KIMMITT and SENOR (Fox) not quoted
Kimmitt: In Falluja, approximately 30 shooters were behind mosque wall. Troops sent 2 (500lb.) munitions at the wall, damaged wall but not mosque.
Kimmitt: Good plan to respond to Mahdi army, and will execute it.
Senor: Zarqawi wants to split country apart. Once turned over to Iraqis, makes it more difficult for Zarqawi.
Kimmitt: Some marriage of convenience between some of the groups.
May be working together in some small cases, not going to succeed.
Senor: Sistani a supporter. Sadr represents mob violence.
by Max
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Monday, April 05, 2004
SH
Saddam Hussein aided, supported, sheltered, protected. . .terrorists.
and:
Saddam Hussein is a Terrorist
Check out the link.
Saddam Hussein aided, supported, sheltered, protected. . .terrorists.
and:
Saddam Hussein is a Terrorist
Check out the link.
YOU HEAR THIS ALL THE TIME (poster at AM)
Not only does the Bush administration face enemies everywhere else but also within the United States as well. Millions, including people who voted for GW in 2000, virulently oppose this regime. As people, Iraqis and occupiers, die on a daily basis Americans are finally starting to see the reality of this horror, despite those who constantly tell us that the media only focuses on the negative and that Iraqis generally view the Americans as "liberators". A good portion of Americans believed that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and this falsehood was encouraged by Bush and his people. Now, as the 9/11 investigation gets more and more uncomfortable for Bush, those Americans are beginning to understand that the administration had an agenda, from the beginning, to invade Iraq no matter what.
I suppose anyone who reads this already knows about the 9/11 investigation, Condoleeza Rice's reluctance to testify,etc. This is only one of the thorns in the side of the Bush administration, but most of the problems revolve around Iraq...the daily body count, the money spent abroad while we in the states strruggle for decent health care, quality schools and just about every public service.
Why am I sharing American woes with you who should not, by all rights, give a damn? Because I am assuming that you want the Bush regime to fall as badly as I do, as badly as millions of Americans do and I hope you will count us among your friends and allies. Things are bad for George Bush here because people are slowly wising up, after all of the hideous decisions he has made here and abroad, and it is here in the United States that I believe he will be defeated, if only by a margin. I wish peace and love to you all,
Not only does the Bush administration face enemies everywhere else but also within the United States as well. Millions, including people who voted for GW in 2000, virulently oppose this regime. As people, Iraqis and occupiers, die on a daily basis Americans are finally starting to see the reality of this horror, despite those who constantly tell us that the media only focuses on the negative and that Iraqis generally view the Americans as "liberators". A good portion of Americans believed that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and this falsehood was encouraged by Bush and his people. Now, as the 9/11 investigation gets more and more uncomfortable for Bush, those Americans are beginning to understand that the administration had an agenda, from the beginning, to invade Iraq no matter what.
I suppose anyone who reads this already knows about the 9/11 investigation, Condoleeza Rice's reluctance to testify,etc. This is only one of the thorns in the side of the Bush administration, but most of the problems revolve around Iraq...the daily body count, the money spent abroad while we in the states strruggle for decent health care, quality schools and just about every public service.
Why am I sharing American woes with you who should not, by all rights, give a damn? Because I am assuming that you want the Bush regime to fall as badly as I do, as badly as millions of Americans do and I hope you will count us among your friends and allies. Things are bad for George Bush here because people are slowly wising up, after all of the hideous decisions he has made here and abroad, and it is here in the United States that I believe he will be defeated, if only by a margin. I wish peace and love to you all,
RESPONSE TO POSTERS (like the one above)
No one has declared this war over. America faces enemies without and within. The enemy does not want the election of a President willing to fight against them. Osama Bin Laden *would like* anyone else to be elected; Saddam Hussein *would have liked* anyone else who was elected. Al Qaeda reaped the benefits of the Spanish election. The bad want a liberal view, so they can continue with fewer obstacles.
It does not seem wise to give them what they want.
