chemical or biological training.” Diligent in their work, the C.I.A. sent out a correction to the defector’s statement. This one remained confidential. 4

No one looked closely at the ‘evidence’ during the trial. Why should we? Saddam Hussein is evil, he needed to be removed from Iraq twelve years ago. Even if the whole war turns out to be built upon a sandy, unstable foundation of lies, the Iraqi people are better off without him. Even if he didn’t give material aid to al-Queda, we all know he cheered when the twin towers fell. So let’s take the fortune that built him palaces away from him and give it to the victims of September 11.

Professor of International Law and CBS News Analyst Pamela Falk said, “There may be payments in this because of the Iraqi money, but it really puts the Bush administration in a position where they have to decide where the assets that are already in the United States, if they go to the victims, or go back to the Iraq people.”6

And there is the crux of the matter. Push aside the fact that the al-Queda/Iraqi link is tenuous at best. The Administration wants to concentrate on the welfare of the Iraqi people instead of explaining the disappearance of 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents and the design for a nuclear weapon Bush claimed Hussein had in his State of the Union Address (1-28-03).

Concern for the Iraqi people. Bush claims he has freed them and now wants to place Iraq’s oil wealth into their hands. So what about the $104 million they owe two of our dead citizens? How many children should we starve and under-medicate so we are satisfied that somebody other than our own elected government officials pay for the September 11 tragedy?

Really though, when you think about it, $104 million isn’t a lot of money. We took $74.7 billion from the one-paycheck-away-from-homelessness working class in this country to fund the invasion.

One trillion, now that’s a lot of money. It is also the amount of the civil lawsuit filed by Kreindler and Kreindler L.L.P. against a laundry list of offenders, including the country of Iraq, considered accountable for the September 11 deaths.3 The evidence against Iraq will be much of the same that Beasley used in his victory.6

Will the future judge of this case reach a conclusion similar to that of Judge Baer who ended the trial stating, that Beasley had "shown, albeit barely ... that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida" or will it topple from the weight of self contradiction?



SOURCES



1. War - Was It Worth It? al-Queda & terrorism: By David Pratt, Foreign Editor Sunday Herald - 25 May 2003 http://www.sundayherald.com/print34114
2. Mohammed Atta in Prague FAQ By Richard M. Smith of www.ComputerBytesMan.com Updated June 19, 2002 (Original version June 16, 2002) http://www.computerbytesman.com/911/praguefaq.htm
3. Kriendler & Kreindler LLP Recent Developments September 11 attacks http://www.kreindler.com/newsleft.htm
4. Selective Intelligence By Seymour M. Hersh New Yorker May 12, 2003 http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0512selective.htm
5. Remarks to the United Nations Security Council Secretary Colin L. Powell
New York City February 5, 2003 http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm
6. Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked NEW YORK, May 7, 2003 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/08/uttm/main552868.shtml
7. Captives Deny Queda Worked With Baghdad June 9, 2003 By JAMES RISEN http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/09/international/worldspecial/09INTE.html?ex=1056183901&ei=1&en=ddbdc84815f12e4e
8. Hon. HAROLD BAER, JR., District Judge: US District Court Southern District of New Yorkhttp://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:CGYcnM3xtycJ:www.montanalawweek.net/Headnotes/Smith%2520v.%2520Iraq%2520(5-7-03).pdf+mohammad+atta+car+rental+records+prague&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

9. James Woolsey The Pentagon's man in Iraq - The Nation http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,934195,00.html

10. September 11 families win £65 million in damages http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_778040.html?menu=news.waronterrorism

11. Bomb and Switch By Maureen Dowd The New York Times Wednesday 04 June 2003 http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060503I.shtml
12.Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S. From David Ensor CNN Washington Bureau Friday, March 14, 2003 Posted: 10:43 PM EST (0343 GMT)
Friday, March 14, 2003 Posted: 10:43 PM EST (0343 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/

13. No 'Smoking Gun' By Jim Sciutto ABC News Sunday 30 March 2003 http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=3&num=320

