posted on June 21, 2004 10:40:48 AM new
The wrong war
Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted: June 21, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
There exists \"no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.\"
There were contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq, but \"they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.\" In 1994, Baghdad rebuffed approaches from bin Laden to establish terrorist training camps inside Iraq. So the 9-11 Commission has concluded.
And so, with no weapons of mass destruction yet found after 18 months of searching, the second pillar of the president\'s case for war falls to earth. Iraq was an unnecessary war.
Yet, now we have 138,000 soldiers there, with casualties mounting, the cost rising and the hostility to America\'s presence growing. Every attack on U.S. troops or contractors – even when they involve Iraqi dead and wounded – seems to be cause for jubilation.
Yet, George Tenet of the CIA excepted, the men who told President Bush the war was necessary, that it would be a \"cakewalk,\" that the Iraqis would welcome us with candy and flowers and take to democracy like kids to ice cream are still in place, still in power
In his now-famous 2002 State of the Union, President Bush named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an \"axis of evil.\" He vowed that America would not allow any one of the three to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
In 2003, we attacked and invaded the only one of the three that did not have a secret nuclear program. And since that State of the Union, the other two have accelerated their programs to acquire the atomic weapons President Bush said they would not be permitted to have. At this point, the Bush Doctrine has to be judged a limited success.
Given the mess in Iraq, neither the American people nor the White House appear to have the desire or will to force an end to the Iranian or North Korean bomb programs. The Iranians, who are threatening to crash the Nuclear Club, are bristling with defiance. Tehran seems to have concluded that America has no stomach for another war.
Tehran may be right. But if North Korea already has an atomic bomb and Iran will not be stopped from acquiring one, what does a new world of 10 nuclear nations, six of them in Asia, mean for U.S. foreign policy? We had best begin to consider the possibility.
No nation that has acquired nuclear weapons has ever been invaded – for a reason. The strategic base camp for any Normandy, Inchon or Desert Storm invasion could be turned into an inferno in minutes by atomic weapons.
This suggests that in confronting a nuclear-armed North Korea or Iran, U.S. Army and Marine bases in South Korea and Kuwait, and U.S. naval bases on Okinawa and on the south shore of the Persian Gulf are becoming strategic hostages and not strategic assets.
Put bluntly, if Pyongyang and Tehran acquire atomic weapons, there are no more axis-of-evil nations with which we can risk war. For there is nothing to be gained from such a war to justify running the risk of nuclear retaliation on U.S. bases in Asia or the Middle East, or on Israel, an almost certain target in any war with Iran.
During the Cold War, both sides accepted outrages that might have been casus belli before atomic weapons. The United States did not use on Chinese armies in Korea overrunning our troops the weapons Truman unhesitantly used on Japanese cities. For Stalin, too, now had the bomb. Nor did we intervene to halt the massacre of Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956, or the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961. Carter\'s response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a wheat embargo and a boycott of the Moscow Olympics.
Moscow, too, was inhibited from taking action in Berlin, where it was strong, when the United States used tactical and theater superiority to force the Soviet missiles out of Cuba. And Moscow also failed to respond to Reagan\'s seizure of Grenada and aid to the Afghan resistance.
As they used to say in the West, \"God may have created all men, but it was Sam Colt who made them equal.\" Nuclear weapons are the great equalizers. They concentrate the mind of a statesman wonderfully. And with North Korea and Iran plodding along toward the building of these awful weapons – in blatant defiance of the Bush Doctrine – the president and Sen. Kerry should be thinking about the world that will exist in the next presidential term. For by the end of that term, Iran and North Korea could both be full-fledged members of our nuclear fraternity.
If they are, the idea of an American empire will become as outdated as the British Raj.
posted on June 21, 2004 11:01:49 AM new
"no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States."
Show me a link where Bush *EVER* stated that Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attack. He never claimed there was a link.
Saddam and TERRORISTS had cooperated, certainly. We know Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers to go into Israel. But he had nothing to do with 9/11, and Bush never claimed he did.
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on June 21, 2004 11:18:31 AM new
No, he just made sure to constantly mention Iraq & 9/11 in the same sentence, fostering the belief that the two were connected.
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on June 21, 2004 11:51:03 AM new
I doubt Israel will let Iran go nuclear. They just bought some jets that would be able to bomb Iran.
If it were up to me, I'd bomb Iran for 1 month or 1 year or 10 years, until they submit. No ground troops, just bomb the hell out of them. We don't know which buildings are their nuke labs, so level every building in Iran. North Korea should get the same treatment.
"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
posted on June 21, 2004 12:03:21 PM newShow me a link where Bush *EVER* stated that Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attack. He never claimed there was a link.
50% of the American people think Iraq worked with al Qaeda on the 9-11 attack.
Now how could they have gotten that idea ? From Clinton ? LMAO !!!
posted on June 21, 2004 12:04:16 PM new"Show me a link where Bush *EVER* stated that Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attack. He never claimed there was a link."
posted on June 21, 2004 12:27:21 PM new
"The Iranians, who are threatening to crash the Nuclear Club, are bristling with defiance. Tehran seems to have concluded that America has no stomach for another war."
Gee, I wonder how they got that idea? A few months ago they were running around trying to show the UN they wanted no part in the icky things. But at that time there were American troops kicking the palace doors in in Baghdad.
They were very cooperative then. Libya is everyone's friend and Syria has not been stirring up trouble in the Middle East.
I know the liberal line is that Libya, Iran and Syria saw the light and decided for the good of all mankind to ammend their ways, but few people are that stupid.
That's why "Iraq" had nothing really to do with Iraq. It is all about those American troops and their location.
"For there is nothing to be gained from such a war to justify running the risk of nuclear retaliation on U.S. bases in Asia or the Middle East, or on Israel, an almost certain target in any war with Iran."
Maybe it's not too late to surrender.
The "sane" nations of this planet cannot allow the "insane" nations of this planet to acquire these weapons AT ANY COST. Arm chair liberals who talk about peace, love, and tranquility and whose biggest worry is a little blood might splash on their shoes, will be shrieking in a world awash in blood.
Just imagine if a Shi'ite could do a lot better than a carbomb in taking out some Sunnis. Better dose up on the iodine if you let these ignorant savages get the bomb.
posted on June 21, 2004 12:41:39 PM new"I know the liberal line is that Libya, Iran and Syria saw the light and decided for the good of all mankind to ammend their ways, but few people are that stupid."