A “good portion of Americans” believe Saddam Hussein was a disgusting piece of garbage. In the early days after 9/11, the administration did suspect Saddam Hussein, and then stated clearly that they were backing off this contention, that they were no longer stating that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with it—-they had no concrete proof. It could not be legally proven; therefore, it was no longer stated. They said it several ways, several times. Did you listen; did you take the time to get it right?
As more evidence is revealed, the direction is toward Saddam and his connections with terrorism, Saddam and his connections with influence peddling, and Saddam and his underlings’ meetings with AQ underlings and OBL. There is testimony of a terrorist training camp which included foreigners and a plane—-at Salman Pak. Saddam was harboring terrorists—-not one, but several. Did you take the time to read? And there is more evidence now than there was at the start of the war.
The Executive Branch of government has no legal obligation to require the NSA to testify. Doing it would comprise the ability to freely discuss situations and solutions and would leave a President (any President) without the ability to openly discuss all opinions. Yet, Condoleeza Rice will be testifying before the Committee; and will be under oath, because the administration is willing to contribute to the information concerning the 9/11 with the proviso that this will not set a precedent. The President and Vice-President will be before the Committee, also. They have agreed to it under similar terms in an effort to provide as much information as possible. It’s important, and should be helpful, unless those on the Committee and watching choose to make political fodder out of it—and they will try.
The Constitution of the United States supports the separation of the three branches of government. Do you wish to subvert the Constitution in favor of political views? The choice belongs to the Executive Branch, not the political opposition.
You, for your own purposes, seek to undermine America. For Politics? For Peace? Because you are feeling seditious? We are at war, and you are not supporting the purpose of fighting Al Qaeda or the War in Iraq. It is war; it is fact; you do not support either.
There are people who realize that a President, less than 8 months in office, became the receiver of a mountain of problems. If a President could not head if off during 8 years, are you saying a President of 8 months could?
Why are you sharing American woes? Because you hope to influence against a sitting President; Because you wish to undermine what America is doing; Because you wish to moan and groan about the situation at home—when the situation in Iraq was devastating to the people. You compare smaller problems (which we can handle) to a people who were murdered systematically, tortured, shredded, and the attempt was made to rip their souls out. Do you wish their fate to be your fate? No, you just wish them to side with you for your own gain.
You wish “peace and love to”. ..”all.” Did you love Iraqis while they were oppressed, suppressed, murdered, and tortured? You loved yourself more (you seem to be saying.) Did you wave your sign “No Blood for Oil” giving Saddam a good phrase to use, a group to point to--an assist with his propaganda? Did you see that your country went to war to change a selfish, murderous regime and chant “Regime change in America?”
Did you wish the Spanish train-ravelers “peace?” The people of Halabja? Those of An Najaf, Al Hillah, and Basrah? Those in the mass graves? Many of those people now have the peace you offer. You can have ***selfish love***, and ***expensive peace.***
Bad will overpower good, because bad has no restrictions—-and all it takes is for good people to stand silently. The bad have no decision to make; they take the easy road, fall in with the brutes because it’s easier not to fight it. The good have many decisions and a huge fight.
I voted for GORE in 2000. I apologize for the error. I realize my mistake. I have “WISED-UP!”
No one has declared this war over. America faces enemies without and within. The enemy does not want the election of a President willing to fight against them. Osama Bin Laden *would like* anyone else to be elected; Saddam Hussein *would have liked* anyone else who was elected. Al Qaeda reaped the benefits of the Spanish election. The bad want a liberal view, so they can continue with fewer obstacles.
It does not seem wise to give them what they want.
A “good portion of Americans” believe Saddam Hussein was a disgusting piece of garbage. In the early days after 9/11, the administration did suspect Saddam Hussein, and then stated clearly that they were backing off this contention, that they were no longer stating that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with it—-they had no concrete proof. It could not be legally proven; therefore, it was no longer stated. They said it several ways, several times. Did you listen; did you take the time to get it right?
As more evidence is revealed, the direction is toward Saddam and his connections with terrorism, Saddam and his connections with influence peddling, and Saddam and his underlings’ meetings with AQ underlings and OBL. There is testimony of a terrorist training camp which included foreigners and a plane—-at Salman Pak. Saddam was harboring terrorists—-not one, but several. Did you take the time to read? And there is more evidence now than there was at the start of the war.