14. The Beasley Law Firm http://www.tortlaw.com/sitedata/docs/JBJ%20personal.htm

http://www.interactorg.com/al_queda_link.htm

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
As if news reports that clearly contradict the SOTU assertions wasn't enough, here are some more annotaded footnotes of which you can ignore and call it a partisan ploy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
As for unconfirmed allegations? You mean troops inspecting the Ansar Al-Islam camp wasn't good enough for you? Call me silly but I think U.S. special forces carry more weight than you just saying something to the contrary and trying to convince me you're impartial.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
Again, in order to make your explanations work, I have to ignore experts who are there and go on the say so of yourself and the Administration. One of which has reason to lead me to think something other than what the AEA says.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
It was on your say-so that I was to beleive that everything else in the SOTU apart from the 16 words was justification enough to go to war. I present FACTS from credible news reports as well as from admittedly partisan sites that do a good job documenting and countering in their own right with sources and statements that contradict every last thing Bush declared as fact and you get mad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
Again, to side with you is to go on faith and beleive everyone is out to "get Bush" while ingnoring news reports. To bring them up is because I take 'glee' in attacking Bush. To defend him after reports to the contrary surface is because someone has to defend the 'unfair' partisan attacks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
Bush made these statements in the SOTU adress. My last post had numerous sites of legitamite news sources that debunked those statements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
If that isn't good enough for you, oh well. You're the one who brought up that the SOTU address had MANY justifications for war. Most if not all which have fallen through as new justifications are concocted and old ones are debunked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:

quote:

---

originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

I, too want to know at any time if my government (Democrat or Republican) has acted unjustly, and would accept the proof of that with anger and sadness.
In contrast to that, your absolute glee at urinating on the integrity of the Bush administration really rubs me the wrong way.

---

I highly doubt you really want this. Rather the fact that I don't nod my head and say "uh..ok" is what rubs you the wrong way. Alternative perspectives? What good would that do? The time for alternatives was before we attacked Iraq. Now we're stuck there for better or worse. And even if we are there regardless, that doesn't make asking why that is so any less neccessary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
But just continue to call EVIDENCE, "allegation" thus quickly discrediting it. I'll just continue to respectfully disagree loudly and proudly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
And allegation has been raining down on Republican Administrations for the past 20 years??? I thought we'd established that Iran/Contra was illegal and unconstitutional.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
Thank god you didn't say 30 years! I was going to ask if you think breaking into the oppositions headquarters in order to influence an election was all rumour too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
I'm going to post this because far from being partisans, this article concerns a lawsuit brought forth trying to establish a link between Iraq and Al queda. To your credit, the judge did find that Beasley had "shown, albeit barely ... that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida". The article does however present the other side as well.

[I cut the article, already previously posted above]

---

quote:

---

( from article posted by Whomod: )

All of this was reported in April of 2003. The lawsuit was not ruled on by Judge Baer until May 7, 2003. But because the finding of ricin and botulinum topped headlines, while the actual findings are still unknown, it is easy to see how the information was manipulated to win $104 million from a country where one out of four children born live weighs less than five pounds, promising short lives, illness and impaired development.

No one looked closely at the ‘evidence’ during the trial. Why should we? Saddam Hussein is evil, he needed to be removed from Iraq twelve years ago. Even if the whole war turns out to be built upon a sandy, unstable foundation of lies, the Iraqi people are better off without him. Even if he didn’t give material aid to al-Queda, we all know he cheered when the twin towers fell. So let’s take the fortune that built him palaces away from him and give it to the victims of September 11.

Professor of International Law and CBS News Analyst Pamela Falk said, “There may be payments in this because of the Iraqi money, but it really puts the Bush administration in a position where they have to decide where the assets that are already in the United States, if they go to the victims, or go back to the Iraq people.”6

And there is the crux of the matter. Push aside the fact that the al-Queda/Iraqi link is tenuous at best. The Administration wants to concentrate on the welfare of the Iraqi people instead of explaining the disappearance of 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents and the design for a nuclear weapon Bush claimed Hussein had in his State of the Union Address (1-28-03).

Concern for the Iraqi people. Bush claims he has freed them and now wants to place Iraq’s oil wealth into their hands. So what about the $104 million they owe two of our dead citizens? How many children should we starve and under-medicate so we are satisfied that somebody other than our own elected government officials pay for the September 11 tragedy?

Really though, when you think about it, $104 million isn’t a lot of money. We took $74.7 billion from the one-paycheck-away-from-homelessness working class in this country to fund the invasion.

One trillion, now that’s a lot of money. It is also the amount of the civil lawsuit filed by Kreindler and Kreindler L.L.P. against a laundry list of offenders, including the country of Iraq, considered accountable for the September 11 deaths.3 The evidence against Iraq will be much of the same that Beasley used in his victory.6

Will the future judge of this case reach a conclusion similar to that of Judge Baer who ended the trial stating, that Beasley had "shown, albeit barely ... that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida" or will it topple from the weight of self contradiction?

---

quote:

---

producing satellite photos of alleged chemical-weapons sites (that on-the-spot investigations proved to have no chemical weapons)

---

quote:

---

The idea of an alliance between Al Qaeda and Iraq was unlikely, since Osama bin Laden's hatred for the "infidel" regime of Saddam Hussein was long-standing and well-known before September 11. Much of the public speculation about a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq was based on an alleged meeting between 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence officials that supposedly took place in Prague, Czech Republic between the dates of April 8 and 11, 2001.