You mean Republicans, don't you Desquirrel? Liberals sure as heck don't think any of these countries have "seen the light" but the Right sure thinks they have, according to what's been posted here.
"Arm chair liberals who talk about peace, love, and tranquility and whose biggest worry is a little blood might splash on their shoes, will be shrieking in a world awash in blood."
I'm not sure what Liberals you're referring to, but the ones on this board aren't against war if there's an extremely good reason. Making up a whole wack of lies to promote war is inexcuseable. Liberals are against these LIES, especially ones that KILL SOLDIERS and INNOCENT PEOPLE for no good reason other than to promote more LIES.
posted on June 21, 2004 12:59:50 PM new
"50% of the American people think Iraq worked with al Qaeda on the 9-11 attack.
Now how could they have gotten that idea ? From Clinton ? LMAO !!! "
Liberal media bias and disinformation.
"You've gotta be kidding."
Nope. Show me the quote and/or source of when he said this. It never happened.
And since you guys are always posting long-winded rants from other sources, here's mine, from http://boortz.com/nuze/200406/06172004.html
Thursday, June 17, 2004
BIAS FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ... AGAIN.
We're starting to get some leaks about the contents of the 911 Commission report. Yesterday the Associated Press said that the report "bluntly contradicts" the Bush Administration's claims that Saddam Hussein was linked to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Now it is true that the 911 Commission report actually says that there was no evidence of a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. So ... what is my problem here? The problem is that the Bush administration never ... and I mean never made a claim that such a connection existed in the first place. In fact, George Bush has repeatedly said that there is no evidence that such a connection exists. This creates a bit of a question, then, about the AP story. How can the 911 Commission report "bluntly contradict" that claim that has never been made? There can be no "blunt contradiction" of a claim that has never been made. So, what did George Bush say? He said that there is no question that Saddam had Al Qaeda connections. The 911 Commission report, by the way, agrees.
CNN is no better than AP. This morning on CNN Bill Hemmer started the news story this way: "One of the original justifications for war in Iraq has been discredited by the 911 Commission." He then went on to relate the commission's findings of no Hussein connection with the 9/11 attacks. This is the same tact used by AP. Basing a story on a wholly false premise .. and doing so intentionally.
This is getting ridiculous. The writers and the editors know that Bush never claimed that Hussein had any connection with the actual terrorist attack. Someone at AP made a conscious decision to include that bogus "bluntly contradicts" line into the story because they knew that the end result would be unfavorable to President Bush. Simply put, the purpose of that line was to portray Bush as either a liar or ignorant. The person or persons responsible for the "bluntly contradicts" line knows that people -- voters -- will read the story and believe that Bush asserted that such a claim exists, and was wrong. This, my friends, is a prime example of pure unadulterated media bias at work.
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on June 21, 2004 01:09:33 PM new
The Iranians seem to be stirring the pot to give the North Koreans a reason to step in. Look for the British to invade Iran much as we did in Iraq.
Israel has limited resources that they deploy in a niggardly fashion. When they do deploy they don't let those resources be wasted.
_________________
You know...the best way to defeat a liberal is to let them speak.
posted on June 21, 2004 01:16:52 PM new
"the Right sure thinks they have, according to what's been posted here. "
They don't think they have seen the light, they know it's American troops that are effecting a change in attitude.
"aren't against war if there's an extremely good reason"
The "extremely good reason" is preventing these animals from acquiring weapons which have a 100% chance of being used.
The "lie" I'm most afraid of is Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time" lie. It is not odd that our staunchest supporters in the world today are Poles, Czechs, etc. Other countries have become rich and complacent but these peoples are more recent benefactors of the left's theories of the world.
There are worse things than war. Allowing renegade nations to destroy world economies will make a few hundred battle deaths seem insignificant to the devastation of world populations.
The only saving grace we have is the Israelis. They know they are doomed if the Arabs gain parity. They'll fight and lose half their population to save the other half.
posted on June 21, 2004 01:24:08 PM new
"Israel has limited resources that they deploy in a niggardly fashion."
That's a joke right? Israel is one of the world's largest military powers. With highly trained troops, huge mobile reserves that can be fielded almost immediately, and the best equipment in the world.
posted on June 21, 2004 01:29:12 PM new
June 20, 2004, 2:58PM
9/11 panel links Iraqi officer to al-Qaida
By PETER KAPLAN
Reuters News Service
WASHINGTON - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks has been given new evidence that "a very prominent member" of al-Qaida served as an officer in Saddam Hussein's militia, a panel member said today.
Republican commissioner John Lehman told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the new intelligence, if proven true, buttresses claims by the Bush administration of ties between Iraq and the militant network believed responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America.
Lehman said the information, contained in "captured documents," was obtained after the commission report was written that stated there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaida.
"Some of these documents indicate that (there was) at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al-Qaida," Lehman said.
"That still has to be confirmed, but the vice president (Dick Cheney) was right when he said that he may have things that we don't yet have," said Lehman, a former Navy secretary. "And we are now in the process of getting this latest intelligence."
Cheney and President Bush continued to insist that Iraq had ties to al-Qaida after the commission report issued last week found no evidence that Iraq collaborated with al-Qaida.
Lehman did not say whether the additional information was given to the commission in response to demands from the panel's chairman, Thomas Kean, and vice chairman, Lee Hamilton. The two called on Cheney late last week to turn over any intelligence reports that would support the White House's insistence.
The Bush administration has been accused by critics of using faulty intelligence about alleged weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi links to al-Qaida to push the nation to war.
Lehman said there was no evidence Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America. But he said the recent information about the Fedayeen officer [/b]"demonstrates the difficulty that we've had in this commission."[/b]
"We're under tremendous political pressures -- everything we come out with, one side or the other seizes on in this election year," Lehman said.
The conclusion of the commission staff report, released last Wednesday, contradicted Bush administration contentions before and after the U.S.-led war on Iraq. The president argued a connection with al-Qaida constituted an unacceptable threat to the United States.
Some officials, including Cheney, have suggested an Iraqi role in the Sept. 11 attacks carried out by al-Qaida. Bush later ruled out that possibility, but many Americans still believe it, and critics have accused the administration of misleading the public.
Bush's Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, said last week the president owed the American public "a fundamental explanation about why he rushed to war for a purpose it now turns out is not supported by the facts."
Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste told the NBC program he hoped Cheney would provide "on a current basis" information "with respect to the individual that John Lehman has talked about."