The Executive Branch of government has no legal obligation to require the NSA to testify. Doing it would comprise the ability to freely discuss situations and solutions and would leave a President (any President) without the ability to openly discuss all opinions. Yet, Condoleeza Rice will be testifying before the Committee; and will be under oath, because the administration is willing to contribute to the information concerning the 9/11 with the proviso that this will not set a precedent. The President and Vice-President will be before the Committee, also. They have agreed to it under similar terms in an effort to provide as much information as possible. It’s important, and should be helpful, unless those on the Committee and watching choose to make political fodder out of it—and they will try.
The Constitution of the United States supports the separation of the three branches of government. Do you wish to subvert the Constitution in favor of political views? The choice belongs to the Executive Branch, not the political opposition.
You, for your own purposes, seek to undermine America. For Politics? For Peace? Because you are feeling seditious? We are at war, and you are not supporting the purpose of fighting Al Qaeda or the War in Iraq. It is war; it is fact; you do not support either.
There are people who realize that a President, less than 8 months in office, became the receiver of a mountain of problems. If a President could not head if off during 8 years, are you saying a President of 8 months could?
Why are you sharing American woes? Because you hope to influence against a sitting President; Because you wish to undermine what America is doing; Because you wish to moan and groan about the situation at home—when the situation in Iraq was devastating to the people. You compare smaller problems (which we can handle) to a people who were murdered systematically, tortured, shredded, and the attempt was made to rip their souls out. Do you wish their fate to be your fate? No, you just wish them to side with you for your own gain.
You wish “peace and love to”. ..”all.” Did you love Iraqis while they were oppressed, suppressed, murdered, and tortured? You loved yourself more (you seem to be saying.) Did you wave your sign “No Blood for Oil” giving Saddam a good phrase to use, a group to point to--an assist with his propaganda? Did you see that your country went to war to change a selfish, murderous regime and chant “Regime change in America?”
Did you wish the Spanish train-ravelers “peace?” The people of Halabja? Those of An Najaf, Al Hillah, and Basrah? Those in the mass graves? Many of those people now have the peace you offer. You can have ***selfish love***, and ***expensive peace.***
Bad will overpower good, because bad has no restrictions—-and all it takes is for good people to stand silently. The bad have no decision to make; they take the easy road, fall in with the brutes because it’s easier not to fight it. The good have many decisions and a huge fight.
I voted for GORE in 2000. I apologize for the error. I realize my mistake. I have “WISED-UP!”
Sunday, April 04, 2004
YES, RAED,
WAR IS EXPENSIVE. Are you worth it? YES, you are.
You're scared by 100,000. Well, $1,000 means much to me. I don't talk in millions, billions are unimaginable, and tril...tril... Well, I can hardly talk about it.
Many of us are nickel-squeezing, penny-pinchers. This war was very important. Bush(41) didn't tell me, Clinton(42) didn't tell me, Bush(43) tried, but didn't get the message across very well (for whatever reason.)
Watching this develop told me; activities in the UN told me; 9/11 yelled it; terrorists bomb it into our brains. The next two decades are going to be very important to civilization--yours, mine, ours!
WAR IS EXPENSIVE. Are you worth it? YES, you are.
You're scared by 100,000. Well, $1,000 means much to me. I don't talk in millions, billions are unimaginable, and tril...tril... Well, I can hardly talk about it.
Many of us are nickel-squeezing, penny-pinchers. This war was very important. Bush(41) didn't tell me, Clinton(42) didn't tell me, Bush(43) tried, but didn't get the message across very well (for whatever reason.)
Watching this develop told me; activities in the UN told me; 9/11 yelled it; terrorists bomb it into our brains. The next two decades are going to be very important to civilization--yours, mine, ours!
KAY--
GRESHAM's Law: the BAD DRIVES OUT the GOOD.
It seems a variation of--all that's necessary for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing.
Why? Because the bad will stop at nothing, while the good will try to decide what to do based on moral and legal issues. The bad have few, to no, restrictions.