Reports of this meeting first came from Czech officials in October 2001, during the period of intense speculation that followed the terrorist attacks. According to Czech Republic's interior minister, Atta had met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, a second consul at the Iraqi Embassy. According to Czech intelligence, however, the factual basis for the story was thin from the beginning. Its sole source was a single Arab émigré, who came forward with the information only after 9/11, when photographs of Atta appeared in the local press. As the New York Times reported in December 2001, the story may have been simply a case of mistaken identity, since al-Ani "had a business selling cars and met frequently with a used car dealer from Germany who bore a striking resemblance to Mr. Atta."

The story was thoroughly investigated by the FBI in the United States. "We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on," FBI Director Robert Mueller said in an April 2002 speech in San Francisco. The records revealed that Atta was in Virginia Beach, Virginia in early April, during the time he supposedly met al-Ani in Prague.

---

quote:

---

After conducting his own separate investigations, Czech Republic president Vaclav Havel laid the story to rest. The Times reported in 2002 that Havel "has quietly told the White House he has concluded that there is no evidence to confirm earlier reports that Mohammed Atta, the leader in the Sept. 11 attacks, met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague." Havel did this quietly "to avoid embarrassing" the other Czech officials who had previously given credibility to the story. "Today, other Czech officials say they have no evidence that Mr. Atta was even in the country in April 2001," the Times reported.

Despite the lack of any credible evidence that the Atta-Iraq meeting ever occurred, Bush administration officials continued to promote the rumor, playing a delicate game of not-quite-lying insinuations. In February 2002, for example, San Francisco Chronicle reporter Robert Collier interviewed Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a leading advocate of war with Iraq. "Have you seen any convincing evidence to link Iraq to Al Qaeda or its international network?" Collier asked.

"A lot of this stuff is classified and I really can't get into discussing it," Wolfowitz said, adding, "We also know that there are things that haven't been explained ... like the meeting of Mohammed Atta with Iraqi officials in Prague. It just comes back to the fact that-"

"Which now is alleged, right?" Collier said. "There is some doubt to that?"

"Now this gets you into classified areas again," Wolfowitz replied. "I think the point which I do think is fundamental, is that, the premise of your question seems to be, we wait for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I think the premise of a policy has to be we can't afford to wait for proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

Wolfowitz's performance typifies the administration's handling of the Atta-in-Prague story. Using vague references to "classified" information, he avoided specifics, while dismissing requests for actual proof as the bureaucratic concern of overly legalistic pencil-pushers. The pattern continued throughout a variety of subsequent pronouncements:

* In May 2002, William Safire, the conservative New York Times columnist and Iraq war hawk, cited an unnamed "senior Bush administration official" who told him, "You cannot say the Czech report about a meeting in 2001 between Atta and the Iraqi is discredited or disproven in any way. The Czechs stand by it and we're still in the process of pursuing it and sorting out the timing and venue."

* In July 2002, Donald Rumsfeld told a news conference that Iraq had "a relationship" with Al Qaeda but declined to be more specific. The following month, the Los Angeles Times reported an interview with yet another unnamed "senior Bush administration official" who said evidence of an Atta meeting in Prague "holds up," adding, "We're going to talk more about this case."

* In September 2002, defense department advisor Richard Perle was quoted in an Italian business publication, saying that Atta met personally with Saddam Hussein himself. "Mohammed Atta met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad prior to September 11," Perle said. "We have proof of that, and we are sure he wasn't just there for a holiday." (Since then, nothing whatsoever has been heard about the alleged "proof.")

* On September 8, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney was interviewed on Meet the Press. "There has been reporting," he said, "that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center."

* "We know that Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy," Bush himself said in an October 7, 2002 speech to the nation. In the same speech, he also mentioned "one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year." However, he did not mention that the terrorist in question, Abu Musab Zarqawi, was no longer in Iraq and that there was no hard evidence Hussein's government knew he was there or had contact with him. At an election campaign rally a week later, Bush said that Saddam was, "a man who, in my judgment, would like to use Al Qaeda as a forward army."

The Atta-in-Prague story acquired solidity in the minds of the public through sheer repetition. Each new whisper from a Bush team insider yielded a fresh harvest of newspaper editorials, I-told-you-so's and speculation on the Internet. Simply by mentioning Iraq and Al Qaeda together in the same sentence, over and over, the message got through. Where there is smoke, people were led to believe, there must be fire. But actually, there was only smoke.