Ben-Veniste also claimed there was no political motivation behind the commission's conclusions.
"This was not an effort to discredit or modify someone else's statements," he said.
Recently translated documents captured by U.S. forces provide new evidence of a direct link between Saddam Hussein's regime and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.
Rosters of officers in Saddam's Fedayeen list Lt. Col. Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, who was present at the January 2000 al-Qaida "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9-11 attacks were planned, the Wall Street Journal
The Fedayeen was the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday, which was deployed to do much of the regime's dirty work.
The U.S. has never been sure Shakir was at the Kuala Lumpur meeting on behalf of Saddam's regime or whether he was an Iraqi Islamist on his own, the Journal notes.
The paper cautions, however, it is possible the Shakir listed on the rosters is not the Iraqi of the same name with proven al-Qaida connections.
But sources tell the Journal the authenticity of the three Fedayeen rosters is not in question. Coalition forces have found millions of documents that still are being sorted, translated and absorbed, the paper said.
Reported accounts of the al-Qaida planning summit said Shakir had a job at the Kuala Lumpur airport he obtained through an Iraqi intelligence agent at the Iraqi embassy.
Among the al-Qaida operatives in attendance were the two who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon – Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi – and Ramzi bin al Shibh, the operational planner of the 9-11 attacks.
Also in attendance was Tawfiz al Atash, a high-ranking Osama bin Laden lieutenant and mastermind of the USS Cole bombing.
Shakir left Malaysia four days after the summit finished, Jan. 13, 2000, then turned up in Qatar, where he was arrested Sept. 17, 2001, four days after the attacks.
A search uncovered phone numbers of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers' safe houses and contacts and information related to a 1995 al-Qaida plot to blow up a dozen commercial airliners over the Pacific.
But Shakir, inexplicably, was released after a brief detention and flew to Amman, Jordan, where he was arrested again. The Jordanians released him, however, with the OK of the CIA, after pressure from the Iraqis and Amensty International.
He was last seen returning to Baghdad.
Noting the volume of evidence, the Journal said, "One of the mysteries of postwar Iraq is why the Bush Administration and our $40-billion-a-year intelligence services haven't devoted more resources to probing the links between Saddam's regime and al-Qaida."
The current official U.S. intelligence conclusion is that Saddam's regime was not involved in supporting the Sept. 11 attacks.
A new book by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, "The Connection," puts together the evidence of Saddam's ties to al-Qaida.
"The Baathists killing U.S. soldiers are clearly working with al-Qaida now," the Journal says. "Saddam's files might show us how they linked up in the first place."
As Geostrategy-Direct reported, new evidence about a meeting in Prague between Sept. 11 plot leader Mohamed Atta and Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani has been uncovered. If confirmed, the meeting would indicate a role by Saddam's intelligence service in some level of support for the 9-11 plot.
The information supports other journalists who have uncovered a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida, including Jayna Davis, author of "The Third Terrorist: The Middle Eastern Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing."
In her book, Davis suggests the Sept. 11 attacks possibly could have been prevented if evidence of an Iraqi and al-Qaida link to the OKC bombing had been pursued.
Davis writes that in November 1997, Hussain Hashem Al-Hussaini – a former Iraqi Republican Guardsman whom multiple eyewitnesses identified as McVeigh's elusive accomplice, John Doe 2 – confided to his psychiatrist that he was anxious about his airport job because "if something were to happen there, I (Al-Hussaini) would be a suspect." At the time, Al-Hussaini was employed at Boston Logan International Airport, where two of the four 9-11 suicide hijackings originated.
She also reveals court records that suggest one of bombers Timothy McVeigh's and Terry Nichols's accused Middle Eastern handlers had foreknowledge of the 9-11 plot.
In addition, Davis discusses information she first uncovered eight years ago – that Nichols learned the macabre genius of terrorist bomb making under the training of Philippines-based al-Qaida explosives expert Ramzi Yousef, the convicted mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
In February, columnist and author Jonathan Schanzer wrote in the Weekly Standard of his meeting in a Kurdish prison with Abdul Rahman al-Shamari, who claims he worked for a man who was Saddam's envoy to al-Qaida.
In the interview, al-Shamari confirmed he was involved in assisting Ansar al Islam, an al-Qaida affiliate responsible for attacks against Kurdish and Western targets in northern Iraq. Weapons, "mostly mortar rounds," were supplied to the terrorists, the prisoner told Schanzer.
Besides weapons, al-Shamari says, Saddam's secret police, the Mukhabarat, helped the terror group financially "every month or two months."
In December, Geostrategy-Direct reported Iraqi officers interrogated by the United States and coalition officials said Saddam, through Saudi contacts, had invited al-Qaida insurgents to form suicide and other units to stop the U.S. military in March.
Saddam's contacts with al-Qaida, the officers told interrogators, preceded the Sept. 11 attacks. They said Saudi envoys arranged for al-Qaida insurgents to enter Iraq and begin training in camps around Baghdad.
The al-Qaida insurgents were trained at two camps – Nahrawan and Salman Pak – under the supervision of the Fedayeen Saddam.
Officers said the Salman Pak training included ways to hijack airplanes. Training was conducted under the supervision of an unidentified Iraqi general who is currently a police commander. They said many of the al-Qaida insurgents left Iraq after their training stint.
The London Telegraph reported in December the discovery of a secret memo to Saddam that gives details of a visit by Atta to Baghdad just weeks before the 9-11 attacks. Information obtained by Iraq's coalition goverment indicated Atta was trained in Baghdad by Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal.
"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaida," said Dr Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man presidential committee, according to the London paper.
"But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far," he said. "It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaida, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."
In November, the Weekly Standard reported a 16-page top secret government memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35634
said bin Laden and Saddam had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, as well as financial and logistical support, and may have included the bombing of the USS Cole and the Sept. 11 attacks.
posted on June 21, 2004 03:48:04 PM new
I'm a bit confused here. I can fully understand that Bush deceptively never claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11. He made every effort to throw Al Qaeda into just about every sentance for justification of war against Iraq, but as far as I have seen, no one can point to one occassion where Bush attempted to connect the two. There is no argument that the Bush Administration did in fact first feel it was Iraq however. I believe this was part of Rice's testimony. Bush has made it clear that our reasons for attacking Iraq was that Hussein was harboring terrorists, that Iraq has helped Al Q (not just communicated with them), and that Hussein was stockpiling WMDs, and was preparing to use radio controlled planes to carry chemical and biological weapons to be spread about the USA, etc.