GRESHAM's Law: the BAD DRIVES OUT the GOOD.
It seems a variation of--all that's necessary for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing.
Why? Because the bad will stop at nothing, while the good will try to decide what to do based on moral and legal issues. The bad have few, to no, restrictions.
DR. DAVID KAY (C-SPAN)
This is paraphrasing as quickly as possible to get the general idea of the talk:
DK: Behavior remains same. Rationale changes. Domestic political control was a concern. Saddam was deathly afraid of his own citizens. He was concerned that Kurds and Shi’ia, would rise up and destroy his family. He feared the guys with guns, even if own guys. If he opened doors and unmasked society, it would be saying he was weak--giving in.
Interview military officers: all know we have them, but hadn’t seen them. Behavior appeared the same; rationale changed. Underlying intentions are the secrets to be discovered.
This is paraphrasing as quickly as possible to get the general idea of the talk:
DK: Behavior remains same. Rationale changes. Domestic political control was a concern. Saddam was deathly afraid of his own citizens. He was concerned that Kurds and Shi’ia, would rise up and destroy his family. He feared the guys with guns, even if own guys. If he opened doors and unmasked society, it would be saying he was weak--giving in.
Interview military officers: all know we have them, but hadn’t seen them. Behavior appeared the same; rationale changed. Underlying intentions are the secrets to be discovered.
PERSUASSION OR WAR
Make your choice. Sometimes, the only choice we have is between two options--neither of which we like.
We tried diplomacy with Iraq. We tried persuading Iraq. We listened to those who escaped Iraq. We tried U.N. sanctions on Iraq. We tried inspections in Iraq. We tried covert operations. We tried threatening Iraq.
Advocating the repeated failures would not produce success. It didn?t work for more than a decade. Inspections did not work. ISG is 3 to 4 times the size of U.N. inspection force and we still don?t know exactly what was going on while the light was off.
The longer it continued, the more dangerous it appeared to be. We don't know exactly how dangerous it was.....yet. We will know more; we may know enough (eventually) to make a decision about what had happened. We don't know whether or not we were really in time--even after one year.
If you don't believe the government was concerned about WMD, you must have missed the troops in chem gear--in the scorching sun, in the heat. If you don't believe we believed it, we have 1,000 Iraq Survey team members still trying to piece it together.
If nothing else, the world knows that Saddam can't control any WMD. . .now! The regime has been disarmed and dispersed. We would not have found out much in Saddam's Iraq; and while Saddam was in charge, the threat was there. We must have as many of the answers as possible.
Make your choice. Sometimes, the only choice we have is between two options--neither of which we like.
We tried diplomacy with Iraq. We tried persuading Iraq. We listened to those who escaped Iraq. We tried U.N. sanctions on Iraq. We tried inspections in Iraq. We tried covert operations. We tried threatening Iraq.
Advocating the repeated failures would not produce success. It didn?t work for more than a decade. Inspections did not work. ISG is 3 to 4 times the size of U.N. inspection force and we still don?t know exactly what was going on while the light was off.
The longer it continued, the more dangerous it appeared to be. We don't know exactly how dangerous it was.....yet. We will know more; we may know enough (eventually) to make a decision about what had happened. We don't know whether or not we were really in time--even after one year.
If you don't believe the government was concerned about WMD, you must have missed the troops in chem gear--in the scorching sun, in the heat. If you don't believe we believed it, we have 1,000 Iraq Survey team members still trying to piece it together.
If nothing else, the world knows that Saddam can't control any WMD. . .now! The regime has been disarmed and dispersed. We would not have found out much in Saddam's Iraq; and while Saddam was in charge, the threat was there. We must have as many of the answers as possible.
9/11 INV
This is hogwash. Political trappings are becoming obvious--each trying to trap the other. Wake up!
Where are the representatives of America who care about America more than they care about their own political party or personal gain? I'm looking for you and I don't see you. I'm hoping you are there; but, I'm losing hope.