From: Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq (Tarcher/Penguin).
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1585422762/counterpunchmaga

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:

But what about the special forces troops at the Ansar Al-Islam camp, Dave?
the FBI invesigated this and had the rental car receipts to disprove the Atta/Prauge link. Mueller said as much in April 2002! And yet despite having the "the best intelligence available at the time, and not a 'lie' as liberals allege." the Administration stil kept at it! Ok, assume that Mueller just found out right there and then in April about the car recipts rather than simply debunking the Atta/Prauge link in a speech that month. Let me now highlight the dates of Bush Administration oficials making public statements still linking Iraq to 9/11 )

---

quote:

---

From: Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq (Tarcher/Penguin).
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1585422762/counterpunchmaga [/QB

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Whomod:
[QB]
It's already been stated that hours after the 2nd airliner hit the WTC, Rumsfeld was calling for a link that would tie Iraq to 9/11 as to justify an already prexsisting desire for just such a war. I know, you don't care. it's all 'Bush hating' lies.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Whomod:


You're right though, the Bush Administration doesn't lie. They're much too clever for that. Instead they misrepresent and lead you down the path to make wrong assumptions yourself. That is how you have 70% of the American public beleiving Sadaam was responsible for 9/11. I won't even go into the Bush SOTU adress where he doesn't link Sadaam to 9/11, he just uses iraq and 9/11 in the same sentences and paragraphs so he won't have to lie to get you to ASSume the link exists.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Whomod:

The whole thing finally blew up in their faces way back on page 7 (9/17/03) if you recall when Cheney went on meet the Press one time too often to try to insinuate the Sadaam 9/11 link and was finally called on it. If you remeber, that week EVERYONE from Bush on down had to declare that there was no proof Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

---

• Bush said there was NO PROOF of a Saddam Hussein/al Qaida link.
• Cheney said there was NO PROOF, BUT PLENTY OF CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE on which to STILL SUSPECT a Saddam Hussein/al Qaida link.

quote:

---

originally posted by Whomod:

Do I "misrepresent" because I hate or do I hate because they "misrepresent"?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Whomod:

But honestly Dave, whether you disagree with me or whether you think i'm a traitor or give comfort to the enemy or what have you, you have to admit this is a great source of both POV's and an invaluable source of info, timelines, and links from both extremes, yours and mine. I know I reference it on many occasions. I hope others do too.

---

quote:

---

What bugs me is that many of the Democrats who voted in September 2002 to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq, and who (as I quoted above, including Nancy Pelosi and Hilary Clinton) acknowledged the threat of Iraq, are now attacking Bush for self-serving reasons,

---

Hey I agree with you there. I used to have a great deal of respect for Kerrey mostly based on his Iran/Contra era work exposing the drug angle of the La Penca/CIA case. But his saying one thing regarding the Iraq war and voting another is one of the primary reasons I stopped supporting the guy.

And yes, I meant Rob's boards when I was talking about having a great source of info.

quote:

---

"It is pretty clear the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog," Rumsfeld wrote.

---

quote:

---

The media has "dumbed down" the issues and turned politics into an "us vs. them" sport.

The new look of politics appeals to people who like to watch sports on TV. Media pundits on talk shows give their opinions just like the pre-game shows on NFL gameday. People don't care about the details or the consequences of our government policies... that's not very entertaining plus there's no WINNER if we compromise. They just pick a team (Dems or Reps) and root for that team to win. The other side then becomes a piece of garbage to be destroyed in order to win.

The world is black and white, never grey.

---

quote:

---

October 27, 2003


THE NATION
Congress Presses White House for 9/11 Papers
Members of both parties say classified material is being withheld from the panel investigating the terrorist attacks. Legal action is threatened.

By Ken Silverstein, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — Key members of Congress from both parties blasted the Bush administration Sunday for refusing to turn over classified intelligence documents requested by the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), who co-wrote legislation that created the commission, issued a statement saying that the administration has "resisted this inquiry at every turn."

"After claiming they wanted to find the truth about Sept. 11, the Bush administration has resorted to secrecy, stonewalling and foot-dragging," the statement said. Lieberman, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, said that if the administration continued to refuse to turn over the documents, he would urge the commission to take it to court.

Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Sen. Charles Hagel (R-Neb.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence, also urged the administration to turn over the documents.

"Americans and our allies across the globe must have confidence in our leadership," Hagel said. "They must trust our processes, and that certainly includes our intelligence communities' results."

The 10-member bipartisan commission, which was created despite the initial objection of the Bush administration, has a May 27 deadline to issue its report. It is headed by Thomas H. Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey.

In a New York Times report on Sunday, Kean said that he was considering issuing a subpoena for documents that the White House had failed to turn over.

"There is some frustration that the negotiations have not yet been satisfactorily resolved," commission spokesman Al Felzenberg said Sunday in a telephone interview. "The commission hopes it can all be resolved within a few weeks at the latest."