Every Republican can try to hide behind the President and his convoluted tactics to dupe the United States into war, however, you have to admit that his claims of WMDs, and his most recent unveiling that he "only" claimed there were "conversations" between Iraq and Al Q are false as well. Read paragraph 15 of President Bush's speech from October 7, 2002 where he clearly claims, "Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
I would say that his claims that there was only conversational contact made would clearly contradict what he said in this speech. Iraq training Al Qaeda vs. Iraq having conversations with Al Qaeda are two different things altogether. I cannot wait to here a Republican argue this when it came directly from the mouth of Bush.
[ edited by rustygumbo on Jun 21, 2004 03:49 PM ]
posted on June 23, 2004 04:41:43 PM new
Bush insists there is a link between Iraq and Al-Qeada.
He also insists there is a link between Peter Parker and Spiderman.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
June is Gay Pride Month
------------------------------
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Change is constant. The history of mankind is about change. One set of beliefs is pushed aside by a new set. The old order is swept away by the new. If people become attached to the old order, they see their best interest in defending it. They become the losers. They become the old order and in turn are vulnerable. People who belong to the new order are winners.
James A Belaco & Ralph C. Stayer
posted on June 23, 2004 05:11:02 PM new
A career CIA officer claims in a new book that America is losing the war on terror, in part because of the invasion of Iraq, which, he says, distracted the United States from the war against terrorism and further fueled al-Qaida’s struggle against the United States. The author, who writes as “Anonymous,” is a 22-year veteran of the CIA and still works for the intelligence agency, which allowed him to publish the book after reviewing it for classified information.
In an interview with NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, he calls the U.S. war in Iraq a dream come true for Osama bin Laden, saying, “Bin Laden saw the invasion of Iraq as a Christmas gift he never thought he’d get.” By invading a country that’s regarded as the second holiest place in Islam, he asserts, the Bush administration inadvertently validated bin Laden’s assertions that the United States intends a holy war against Muslims.
In his book, titled "Imperial Hubris," he calls the Iraq invasion "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat,” arguing against the concept of pre-emptive war put forward by President Bush as justification for the Iraq war.
The book also argues that the U.S. focus on bin Laden as a terrorist is the wrong way to fight him and the wrong way to think of the foe. The real enemy, he asserts, is the radical form of Islam that bin Laden and his followers espouse. And he calls for escalating the level of violence in the war against al-Qaida.
Read the complete transcript of Andrea Mitchell’s interview with Anonymous below:
Andrea Mitchell: "What is your background? How many years were you, are you in the agency?"
Anonymous: "Well, I've been in the intelligence community for 22 years. My background is I was trained as a historian, British imperial history. But I've been here since 1982 and have had a very good career."
Mitchell: "Starting in 1996, the CIA decided to create a station devoted to Osama bin Laden. Why?"
Anonymous: "I think it was created because the intelligence community had turned up bits and pieces of information in multiple areas of the world, after the end of the Afghan war, that indicated bin Laden was involved in one way or another with various Islamist groups who were opposing the Egyptian government or the Saudi government, the Yemeni government. And it was decided to try to make a concerted effort against this individual, to see where it would lead, to see if he was either a spendthrift billionaire, or if he was a serious military-minded opponent of the United States. And that was, I think, the genesis of the effort."
Mitchell: "Now, you were placed in charge of this station, the first time that the CIA developed a station just devoted to a man, to a person, not to a country."
Anonymous: "That's what I understand, yes."
Mitchell: "You say in your new book that the United States is not making a dent in the war on terror against these foes. Why do you think so?"
Anonymous: "Well, I think we have made a dent in some areas. I think in the leadership, the first generation of al-Qaida leadership, we've made a — certainly made a dent. America's clandestine service has done a terrific job in that regard. But we are — we remain in a state of denial about the size of the organization we face, the multiple allies it has, and more importantly probably than anything, the genius of bin Laden that's behind the movement and the power of religion that motivates the movement. I think we are, for various reasons, loath to talk about the role of religion in this war. And it's not to criticize one religion or another, but bin Laden is motivated and his followers and his associates are motivated by what they believe their religion requires them to do. And until we accept that fact and stop identifying them as gangsters or terrorists or criminals, we're very much behind the curve. Their power will wax our costs in treasure, and blood will also wax."
Mitchell: "But isn't it a distortion of Islam, what they espouse? How can you say that this is the Muslim belief to attack us and to wage war against us?"
Anonymous: "I'm certainly not an expert and neither am I a Muslim. I think the appeal that bin Laden has across the Muslim — I indeed think he's probably the only heroic figure, the only leadership figure that exists in the Islamic world today, and he does so because he is defending Muslims, Islamic lands, Islamic resources. From his perspective it's very much a war against someone who is oppressing or killing Muslims.
"And the genius that lies behind it, because he's not a man who rants against our freedoms, our liberties, our voting, our — the fact that our women go to school. He's not the Ayatollah Khomeini; he really doesn't care about all those things. To think that he's trying to rob us of our liberties and freedom is, I think, a gross mistake. What he has done, his genius, is identify particular American foreign policies that are offensive to Muslims whether they support these martial actions or not — our support for Israel, our presence on the Arabian Peninsula, our activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, our support for governments that Muslims believe oppress Muslims, be it India, China, Russia, Uzbekistan. Bin Laden has focused the Muslim world on specific, tangible, visual American policies.
"And there seems to be very little opposition to him within the Muslim world, and that's why I think that our assumption that he distorts Islam is just that, it's analysis by assertion. I'm not sure it's quite accurate."
Mitchell: "Well, you say in your book that the reality is that there is a large and growing among the world's 1.3 billion Muslims against America, not because of a misunderstanding of America but because they understand our policies very well."
Anonymous: "That's exactly right. I certainly believe that, and I think the substantial amount of polling that's been done by the Pew Trust and by other very reputable pollsters in the Islamic world indicate that most of the Islamic world believes they know exactly what we're up to, and that's to deny the Palestinians a country, to make sure that oil flows at prices that may seem outrageous to the American consumer, but are not market prices in the Islamist's eyes, supporting Russia against Chechnya. I think very coolly bin Laden has focused them on substance rather than rhetoric. And his rhetoric is only powerful because that is the case. He's focused them on U.S. policies."
Mitchell: "You're saying that no amount of public diplomacy will reach the Muslim world and change their minds because they hate everything that we stand for."