You, the representatives of the people, have failed US (we the people and America.) No excuses are necessary, or will be enough. Clarke said it and you know it, but many don't say it. If you were a member of the administration, Congress, or in a position of responsibility for any of this, you didn't do enough. This includes the years from 1990 through 2004. You didn't do enough because it was NOT PREVENTED. This means each one--no excuses and no blame will erase it.
We always have to assign blame. Get on with it! Stop wasting your time and get to the meat of the issues. No one did enough, what do we do now?
This is hogwash. Political trappings are becoming obvious--each trying to trap the other. Wake up!
Where are the representatives of America who care about America more than they care about their own political party or personal gain? I'm looking for you and I don't see you. I'm hoping you are there; but, I'm losing hope.
You, the representatives of the people, have failed US (we the people and America.) No excuses are necessary, or will be enough. Clarke said it and you know it, but many don't say it. If you were a member of the administration, Congress, or in a position of responsibility for any of this, you didn't do enough. This includes the years from 1990 through 2004. You didn't do enough because it was NOT PREVENTED. This means each one--no excuses and no blame will erase it.
We always have to assign blame. Get on with it! Stop wasting your time and get to the meat of the issues. No one did enough, what do we do now?
IT DOESN"T MATTER?? (cmar-b)
The other countries might have thought Iraq maybe had some WMD, but they didn't invade Iraq. We might have thought they had some and we did invade. But all that doesn't matter. You don't really believe we invaded Iraq because of WMD, do you? And I hope you don't believe we invaded them to help out the Iraqi people... it's clear helping out oppressed peoples is not on the administrations to-do list (i.e. Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Haiti...).
Your hope is unrealistic; it is hopeless. Many did believe this. Did you watch the U.N. sessions? Almost all indicated they believed Iraq had WMD. The question was what action. Inspections were favored, first. At the time of UNSCR 1441, the decision was inspections, with severe consequences upon failure. Did anyone doubt what the consequences were? France didn’t; they were in favor of inspections; and, indicated a willingness to disarm Iraq. The problem came to full view as the muttering began about REGIME REMOVAL. Now, we know why.
Is it clear we don’t help oppressed peoples? Kosovo—troops still there? Liberia—we went there when we were in the MIDDLE OF A WAR because the U.N. requested? WWII—we declared war on Germany when we went to war with Japan?
We had many reasons to do this. Most of those reasons were stated UP FRONT. At the moment, the only thing which can be proven is that there are not huge stockpiles of WMD. The very important questions are. . .what happened, where did they go, and what was the overall plan?
From 1999 to 2002, Saddam was operating in the dark. Read the happenings throughout the first half of 1990, and tell me that Saddam was honorable, trustworthy, and open while he conducted his activities. Tell me that you would trust him.
The other countries might have thought Iraq maybe had some WMD, but they didn't invade Iraq. We might have thought they had some and we did invade. But all that doesn't matter. You don't really believe we invaded Iraq because of WMD, do you? And I hope you don't believe we invaded them to help out the Iraqi people... it's clear helping out oppressed peoples is not on the administrations to-do list (i.e. Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Haiti...).
Your hope is unrealistic; it is hopeless. Many did believe this. Did you watch the U.N. sessions? Almost all indicated they believed Iraq had WMD. The question was what action. Inspections were favored, first. At the time of UNSCR 1441, the decision was inspections, with severe consequences upon failure. Did anyone doubt what the consequences were? France didn’t; they were in favor of inspections; and, indicated a willingness to disarm Iraq. The problem came to full view as the muttering began about REGIME REMOVAL. Now, we know why.
Is it clear we don’t help oppressed peoples? Kosovo—troops still there? Liberia—we went there when we were in the MIDDLE OF A WAR because the U.N. requested? WWII—we declared war on Germany when we went to war with Japan?
We had many reasons to do this. Most of those reasons were stated UP FRONT. At the moment, the only thing which can be proven is that there are not huge stockpiles of WMD. The very important questions are. . .what happened, where did they go, and what was the overall plan?
From 1999 to 2002, Saddam was operating in the dark. Read the happenings throughout the first half of 1990, and tell me that Saddam was honorable, trustworthy, and open while he conducted his activities. Tell me that you would trust him.