Felzenberg declined to characterize the documents that the White House has refused to supply.

The White House has said that it is fully cooperating in the investigation and that it already has turned over more than 2 million pages of documents.

Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said that his committee has also had difficulty getting documents from the administration.

"We're going through some of the same problems — a lot of the documents that we've requested from the Department of Defense, from the White House and the National Security Agency, we do not yet have," he said on "Meet the Press."

Tensions between the commission and the executive branch have waxed and waned during recent months. On Oct. 15, the commission announced that it had unanimously voted to subpoena documents from the Federal Aviation Administration. It said the FAA had displayed "serious deficiencies in … production of critical documents."

"The FAA's delay has significantly impeded the progress of our investigation and undermined our confidence in the completeness of the FAA's production," said the statement issued by the commission, which is formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Some commission members had expressed fear that the White House is hoping to stall in turning over documents until the commission's mandate expires in May. Lieberman said that if that happens, he and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) would "go to the floor of the Senate" to extend the commission's term.

"President Bush may want to withhold the truth about Sept. 11, but the American people — and especially the victims' families — demand and deserve it," Lieberman said.

---

quote:

---

McCain said in the Republican Party's weekly radio address. "The military strikes he ordered against targets in Afghanistan and Sudan were appropriate. America's armed forces carried out their mission with skill and professionalism."

Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., who had sharply questioned the timing of the strikes given the controversy over Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, emerged from Friday's meeting softening his remarks. "There does appear to be credible evidence to suggest that targeting an Osama bin Laden terrorist training site was necessary," Coats said

---

Former envoys: Clinton gave Taliban evidence on bin Laden

Claim: The Clinton administration failed to track down the perpetrators of several terrorist attacks against Americans.
Status: False.


Funny how I never hear Sean Hannity or OxyCotin Limbaugh mention ANY of this. Propaganda and bile? Yes. Actual facts? No.


Here is your definative proof of action. And unsurprisingly stymied at every turn by the Republican Party who now claim it was in fact Clinton who did nothing. I had a stat with all the anti-terror legislation brought forth by the Clinton Administration. I beleive it was the most of any President. I'll se if I can find this..


The White House though certainly isn't giving cause for reassurance. I would think getting to the bottom of 9/11 would be something they'd want. As patriotic Americans that is.

Or who knows, Michael Moore may just be right about this as well...

I'm again reminded of a certain Time Magazine article published a few years ago that specifically charged the Bush Administration as arrogantly dismissing the concerns of the outgoing National security advisor Sandy Berger as he briefed his incoming counterpart Condaleeza Rice on Al Queda and their growing danger.

I just can't remeber the damn title of the story right now....

Definative proof of dismissing warnings is certainly something to hide.

BINGO!
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/

Yes, these are the things that come back to me as i'm in the dark laying in bed.

quote:

---

Still Waiting for the Euphoria
A poll among Iraqis indicates the Bush team was wrong in foreseeing a warm welcome for the occupiers.

By John Zogby
Five months after the end of the war, Americans remain deeply ambivalent over whether it was right or wrong to invade Iraq. In part, that's because it's still not clear whether we were, in fact, welcomed by the people we set out to liberate.

Most people know by now that the popularity of the United States has dramatically declined across the Arab world during the last half year. But how about in Iraq itself? Are Iraqis glad that we came? Do they see a brighter future ahead? Do they want us to stay and see them through this mess or do they want us to pack up and get out?

In August, I conducted the first serious public opinion survey of Iraqis since the end of the war, in hopes of getting answers to some of these questions.

Polling in Iraq is not easy for many reasons. People are scared, unused to free speech and often eager to give the answers they think you want to hear.

Unable to conduct a U.S.-style telephone survey, we instead sent out dozens of door-to-door interviewers to talk to women in their households and men in public places. Bowing to custom, women interviewed women and men interviewed men.

What would be a routine process in most countries was anything but in Iraq. Our teams of interviewers were caught in a crossfire in Ramadi during an attack on a military convoy. In Kirkuk, one of our supervisors was seized by Kurdish forces and was not released until several calls were made — and a bounty paid — to locals. Interviewers were detained several times in Basra, where they were also chased by an unidentified automobile. And checkpoints manned by armed soldiers were everywhere, making travel difficult.

We conducted 600 interviews in four metropolitan areas that we determined would give us the right cross section of the population: Basra (mainly Shiite), Ramadi, (near Baghdad and mainly Sunni), Kirkuk (Kurd and Turkmen), and Mosul (Sunni and Christian). Our results date from late August, but we have no reason to believe opinions have changed substantially since then.