Anonymous: "No, I don't think they hate everything that they — that we stand for. In fact, the same polls that show the depths of their hatred of our policies show a very strong affection for the traditional American sense of fair play, the idea of rule by law, the ability of people to educate their children. I think the mistake is made on our part to assume that they hate all those things. What they hate is the policy and the repercussions of that policy, whether it's in Israel or on the Arabian Peninsula. It's not a hatred of us as a society, it's a hatred of our policies."
Mitchell: "You call for some very tough actions here. You talk about escalating our war against them, and you say in your book that killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes. This killing must be a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure. You talk about civilian deaths. You talk about landmines. Is that really what we have come to in this war on terror?"
Anonymous: "I think we've come to the place where the military is about our only option. We have not really discussed the idea of why we're at war with what I think is an increasing number of Muslims. Which — it's very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel or to debate actions or policies that might result in more expensive energy. I don't think it's something that we wanted to do, but I think it's where we've arrived. We've arrived at the point where the only option is military. And quite frankly, in Iraq and in Afghanistan we've applied that military force with a certain daintiness that has not served our interests well.
Mitchell: "But in fact in your book you argue that we are waging half-failed wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan that have only further incited Osama bin Laden and his sympathizers."
Anonymous: "Well, I think we made no impression on them with our military might. We are unquestionably the strongest military power on earth. And in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our opponents rode out that war. I wrote in the book that if we give the military, you know, substantial credit for actions, probably 40,000 Taliban fighters went home with their guns in Afghanistan; probably 400,000 Iraqis went home with their guns in Iraq, all to fight another day. We seem to have a little bit of trouble distinguishing between winning a war and winning a battle. And I think —
Mitchell: "In other words, we're winning the battles but not the war."
Anonymous: "We're — yes, ma'am. We've won, we won quite a few battles and marvelously so, but we're fighting opponents that perceive tactical losses rather than strategic losses. And it's quite clear that these wars are half-started."
Mitchell: "You call the invasion of Iraq, ‘an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat.’ Why do you think so?"
Anonymous: "For several reasons. That was a passage cut from a larger passage where I describe my personal aversion to aggressive war, to the war started by the United States. And I tried to draw an analogy between our war against Mexico in the 19th century and just saying it is not part of the American character or our basic sense of decency to wage wars except in self-defense or preemption.
"The major problem with the Iraq war is that it distracted us from the war against terrorism. But more importantly, it allowed—it made us invade, or it caused us to invade a country that's the second holiest place in Islam. It's not really the same as the Russians invading Afghanistan in 1979. Afghanistan is an Islamic country, but it was far from the mainstream of world Islam.
"Iraq, however, for both Sunnis and Shias, is the second holiest place in the Islamic world. And to invade that country, on the face of it, is a great offense to Islam and an action which almost entirely validated bin Laden's assertions about what the United States intended vis-à-vis the Islamic world."
Mitchell: "But we were encouraged by many of Iraq's neighbors quietly saying, you know, go ahead and do it as long as you get Saddam, which we did."
Anonymous: "Yes, they certainly did. But you need to remember that, I think the neighbors of Saddam were afraid of Saddam. I'm not sure our goals were their goals in those countries."
Mitchell: "You believe that, you believe that al-Qaida is going to hit us again and harder, in this country?"
Anonymous: "I believe that's the case, yes."
Mitchell: "Why?"
Anonymous: "Well, they stay very much on message and on task. And although the line is not perfectly straight, bin Laden since 1996 has told us he will attack us periodically with incremental increases in the amount of destruction he causes. And he's been true to his word. Whether you start with Somalia and move on to the explosions in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, you take one step further to 1998 and two embassies that were destroyed in East Africa. The attack on the Cole in 2000, and then the attack on New York City and Washington in—"
Mitchell: "Since there has not been an attack on the homeland since 9/11 —"
Anonymous: "Yeah?"
Mitchell: "— doesn't that suggest that al-Qaida has either lost some of its ability to mobilize and/or that our homeland security has been improved?"
Anonymous: "Well, that might indeed be the case. I tend to think that's more analysis by assertion. The one thing these people have, bin Laden and his ilk, is tremendous patience. One huge failing of the American counterterrorist community throughout its existence has been the assumption that if someone hasn't attacked us in a while, they can't attack us. And I think that's where we are, the kind of mindset that if it hasn't happened, it's because they can't. I tend to think bin Laden will attack us when he wants to. He's an individual who has been very unmoved by external events. If there's a man who marches to his own drummer in terms of timing, it's certainly bin Laden and al-Qaida."
Mitchell: "Have we not managed, by capturing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other of his henchmen, have we not managed to get at al-Qaida and undermine his ability to attack?"
Anonymous: "There is no doubt that the clandestine service of the United States has staged stunning attacks against al-Qaida. I would say that damage that the clandestine service has inflicted on al-Qaida would have wiped out any other terrorist group that we've ever known of in the last 30 years, maybe longer. The point I would make is al-Qaida is not a terrorist group. It's more akin to an insurgent organization. It pays tremendous attention to succession, to leadership succession. Were all of those people that were killed or captured important? Absolutely. Did it hurt the organization? Of course it did. But there were successors waiting in the wings; there were understudies. The organization goes on.
"Just the other day in Saudi Arabia, the Saudis killed the man responsible for the, the kidnapping and murder of Mr. Johnson."
Mitchell: "Al-Moqrin?"
Anonymous: "Yes, Mr. Moqrin. And within hours of that, al-Qaida announced that Moqrin was indeed dead and named a successor. Part of the problem when we're judging success is looking at this group as if it is a gangster organization or a criminal organization or a traditional terrorist organization. It's none of those things. And just as the American army or any army in the West would have a backup to their leader in the field, so does al-Qaida. And it's an organization that replicates itself with tremendous dexterity and speed."
Mitchell: "Do you think bin Laden is still able to call the shots?"
Anonymous: "My own inclination, for what it's worth, is yes. He's in a country where he is, as Kipling would say, the little friend of all the world. He has no enemies in Afghanistan or most of Pakistan. He's been there for 20 years. For better or worse, he stood by the Afghans from the invasion in 1979 until today. I think he probably has an ability to elude us for the, for the foreseeable future."
Mitchell: "And why do you think the CIA has not been able to capture him, to find him?"