JUST OR UNJUST
“I don't think a war designed to strengthen American Empire is just.” (cmar-ben)
What do you think of a war designed to disarm Iraq (it did), to strengthen democracy in the ME (it can), and to work toward *real* peace and fight against terrorism in the ME (it’s tough, but possible), and designed to change attitudes in the ME (it may happen) ??
“I don't think a war designed to strengthen American Empire is just.” (cmar-ben)
What do you think of a war designed to disarm Iraq (it did), to strengthen democracy in the ME (it can), and to work toward *real* peace and fight against terrorism in the ME (it’s tough, but possible), and designed to change attitudes in the ME (it may happen) ??
Saturday, April 03, 2004
POLITICS
It's everywhere, into everything. Office politics, local politics, political views at home, national politics, foreign politics; it permeates what you see, what you hear, how you live. It's the crap of life--both fertilizer and stench. It's an unpleasant fact of life.
War is politics, and the failure of diplomacy. But, if diplomacy is appeasement (rather than compromise) it will fail and there will eventually be war. We needed a viable ledge between the failure of diplomacy and war. The UN was designed to provide that ledge; it failed, too. The UN is also polluted with politics.
Not only polluted with politics, it appears the UN is in a QUAGMIRE, stuck in its own graft and corruption. Requesting transparency from the US, the United Nation will not reveal accounts, transactions, activities, and will investigate itself.
We are stuck with politics. Well, how about truth in politics. You lie during a campaign, your point score goes down. Could we find an independent, unbiased, (unable to be bribed) group of people who could keep score? HA, it's unlikely.
All we can do is try to find the lies, try to find the truth, try to battle the propaganda with the truth, and hope for the best.
Politics, for me, is the choice for the "lesser of two evils."
It's everywhere, into everything. Office politics, local politics, political views at home, national politics, foreign politics; it permeates what you see, what you hear, how you live. It's the crap of life--both fertilizer and stench. It's an unpleasant fact of life.
War is politics, and the failure of diplomacy. But, if diplomacy is appeasement (rather than compromise) it will fail and there will eventually be war. We needed a viable ledge between the failure of diplomacy and war. The UN was designed to provide that ledge; it failed, too. The UN is also polluted with politics.
Not only polluted with politics, it appears the UN is in a QUAGMIRE, stuck in its own graft and corruption. Requesting transparency from the US, the United Nation will not reveal accounts, transactions, activities, and will investigate itself.
We are stuck with politics. Well, how about truth in politics. You lie during a campaign, your point score goes down. Could we find an independent, unbiased, (unable to be bribed) group of people who could keep score? HA, it's unlikely.
All we can do is try to find the lies, try to find the truth, try to battle the propaganda with the truth, and hope for the best.
Politics, for me, is the choice for the "lesser of two evils."
PRO-AMERICAN
I feel lucky to enjoy the fruits of so many generations of Americans who fought to provide and to continue an idea, which even Benjamin Franklin was not convinced would last.
Our domestic policies do not always please me. Our previous foreign policies did not always please me. But. . .the idea and ideals of America please me. We must do better each day, each month, each year. We help to steer the huge boat and have to struggle to keep that boat moving forward, not backward. It's not easy; it is . . .worth it.
We will wobble, we will twist and turn on our path, we will work hard to make progress. . .we will try to be the best that we can be. It will not be easy; but, we will only lose when we cease to try.
I feel lucky to enjoy the fruits of so many generations of Americans who fought to provide and to continue an idea, which even Benjamin Franklin was not convinced would last.
Our domestic policies do not always please me. Our previous foreign policies did not always please me. But. . .the idea and ideals of America please me. We must do better each day, each month, each year. We help to steer the huge boat and have to struggle to keep that boat moving forward, not backward. It's not easy; it is . . .worth it.
We will wobble, we will twist and turn on our path, we will work hard to make progress. . .we will try to be the best that we can be. It will not be easy; but, we will only lose when we cease to try.
THOUGHT BIAS:
I am biased, and believe most people are, too. I'm PRO-AMERICAN, and do believe that much of the time our intentions are more good than bad.