What we found is that Iraqis, like people all around the world, hold nuanced views. They are glad to see Saddam Hussein gone — as shown by their desire to punish members of the old regime — but they don't really trust the Americans who drove him out.

They are intrigued by democracy but worry that it may not be compatible with their culture. They object to being occupied and are eager to take the reins of government themselves. But those in the minority are a little more nervous at the prospect of democracy than those in the majority.

Here are some specifics:

• Seven in 10 told us that Iraq would be a better country and that they themselves would be better off in five years.

• Only two in five (39%) said that "democracy can work in Iraq," while a majority (51%) agreed that "democracy is a Western way of doing things and will not work here." Shiites — who suffered the most under Hussein and who make up the majority in Iraq — are more evenly split about democracy (45%-46%), while Sunnis are far less favorable.

• Asked about the kind of government that would be best for Iraq, half of all respondents (49%) said they preferred "a democracy with elected representatives guided by Sharia (Islamic law)." Twenty-four percent prefer an "Islamic state ruled by clerics based on Sharia." Only one in five (21%) preferred a "secular democracy with elected representatives."

• Three out of five made it clear that they wanted Iraqis left alone to work out a government for themselves, while only one in three want the United States and Britain to "help make sure a fair government is set up." Two out of three Iraqis — and seven in 10 Sunnis — want U.S. and British forces out of Iraq in a year.

• Three out of four Iraqis want the leaders of Hussein's Baath Party punished. Osama bin Laden is viewed favorably by 36% and unfavorably by 47%.

• Half of all Iraqis interviewed say the United States will hurt Iraq over the next five years. Only 36% say the U.S. will help.

One thing is clear: The predicted euphoria of Iraqis has not materialized.

Months after the U.S. military victory, American policymakers and troops are left not only with the daunting task of nation-building and restoring the country's devastated infrastructure but also with having to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis who are not keen on the U.S. occupation.

Iraqis, like their fellow Arabs, feel victimized by a history of betrayal and humiliation at the hands of Western powers. It appears that U.S. policymakers overlooked or misread this sentiment.


John Zogby is president and chief executive officer of an independent polling company in Utica, N.Y., and Washington, D.C.
http://www.zogby.com/

---

quote:

---

Reflecting some sensitivity, Bush said it was not White House staff who put up a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the Abraham Lincoln during his May 1 appearance, adding it was the aircraft carrier's staff who hung the sign because the ship itself was concluding a long overseas mission.

Bush Says Americans Not Misled on Iraq Campaign

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
I just posted an article saying Clinton cut off cash to the Taliban regime.

Bush Gives Taliban $10 Million To Fight Opium

Now given the fact that Clinton did this, do you think it was then prudent for the following administration to give them 43 million?

---

• the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, that unsuccessfully tried to bring the towers down.
• Al Qaida training, and supply of weapons, to the rebels who killed U.S. Army Rangers in somalia in 1993, and dragged their bodies through the streets of Mogadishu.
• bombings of apartment buildings in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1995, housing U.S. military personnel.
• the simultaneous bombings of U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998.
  Clinton made a token show of U.S. military power by launching a few missiles at a very nomadic terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, but Clinton knew this would be ineffective, and Pentagon officials aadvised him (and I saw them interviewed about this on 60 Minutes, shortly after 9/11) and ground forces were needed to do the job right.
  But as always with Clinton, he would not risk a drop in popularity by subjecting U.S. soldiers to potential casualties, even though Clinton knew that ground forces were necessary, if he were to do the job right. Serving his own political interests and popularity, rather than the best interests of the nation, as usual.
  And as we all know, Bin Ladin's surviving that attack unscathed is what made him a legendary hero across the entire Muslim world.
• Bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen in late 1999, which Clinton likewise didn't respond to militarily, for fear of disrupting delicate peace negotiations, which were fruitless anyway.
  But the inaction against attacks just convinced al Qaida of U.S. cowardice and lack of commitment, and emboldened al Qaida to greater acts of terrorism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:

Given the fact that Osama basically ran the country, do you think perhaps some of that cash may have been used to fund the 9/11 plot?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:

I have to go back to that Time article where evidence is given that the Bush Administrations palatable disdain for anything Clinton contributed to their total dismissal of anything they had to say, including the threat of Al Queda. So serious was Berger about Al Queda that he insisted on a briefing on them to Condaleeza Rice which was pretty much ignored.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:

Or to put it another way. The WTC was bombed (the 1st time) with Clinton being in office only 18 days (I beleive). Did anyone blame Bush Ist?
No.
Have AM radio shills blamed Clinton for then doing nothing??
Yes.
Have they also blamed Clinton for the WTC tragedy?
yes. As often as they can.

---

quote:

---

The Cost of Empire


President Bush’s war policy marks the beginning of the end of America’s era of global dominance.