Anonymous: "As I wrote in the book, the intelligence community as a whole has been at war against bin Laden and al-Qaida with various degrees of commitment. I would go beyond that and say the Defense Department and the intelligence community, from my, from my personal experience as I've watched as a member of the intelligence community, the Directorate of Operations at the CIA has been, has turned in a performance that's nothing less than stellar. But it cannot do it all itself."
Mitchell: "Where is the falling down? Where is our effort falling down?"
Anonymous: "Part of it, I think, is again, as I wrote in the book, is the unwillingness of senior bureaucrats in the intelligence community to take the full truth, an unvarnished truth to the president, whether it's Mr. Bush or Mr. Clinton. I'm not sure that it's proper to blame al-Qaida's existence, continued existence or attacks on any elected official. I think the, the bureaucracy at the senior levels in the intelligence community is selective in what they take to the president. I think they are loath to describe the dire problem posed by bin Laden for a number of reasons. One of them is basically political correctness. It's not career-enhancing to try to engage in a, in a debate about religion and the role it plays in international affairs. And so we, we, we address bin Laden from the perspective of law enforcement, picking them off one at a time, arresting them, killing them. And I think that's a, the, the, the result of no one frankly discussing the size of the problem or the motivation behind the problem."
Mitchell: "And what do you think the size of the problem is, first?"
Anonymous: "I think the size of the problem is — I think the first step in understanding the problem is to try to divorce yourself from the emotions generated by bin Laden's activities and rhetoric and the activities and rhetoric of the people who agree with him, or support him. The decapitation of people, the flying into the World Trade Center, the destruction of the, of the Destroyer Cole raise emotions that they must raise among Americans. But they — when we respond to those in a law enforcement manner, in a manner that describes these men as, again, criminals or terrorists, we, we fail to understand the size of the organization that supports al-Qaida and the size of the organization that al-Qaida has bred for over 20 years. I think we also forget that it's a 20-year-old organization. It's an organization that has Muslims from every ethnic group in the world. It's extraordinary. It's a singular accomplishment on bin Laden's part to have created an organization where all those Muslims from different ethnic groups, different linguistic groups work together in a manner that's effective enough to take on the United States in a war. We watched the Palestinians for 50 years unable to agree amongst themselves — and they're all Palestinians.
"So that's one problem. The other is an analytic problem. If you're looking at a terrorist group, you don't put together an order of battle as you would for an army or an insurgency. And so you talk about taking down three-quarters of al-Qaida's leadership. Well, at the end of the day, what we, what we've done is take down three-quarters of the al-Qaida leadership we knew of on 11 September 2001. And if you take that as a measurable success, it is. But you don't know, first, how big the organization was you started to work against; and second, the assumption is that it's a static, sterile organization that doesn't grow. And the one thing we can be certain of is that the attack on Afghanistan by the United States and the continued occupation of Afghanistan has caused the number of volunteers going to al-Qaida in Afghanistan, and the amount of money going to al-Qaida in Afghanistan, to have increased, I would say, probably dramatically.
Mitchell: "What is George Tenet not telling George Bush?"
Anonymous: "I'm not in a position to tell you that. I'm in a position where I could tell you what I would like to tell the president."
Mitchell: "What would you like to tell the president?"
Anonymous: "I would like to tell the president, I think, and, and it's presumptuous of me, but I genuinely think that we have underestimated the scope of the enemy, the dedication of the enemy and the threat that it poses to the United States. I think someone should have gone to the president when the, when the discussion of going to Iraq was broached and have said, Mr. President, this is something that can only help Osama bin Laden. Whatever the danger posed by Saddam, whatever weapons he had, is almost irrelevant in that the boost it would give to al-Qaida was easily seen. And if that message wasn't delivered, then I think there was a mistake made. I also think that Mr. Lincoln's view that one war at a time is plenty is probably a good piece of guidance."
Mitchell: "Now, you told the 9/11 commission that there were people in the agency who basically ignored the advice of your unit, the Osama bin Laden station, because they thought you were a little over the top, a little too zealous."
Anonymous: "Yes. I think we, we were certainly convinced by late in 1996 that we had an organization that was militarily competent, that was structured in a way that made it very difficult to isolate and attack, in the sense that it was structured in 40 or 50 countries around the world…"
Mitchell: "Do you think, do you think that your advice was ignored? Did they, did the people within the CIA, the people in charge think that you were all exaggerating the threat of Osama bin Laden before 9/11?"
Anonymous: "I'm not sure if the people thought we were exaggerating so much as they just didn't take it very seriously at all. They thought that bin Laden was just one more terrorist on a list of terrorists. I really believe Mr. Tenet was the one person who did take it seriously almost from the start, but the rest of the senior leadership in much of the intelligence community, I think, did not take it seriously.
"But I think the most important failure was in the, in the years between 1996 and 2001, the failure to correct obvious dysfunctions within the intelligence community was what led in large part to no one being able to claim that the intelligence community did the best it could before 9/11. They were failures of cooperation, failures of leadership that were brought to the attention of the senior-most members of the intelligence community and to the attention of some people at the NSC. And whether or not they ever got to the people who could actually change things, to the, to the committees in the Congress or to the president, to our elected leaders, I'm not sure.
"I know for, for many years we told various members of the Congress and the executive branch that there was seamless cooperation between the FBI and the CIA. And from my seat and from — and admittedly, from a very small portion of the total relationship between those two organizations— I cannot imagine that in any way that could have been true."
Mitchell: "The CIA and the FBI weren't cooperating even though they were supposedly assigned together in the counterterrorism which you worked."
Anonymous: "From my — over my career in the intelligence community, the CIA is an organization that produces intelligence for the rest of the government. The idea that somehow we, somehow the CIA produced information and didn't share it is a, a, a shibboleth that, that receives wide repetition. In my experience, the flow of information out of CIA to the community is extraordinary.
"The people, as I understand it, the people who were placed in the terrorism components of the intelligence community from FBI or other U.S. government agencies were put there to ensure that the CIA did not become involved with domestic U.S. criminal prosecutions, looking at U.S. citizens— anything that was beyond our purview, our legal statutory responsibilities. And so they brought in officers from other agencies who, again, in my knowledge, read everything that a CIA officer would read. And their responsibility was to cull through that information and return it, as appropriate, to their own headquarters for use domestically, something that was, again, meant to ensure the rights, the privileges of American citizens. And rightly so.
"My biggest experience was that was not done. And I think if there is a failure in these various investigations of 9/11, it's, it lies in the fact that many members seconded to the counterterrorist arena did not perform the intermediary job they were assigned to perform."