There are people who would attempt to proof that ALL intentions the US ever had are BAD. Few people are ALL BAD. Few countries are ALL BAD. The world is not ALL BAD. OUR INTENTIONS WERE NOT ALL BAD and ARE NOT ALL BAD.
I am biased, and believe most people are, too. I'm PRO-AMERICAN, and do believe that much of the time our intentions are more good than bad.
There are people who would attempt to proof that ALL intentions the US ever had are BAD. Few people are ALL BAD. Few countries are ALL BAD. The world is not ALL BAD. OUR INTENTIONS WERE NOT ALL BAD and ARE NOT ALL BAD.
NEWSPAPERS: (comment post on CMAR)
Closing down newspapers advocating or inciting violence, against the Coalition and/or the Council, is a routine practice under the circumstances. This was not done early and for good reason. There was an opportunity for the newspaper to do better, to be less violent, to be more truthful. There was also time for the newspaper to put the rope around its neck and hang itself. It was not closed down permanently, but temporarily.
How many papers (of the 200) were closed down permanently?
Closing down newspapers advocating or inciting violence, against the Coalition and/or the Council, is a routine practice under the circumstances. This was not done early and for good reason. There was an opportunity for the newspaper to do better, to be less violent, to be more truthful. There was also time for the newspaper to put the rope around its neck and hang itself. It was not closed down permanently, but temporarily.
How many papers (of the 200) were closed down permanently?
RIVERBEND (CMAR comment post)
Canaria,
Riverbend’s blog is not an ordinary diary, thoughts to oneself—it is a propaganda vehicle, thousands read it, soon they may believe it as total truth. There is not contradictory comment, (or any alternative provided) there is constant drip, drip; and, it is that way for a reason. It looks very purposeful. The choices are Riverbend’s and what we say about it (and where we say) it is our choice.
There is a note of steady persuasion throughout; a phrase of anti-coalition peppered in; and the whole song is sung in Ba’athist Lefty. The song includes a chorus of poor me, life was better. You sing that song often enough, to people who wish to know what is happening there, and they will begin to like the tune—and repeat the tune. The left sings a similar song, some people don’t inspect the words, they just like the melody
Canaria,
Riverbend’s blog is not an ordinary diary, thoughts to oneself—it is a propaganda vehicle, thousands read it, soon they may believe it as total truth. There is not contradictory comment, (or any alternative provided) there is constant drip, drip; and, it is that way for a reason. It looks very purposeful. The choices are Riverbend’s and what we say about it (and where we say) it is our choice.
There is a note of steady persuasion throughout; a phrase of anti-coalition peppered in; and the whole song is sung in Ba’athist Lefty. The song includes a chorus of poor me, life was better. You sing that song often enough, to people who wish to know what is happening there, and they will begin to like the tune—and repeat the tune. The left sings a similar song, some people don’t inspect the words, they just like the melody
Friday, April 02, 2004
ANOTHER MOAB (verbal):
washingtonpost.com
ML: "The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."
In the same Washington Post Article is this:
Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.
**I don’t believe that the Washington Post or any other media outlet CAN PROVE this. There are several reasons for the belief. Saying that an administration *authorized* the sale requires documentary proof. It’s hard to get proof for something like this—so, it appears to be speculation with a bias. Records were sealed.
First, the article says “authorized the sale of”. . .”items”. . .”both military and civilian applications” (which are called “dual use”); then, it says in another paragraph . . . “effectively turned a blind eye to the export of ‘dual use’ items.”
“Authorized” sounds a lot like Ronnie and H.W. saying, “Hey Joe! Ship those canisters of mustard gas over to Iraq.” (Highly unlikely that ever happened.) No politician wants that “HOT POTATO!” So, I doubt any chemical warfare items were shipped to Iraq by US.
“Blind eye”; do they mean purposely didn’t notice; or, knew and didn’t care? Well, if you can prove that all administrations know everything, and the right hand ALWAYS knows what the left hand is doing, it isn’t very likely. Some administrations are better than others, some know more than others. Turning a “blind eye” is a biased statement, leading you to a conclusion the journalist and reporter would have great difficulty proving.