By Christopher Layne

The administration’s U-turn decision to ask for United Nations help in Iraq, and President George W. Bush’s request that Congress appropriate $87 billion to fund the occupation and reconstruction of that country send a very clear message: the administration’s Iraq policy is a fiasco. And a foreseeable one at that.

U.S. intelligence agencies predicted that American troops occupying Iraq would not be welcomed as liberators but would be resisted. A pre-invasion State Department report warned that the administration had the proverbial snowball’s chance of transforming Iraq into a Western-style democracy (a conclusion reinforced by a recent Zogby poll of Iraqis that found only 38 percent of Iraqis favor democracy, while 50 percent believe that “democracy is a western way of doing things and it will not work here”). Similarly, it was obvious that the administration’s go-it-alone hubris, combined with its sledgehammer diplomacy, would chill Washington’s relations with the other major powers and trigger a worldwide backlash of hostility toward the United States....

http://www.amconmag.com/10_06_03/cover.html

---

quote:

---

But there sure as hell was a bitter, slanderous and partisan attack on Bush in the wake of 9/11/2001.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JQ:
.

Quote:

---

originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

"I find the double standard of liberals and the liberal media an outrage."

---

I challenge you to back up the "vast left-wing" conspiracy ramblings with something more concrete.

---

quote:

---

Attack on U.S. Helicopter in Iraq Kills at Least 13

By Michael Georgy

BAISA, Iraq (Reuters) - Guerrillas shot down a U.S. Chinook helicopter as it flew toward Baghdad airport Sunday, killing at least 13 soldiers in the bloodiest single attack on occupying troops since Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was overthrown.


"Currently 13 soldiers are KIA (killed in action) and some 20 wounded," a U.S. Army spokesman told Reuters.


The crippled helicopter came down in farmland near the village of Baisa, south of the flashpoint town of Falluja, a stronghold of anti-U.S. resistance 32 miles west of Baghdad.


Several U.S. helicopters circled overhead and other helicopters and U.S. Humvees were parked around the wreckage.


The U.S. Army said the helicopter was one of two Chinook transport helicopters heading toward Baghdad airport carrying soldiers on a rest and recreation trip.


It said the helicopter, carrying around 30 people including five crew, had been "shot down by an unknown weapon."


Locals in Falluja said two surface-to-air missiles had been fired but that only one hit its target.


"There were two American helicopters. They fired a missile at one and missed, and then they hit the other, which crashed and caught fire," witness Dawoud Suleiman said.


Troops kept reporters back from the crash site as another military helicopter with a red cross sign on its side landed, sending up clouds of dust from the dry scrubland.


U.S. soldiers told journalists to leave the area and confiscated film from photographers at the scene.


Also in Falluja, residents said a convoy of U.S. soldiers in civilian vehicles was hit by a roadside bomb.


At least one U.S. vehicle was ablaze at the site of the attack and a crowd of jubilant Iraqis gathered round. Television pictures showed a gleeful Iraqi youth wearing a U.S. Army helmet.

---

quote:

---

October 31, 2003


THE WORLD
Report Ties Iraq, Afghan Contracts to Cronyism

From Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Companies that were awarded $8 billion in contracts to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan have been major campaign donors to President Bush, and their executives have had important political and military connections, according to a study released Thursday.

The study of more than 70 U.S. companies and individual contractors turned up more than $500,000 in donations to the president's 2000 campaign.

The report was released by the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based research organization that produces investigative articles on special interests and ethics in government. Its staff includes journalists and researchers.

The center concluded that most of the 10 largest contracts went to companies that employed former high-ranking government officials, or executives with close ties to members of Congress and even the agencies awarding their contracts.

Major contracts for Iraq and Afghanistan were awarded by the Bush administration without competitive bids, because agencies said competition would have taken too much time to meet urgent needs.

J. Edward Fox, an assistant administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development, took issue with aspects of the report.

He said: "The USAID inspector general's review of all Iraq contracts … has shown that all Iraq contracts to date have been done in compliance" with federal regulations.

The top contract recipient was the Halliburton subsidiary KBR, with more than $2.3 billion awarded to support the U.S. military and restore Iraq's oil industry.

Halliburton's no-bid contract for work in Iraq was extended this week.

The company was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney before he resigned to run with Bush in 2000. His office has said he has no current ties to the Houston-based company.

Bechtel was second with a $1-billion capital construction contract.

---

i'll just sit here and count the minutes until the outrage kicks in......


........


WARNING!!!!

HIGHLY IMMFLAMMATORY!!

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4115.htm

But it's damn good reporting!