Mitchell: "According to Steve Coll of the Washington Post and his book, the White House complained over the course of several years to George Tenet that you were too myopic in your approach to bin Laden. Do you want to respond to that?"
Anonymous: "Let me say that within the intelligence community there was a group of officers, mostly women, very young, who worked extraordinary hours, who gave up vacations, delayed operations, and ruined marriages because, by the fall of 1996, they had recognized the threat posed to the United States by bin Laden and al-Qaida and the rising tide of, of the resentment in the Islamic world directed against U.S. policies; and that those two factors— the lethality of bin Laden's organization and the increasing ire of Muslims against America who were coming together in a way that threatened the United States.
"I can't take any personal credit for identifying that. My role, to the extent I had one, was to bring forth the findings of those extraordinary officers and their extraordinary colleagues in the field."
Mitchell: "But what about the criticism that you were too myopic?
Anonymous: "‘Myopic’ is generally a term for ‘fanatic’ that's used by senior bureaucrats when you're delivering a message that they don't want to take to the White House. I genuinely don't believe that an elected official, whether it's the President of the United States or a congressman or a senator, would not want to hear the truth. My suspicion is that accusations of fanaticism or myopic focus came from senior bureaucrats at the White House rather than anyone else.
"But the book explains. And it's one guy's opinion. You need to take it for what it's worth. My own experience in the intelligence community for the past now almost 10 years on this particular issue is that the hard, hard truth has not been delivered to the elected officials. Certainly the truth that — as it is seen by the people who work the issue on a day-to-day basis has not been delivered — again, with the possible exception of, of Mr. Tenet, who, to his credit, recognized this early on, perhaps did not as much as he could to drive the community to address the issue."
Mitchell: "And what are you going to say to those who say that this is anti-American and that this is a really prejudiced approach? What do you say to those who say that your call for a war against Muslim people, is really only going to make the situation worse?"
Anonymous: "I wonder how much worse the situation can be, in the first instance. We continue to believe that somehow public diplomacy or words will affect the anger and hatred of Muslims. And I'm not advocating war as my choice. What I'm advocating is, in order to protect the United States, it is our only option. As long as we pursue the current policies we have, until we have a debate about those policies, there's not a lot we can do. We won't talk them out of their anger, we won't convince them we're an honest broker between the Israel and the Palestinians. We won't convince that we're not supporting tyrannies in the Arab world from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.
"It's the only option. It's not a good option; it's the only option. And I'm not saying we attack people who aren't attacking us. But in areas where we realize our enemies are, perhaps we have to be more aggressive."
Mitchell: "Even if it means civilian casualties?"
Anonymous: "That's the way war is. I've never really understood the idea that any American government, any American elected official is responsible for protecting civilians who are not Americans. My experience working against bin Laden was there was multiple occasions when we did not take advantage of an opportunity to solve the problem because we were afraid of killing a civilian, we were afraid of hitting a mosque with shrapnel, we were afraid of disrupting sales of arms overseas. Very seldom in my career have I ever heard anyone ask what happens if we don't do this.
My own opinion is we should err on the side of protecting Americans first. And if we make a mistake in that kind of action, I think the American people will accept that. It's — this is a matter of survival. This is not a nuisance anymore. No one wants to be bloodthirsty, but we're at a position in this war where we've cornered ourselves in many ways, to the point where only the military option is available to us. And if we don't use that, and we continue to pursue the policies we are pursuing, then it's a very dicey situation for America…that the war in Iraq was bin Laden's dream come true."
Mitchell: "You've said that you think the war in Iraq motivated bin Laden. What do you think the impact of the war in Iraq was on bin Laden?"
Anonymous: "Bin Laden, I think, and al-Qaida and other of America's enemies in the Islamic world certainly saw the invasion of Iraq as a, if you would, a Christmas gift they always wanted and never expected to get. It validated what they all said about American aggressiveness against Islam. It made us the occupiers of the second holiest place for Muslims in the world. In fact, now we are occupying, in the eyes of our opponents, we're occupying the two holiest places, Saudi Arabia, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and the Israelis are occupying the third, in Jerusalem. The reaction of the clerical community to our invasion of the Islamic clerical community to our invasion of Iraq was uniformly negative."
Mitchell: "So what, what is the war in Iraq to bin Laden?
Anonymous: "It is, I think, a proof of his thesis that America is malignantly inclined toward Muslims, that it is willing to attack a Muslim country that dares to defy it, that it is willing to do most anything to defend Israel. It's certainly viewed as an action which is meant to assist the Israeli state. It is in every way predictably, if you will, a godsend for those Muslims who believe as bin Laden does."
Mitchell: "It's a dream come true."
Anonymous: "If you're familiar with that wonderful Christmas movie, ‘The Christmas Story,’ at the end of the day, Ralphie getting his air rifle even though his mother was worried his eye would get shot out. It's a terrific gift."
Mitchell: "OK. Thank you very much."
Anonymous: "You're welcome.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
June is Gay Pride Month
------------------------------
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Change is constant. The history of mankind is about change. One set of beliefs is pushed aside by a new set. The old order is swept away by the new. If people become attached to the old order, they see their best interest in defending it. They become the losers. They become the old order and in turn are vulnerable. People who belong to the new order are winners.
James A Belaco & Ralph C. Stayer
posted on June 23, 2004 05:28:10 PM new
The way to fight terrorism is to have azero tolerance policy. Iraq was a supporter at one time or another of virtually EVERY Terrorist organization that exists. Whether with money, training, or just being a haven. This is not really in question since the 9/11 panel and virtually every government in the world has confirmed it, Putin being the latest. There is also no doubt from Putin's and others info that Iraq was seeking ways to get at us. The fact that say, Al Quaida moved to Afghanistan, etc is immaterial. The central problem is radical Islam centered in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc..
Most of these countries, with the exception of the Saudis have been cracking down. The Saudis have not, and have even supported terror on the "eat me last" principle. The monarchy is teetering in SA. Iraq was the perfect place to start. We couldn't, for example, take SA under the pretext of it's future collapse. But we are now in a position to deal with the collapse of SA as well as instill the idea that the other countries in the region must toe the line. We can lend support to Iranian moderates or use it as a chip against the clerics. We are also in position to protect the world's oil supply.