“Dual Use” is a red-herring—a useful tool for many sides. Items on this imaginary list could be extensive—almost anything you can imagine. It could include everything except milk, bread, and eggs—even eggs could contain bio-material.
NEXT IS:
WP-- "In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons"
THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH IS:
In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, a claim at odds with declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting with the Iraqi leader. A Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman, now says that Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz. The State Department notes show that he mentioned it largely in passing as one of several matters that "inhibited" U.S. efforts to assist Iraq.
**WP didn’t include the whole sentence, let alone the whole paragraph. The only quote in the paragraph was “cautioned.” Did the quotes mean that was the only word they quoted from Rumsfeld? It seems so; the rest of the paragraph is the author(s) opinion of the circumstances.
We were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible.
If you remember the climate of the times, few thought Saddam was going to be the “Iraqi Idol”, many thought about “guilt by association.” Few liked Saddam, and the public was not happy. There were frequent statements about the “balance of power” in the ME. The theory seemed to be: if one side has a pea-shooter, give the other side a pea-shooter to make it more even. They can beat on each other, and will eventually quit.
You see the world outrage at trying to change anything in the ME. It was as bad, or worse, then. Half the world yells “don’t touch it” you’ll make it worse; the other half yells, “do something!” Iraq’s losing the war would have shaped the ME in a much worse direction. Yes, “status-quo” was frequently used, it became a sentence. Anyone could yell “status quo” and most would know exactly what was meant.
washingtonpost.com
ML: "The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."
In the same Washington Post Article is this:
Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.
**I don’t believe that the Washington Post or any other media outlet CAN PROVE this. There are several reasons for the belief. Saying that an administration *authorized* the sale requires documentary proof. It’s hard to get proof for something like this—so, it appears to be speculation with a bias. Records were sealed.
First, the article says “authorized the sale of”. . .”items”. . .”both military and civilian applications” (which are called “dual use”); then, it says in another paragraph . . . “effectively turned a blind eye to the export of ‘dual use’ items.”
“Authorized” sounds a lot like Ronnie and H.W. saying, “Hey Joe! Ship those canisters of mustard gas over to Iraq.” (Highly unlikely that ever happened.) No politician wants that “HOT POTATO!” So, I doubt any chemical warfare items were shipped to Iraq by US.
“Blind eye”; do they mean purposely didn’t notice; or, knew and didn’t care? Well, if you can prove that all administrations know everything, and the right hand ALWAYS knows what the left hand is doing, it isn’t very likely. Some administrations are better than others, some know more than others. Turning a “blind eye” is a biased statement, leading you to a conclusion the journalist and reporter would have great difficulty proving.
“Dual Use” is a red-herring—a useful tool for many sides. Items on this imaginary list could be extensive—almost anything you can imagine. It could include everything except milk, bread, and eggs—even eggs could contain bio-material.
NEXT IS:
WP-- "In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons"
THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH IS:
In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, a claim at odds with declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting with the Iraqi leader. A Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman, now says that Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz. The State Department notes show that he mentioned it largely in passing as one of several matters that "inhibited" U.S. efforts to assist Iraq.
**WP didn’t include the whole sentence, let alone the whole paragraph. The only quote in the paragraph was “cautioned.” Did the quotes mean that was the only word they quoted from Rumsfeld? It seems so; the rest of the paragraph is the author(s) opinion of the circumstances.
We were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible.
If you remember the climate of the times, few thought Saddam was going to be the “Iraqi Idol”, many thought about “guilt by association.” Few liked Saddam, and the public was not happy. There were frequent statements about the “balance of power” in the ME. The theory seemed to be: if one side has a pea-shooter, give the other side a pea-shooter to make it more even. They can beat on each other, and will eventually quit.
You see the world outrage at trying to change anything in the ME. It was as bad, or worse, then. Half the world yells “don’t touch it” you’ll make it worse; the other half yells, “do something!” Iraq’s losing the war would have shaped the ME in a much worse direction. Yes, “status-quo” was frequently used, it became a sentence. Anyone could yell “status quo” and most would know exactly what was meant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)