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

Report: U.S. Offered Peace Deal Before War with Iraq

quote:

---

Rage erupts over profiteering clause
Iraq supplemental justified, says GOP
By Klaus Marre


A decision by the House Republicans to strip the Iraq supplemental bill of an anti-profiteering provision has outraged the Democrats.

Some Democrats have accused the White House of pulling the strings on the effort to nix the language.

“The White House and House GOP leadership didn’t want [the provision] in there,” charged Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), an author of the language.

The provision — included during the Senate Appropriations Committee markup with unanimous support but removed in conference — would have subjected those who deliberately defrauded the United States or Iraq to jail terms of up to 20 years and costly fines............

http://www.hillnews.com/news/110503/profiteering.aspx

---

The Army Corps of Engineers is "likely" to cancel the no-bid contract extension granted a week ago to Halliburton for delivery of oil-related services amid allegations that Halliburton is overcharging the federal government to import oil into Iraq. The decision to revisit the contract extension comes in part due to the assertions from inside the Pentagon that Halliburton's price for imported gasoline was "at least double what it should be".

Jeffrey Jones, the Director of the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), told minority staff of the House Government Reform Committee that it costs the DESC $1.08 to $1.19 to buy and import fuel via truck into Iraq - a price that's less than half the $2.65 Halliburton is charging the US government.2

Congress has been critical of the no-bid contract - valued at up to $7 billion, since it was awarded to VP Cheney's former employer, Halliburton. Questioned about the secretive no-bid process in April, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "the criteria should be followed by the contracting agencies. The White House does not get involved or dictate to agencies on how to award contracts."3 But President Bush signed an executive order within a month of taking office setting terms for executive agency contracting processes, a process the White House said should strive for "the highest quality at the best price to ensure that government is a responsible steward of the American people's hard-earned tax dollars."4

Scrutiny of the Halliburton contract has become more intense since Congress passed the President's emergency request for $87 billion. Stripped from the final bill, at White House insistence, say Senate Democrats, was a provision to subject those who deliberately defrauded the United States or Iraq to jail terms of up to 20 years and costly fines.5

Sources:
Letter from Rep. Henry Waxman and Rep. John Dingell to Lt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 11/5/03.
ibid.
White House Press Briefing, 4/11/03.
"The President's Small Business Agenda," Whitehouse.gov; http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/smallbusiness/taxpayer.html.
"Rage erupts over profiteering clause," The Hill, 11/5/03.

In related news..

U.S. Black Hawk Crashes in Iraq; at Least 4 Killed

The ambush brought to at least 140 the number of U.S. soldiers killed in action since Washington declared major combat over on May 1 -- more than the 114 killed during the invasion in March and April.

Bring them on.

quote:

---

the provision would have subjected those who deliberately defrauded the United States or Iraq to jail terms of up to 20 years and costly fines.

---

quote:

---

GWEN IFILL: ... I'm wondering about your thought about whether there should be greater transparency on these matters


MAJ. GEN. PATRICK KELLY [ military commander of U.S. reconstruction of Kuwait in 1991 ]:
I just do not have the same personal conflict that Mr. Lewis has, because I know about the integrity, and I know exactly how contracts are procured. And there's a contracting officer in the case of the corps of engineers who is even independent of the commander. And they are not going to select a contractor on someone's advice or someone's demand because they know they'll go to jail. That's illegal, and it's unlawful. And they won't do it.

---

quote:

---

CHARLES LEWIS [ executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative research organization ]:
I mean, because this is the first look at contracts in two countries and it took six months to try to get even a piece of that picture, we are not able to answer about the work being done it's too soon. As you may know the General Accounting Office is doing an investigation that's going to take at least a year to answer the question you just asked. But I'm not trying to harp on the transparency issue, but [on Iraqi reconstruction contractor ] Kellogg, Brown and Root, we are actually suing the Army Corps of Engineers, the wonderful group that we've just heard about, they released one work order out of 31 about that company, the Army Corps I'm talking about, they were unresponsive to the public about that. I have a problem. Why should the public not know how their money is being spent? It's that simple. And the fact is there has been contracting fraud over the years. We have profiles of 71 companies on our Web site of individuals that got contracts, and I would guess one or two dozen have had contracting fraud problems, and they've still gotten the contracts.

GWEN IFILL: General Kelly, you have time for a final comment.

MAJ. GEN. PATRICK KELLY: Yes. When I went into Kuwait, one of the first things I did, I made sure that we had an independent auditor agency accompanying us to Kuwait, which was the Defense Contract Audit Agency. We only had one. I understand in Iraq for most of the contracts over there they have not only the Defense Contract Audit Agency, they had the Army Audit Agency, and they have GAO [ General Accounting Office ], who is monitoring all of their contracts to ensure that there is no fraud or abuse, which is good. And that serves the public benefit.

---