The move into Iraq was not retribution or pay back by the administration. It was a masterstoke of an opportunity we seized on when Hussein wouldn't cooperate with the UN sanctions. We have to thank god for Hussein. That foothold in the Middle East will yield amazing benefits in the fight against these savages.
posted on June 23, 2004 05:53:23 PM newThe way to fight terrorism is to have azero tolerance policy. Iraq was a supporter at one time or another of virtually EVERY Terrorist organization that exists
Zero tolerance? Sounds good to me. But we need to start right here at home. Over the past 40 years, our very own government has quite happily supported regimes like Iraq when it suits their purposes. They've forcibly kept dictators in power who terrorized their own people, as long as it serves their purposes. It's incredibly hypocritical of us to then turn around, point fingers, and shout that is a terrible regime that should be toppled when they no longer serve our needs.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on June 23, 2004 06:28:01 PM newIt was a masterstoke of an opportunity we seized on when Hussein wouldn't cooperate with the UN sanctions. We have to thank god for Hussein. That foothold in the Middle East will yield amazing benefits in the fight against these savages.
Iraq is a mess and a quagmire. Foothold ? We are hoping that we can tolerate whatever government takes hold after 6-30
posted on June 23, 2004 08:44:36 PM new
"our very own government has quite happily supported regimes like Iraq when it suits their purposes."
Works for me. If you recall, the Iranians invaded the American embassy and made hostages of the occupants. Aid to Hussein kept him occupied with mowing down invading Iranians instead of causing trouble elsewhere. In addition, the Iranians might have second thoughts about another embassy take-over. These are people to whom you cannot say, "careful, it's hot." They have to get 3rd degree burns.
posted on June 24, 2004 12:32:45 AM new
Invading Iraq was a gamble. Bush knew it might work or it might not. It's definitely worth a try. If democracy works in Iraq, Iran will surely topple. Then we can work on Syria and the rest. Democratization is Plan A. If Plan A doesn't work, then we move on to Plan B: carpet bombing.
"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
posted on June 24, 2004 06:24:21 AM new
Nothing "will work" in the middle east until we get a new president. The biggest sponsor of terrorism, Saudi Arabia, is a major partner in the Bush family business. We had more reason to invade Saudi Arabia under the "Bush doctrine" than any other country except Afghanistan. But since the Bush family fortune is tied to the Saudi Royal family as well as the bin Laden family, we will not touch Saudi Arabia.
It's funny how no one in the press has ever asked a member of the SA Royal family how they feel about a democracy in Iraq.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
June is Gay Pride Month
------------------------------
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Change is constant. The history of mankind is about change. One set of beliefs is pushed aside by a new set. The old order is swept away by the new. If people become attached to the old order, they see their best interest in defending it. They become the losers. They become the old order and in turn are vulnerable. People who belong to the new order are winners.
James A Belaco & Ralph C. Stayer
posted on June 24, 2004 10:54:25 AM new
Let's remember how well the war is going.....
89 Die and 318 Hurt in New Iraq Attacks
Updated 1:09 PM ET June 24, 2004
By HAMZA HENDAWI
BAQOUBA, Iraq (AP) - Insurgents launched coordinated attacks Thursday against police and government buildings across Sunni Muslim areas of Iraq less than a week before the handover of sovereignty. The strikes killed 89 people including, three American soldiers, and wounded 318 people, Iraqi and U.S. officials said.
Most of the deaths were in Mosul, where 44 people were killed and 216 injured in attacks that included a string of car bombs. Clashes also occurred in Baqouba, Ramadi, Baghdad and other areas.
The extent of the attacks was a clear sign of just how powerful the insurgency remains _ and could be the start of a new push to torpedo Wednesday's transfer of sovereignty to an interim transitional government.
Iraqi police, who have been entrusted to take a larger role in security after the handover, appeared outgunned and unable to hold positions in most of the cities under fire. American troops raced to offer support, using aircraft, tanks and helicopters to repel the guerrillas.
Saad al-Amely, an official at the Iraqi Health Ministry, said hospitals were flooded with the wounded.
posted on June 24, 2004 04:24:02 PM new
Reamond, did you notice how this thread dropped when the icky real life stuff was presented.
Now you know why freedom of the press is suppressed by bush...like not "allowing" photos of incoming coffins of soldiers. He really, really doesn't want people to see what a war is REALLY about....dead people.
Makes you wonder why the neo-cons worry about the "liberal" press....with a dictator telling the press what it can and cannot print you'd think they had it made!
posted on June 25, 2004 02:42:13 PM new
Arab media network publishes bishop's apology
By Michelle Grattan
June 25, 2004
The website of the Arab media network al-Jazeera has picked up an article written by Anglican Bishop to the Australian Defence Force Tom Frame in which he conceded he had been mistaken about the Iraq war.
The article first appeared in The Melbourne Anglican and was published by The Age last Friday under the heading "Forgive me, I was wrong on Iraq".
The site's Europe and North American edition has Dr Frame's photograph as an insert within a picture of an injured child.
The caption says "Bishop Tom Frame seeks forgiveness for supporting his countries (sic) crusading efforts in Iraq."
The report, dated June 18 and headed "Bishop who supported Iraq war seeks forgiveness", said: "In a major U-turn the only Anglican bishop in Australia to have publicly endorsed the Australian Government's case for war, today conceded that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction."
The bishop had said Iraq did not pose a threat to either its near neighbours or the US and its allies and that it did not host or give material support to al-Qaeda or other terrorists groups.
"The bishop went on to mention the violation of human rights and abuse committed by the US occupation forces at Abu Ghraib prison," the report said.
"The bishop stated that he continues to seek God's forgiveness for his complicity in creating a world in which this sort of action (war in Iraq and abuses by occupation forces) was ever considered by anyone to be necessary."
Dr Frame said he had never said Australia was "crusading" and had believed the case the Government presented at the time, "and I was mistaken".
The item drew much reader response. Ibnu from Indonesia wrote: "Dr Tom Frame, I don't want to give forgiveness . . . can you tell your boss (aus pm) or bush or blair that they did big mistake." Another said: "I applaud this bishop for having the guts to say he got it wrong."
Dr Frame said he had received up to 70 emails, half praising his moral courage and half accusing him of having blood on his hands.
There had been a mixed reaction among military people but he had received nothing formally from the Defence Department.
He said he had not been critical of the Defence Force and did not think the troops should be brought home.
posted on June 25, 2004 02:58:31 PM new
Not that it will matter to the lefties here...but even the clinton administration saw/believed there were Iraqi and bin landen connections - at least twice that is documented.
