True though that may be, I watched 60 Minutes last night and have to say that I believe Clarke -- for a few reasons. First, he's not the first ex-White House member to come out and accuse this admin of tampering with intelligence. If Tenent weren't fighting for his job right now, I would think we'd be hearing more out of him on this matter. Second, watching Clarke discuss these events and watching Bush discuss these events is incomparable. This is obviously a subjective observation, but I think Bush is a lying piece of smirking shit, and his agenda-ridden speeches are an embarassment to your country. Clarke may have some questionable motives behind writing a book with this level of emotion and with such interesting timing, but he appeared to be a man very frustrated by the events he witnessed.
I could concede that perhaps he 'misunderstood' some of these events, but he's not deliberately lying. Bush, flatly, is.
I could concede that perhaps he 'misunderstood' some of these events, but he's not deliberately lying. Bush, flatly, is.
Hiya X...this whole notion that sombody could have prevented 9/11 is absurd on both sides. i mean thats like somebody saying they should have prevented the bombings in Madrid.
The US has been lax in this area for 5 administrations...If your to aggressive your war *****ring and paranoid,if your to lax you were asleep at the wheel...its whoevers liar gets promoted the most...which is the reason for the post..proves the point of CBS real and transparent agenda.
Wait till this UN oil scam gets a head of steam...then you will see real blood for oil,and the transparency of that organization....finally.
The US has been lax in this area for 5 administrations...If your to aggressive your war *****ring and paranoid,if your to lax you were asleep at the wheel...its whoevers liar gets promoted the most...which is the reason for the post..proves the point of CBS real and transparent agenda.
Wait till this UN oil scam gets a head of steam...then you will see real blood for oil,and the transparency of that organization....finally.
Agreed. 'Stopping' 9/11 is a very bold assertion that no one should make (in fact, Clarke didn't actually make it -- he said 'maybe, maybe. We'll never know.') However, I am with Clarke when he claims that Rumsfeld et al were out and out looking to tie Iraq and 9/11 so they could sell a war to the people. This isn't 'after the fact' observing on my part ... I've been glued to this issue since early 2002 ... Bush and friends have been using the words 'Iraq' and 'terrorism' in the same sentences for a long time. No attempt has ever been made, in my recollection, to distinguish between the magnitude of one threat and the other.
9/11 could not have been prevented? Anyone ever answer why Fighter Jets were standing down that day and did not follow thru and do their job. It would have been in the hundreds that died instead of thousands. Plus the fact Iraq was a threat after the first war and a decade of devastating sanctions is LAUGHABLE.
I don't think there are too many people around who think Saddam deserves gummy bears and a promotion. But the fact remains that there are many other ways of taking a leader out without resorting to force. Arming the opposition, for example.
On a Canadian panelist/discussion show last night they were yammering about Saddam and the Iraq war (with an American guest -- a professor at the Brookings Institute) and it was noted that Saddam had not been a threat to his own people, never mind anyone outside of that country, for the last couple of years of his reign. In other words, the US-Uk sanctions had effectively drained Saddam of resources vital to maintaining that kind of control over his own people. Ousting him could have been possible at that point in time, without resorting to force. But it was never even attempted.
On a Canadian panelist/discussion show last night they were yammering about Saddam and the Iraq war (with an American guest -- a professor at the Brookings Institute) and it was noted that Saddam had not been a threat to his own people, never mind anyone outside of that country, for the last couple of years of his reign. In other words, the US-Uk sanctions had effectively drained Saddam of resources vital to maintaining that kind of control over his own people. Ousting him could have been possible at that point in time, without resorting to force. But it was never even attempted.
I'm not sure how that would have been accomplished.
Lets not forget how this guy is a known mass murderer and a liar..it was his lying that led to the war...It was he who was to come clean before the UN.
I'm always amused how all the people involved in the war are accused of being Hitler except for the guy with a mustache and is responsible for more muslim deaths in the history of the world....amazing.
Lets not forget how this guy is a known mass murderer and a liar..it was his lying that led to the war...It was he who was to come clean before the UN.
I'm always amused how all the people involved in the war are accused of being Hitler except for the guy with a mustache and is responsible for more muslim deaths in the history of the world....amazing.
"In other words, the US-Uk sanctions had effectively drained Saddam of resources vital to maintaining that kind of control over his own people. Ousting him could have been possible at that point in time, without resorting to force. But it was never even attempted."
I had to read this sentence 5 times and I still couldn't believe you really said. You can't possibly really believe this do you? If yes, your a lot more delusional than I thought. You may want to avoid operating heavy machinary.
I had to read this sentence 5 times and I still couldn't believe you really said. You can't possibly really believe this do you? If yes, your a lot more delusional than I thought. You may want to avoid operating heavy machinary.
You will note that I am also quoting what a panel of political 'experts' (can never be sure if that's true) claimed was the case in Iraq. Even the pro-war panelist agreed.
I don't know if it's true. I do know that even Powell claimed that the sanctions were working, and that Saddam was not a threat in terms of WMD. I do know that the US has routinely armed the opposition to implement policy; they even managed to get Russia out of Afghanistan by arming Bin Laden ... certainly that was a more difficult accomplishment than ousting Saddam would/could have ever been?
I don't know if it's true. I do know that even Powell claimed that the sanctions were working, and that Saddam was not a threat in terms of WMD. I do know that the US has routinely armed the opposition to implement policy; they even managed to get Russia out of Afghanistan by arming Bin Laden ... certainly that was a more difficult accomplishment than ousting Saddam would/could have ever been?
As will be played out the sanctions were a scam.As long as saddam had his oil he wasn't going anywhere and the whores at the UN never wanted him too.
I think as things will play out you will find out that france and russia goverments have been propped up by Saddams oil...This is going to be proven as Frances unemployement continues to climb over 10%.
I think as things will play out you will find out that france and russia goverments have been propped up by Saddams oil...This is going to be proven as Frances unemployement continues to climb over 10%.
If you are referring to that article you posted a few weeks ago, that did not prove anything that you claimed in your post. There was no "panel of political experts" which made that claim, your whole thesis is based on one statement by Colin Powell which is not nearly as conclusive as you seem to think it is. Try reading the entire article instead of just one line. Also try to think of the context and audience being spoken to.
There are no known resistence groups to arm in Iraq. If Saddam even suspected that someone was fighting him, he would kill that person and their entire family. I have never, ever, heard from the most radical of the leftists in their histeria to maintain Saddam's regime, try to argue that he could have been removed without force by simply arming the "oppositon." There was NO OPPOSITION.
Time to join us back in reality.
There are no known resistence groups to arm in Iraq. If Saddam even suspected that someone was fighting him, he would kill that person and their entire family. I have never, ever, heard from the most radical of the leftists in their histeria to maintain Saddam's regime, try to argue that he could have been removed without force by simply arming the "oppositon." There was NO OPPOSITION.
Time to join us back in reality.
Did any one see that James Bond movie where some media mogul tries to take over the world by putting out the news that they wanted the people to see.
Well, we are living the movie. CBS, NBC, CNN, etc... are only going to show you the side of the story that they want you to see.
This is no surprise, they've been doing it for months.
Well, we are living the movie. CBS, NBC, CNN, etc... are only going to show you the side of the story that they want you to see.
This is no surprise, they've been doing it for months.
IG:
Read the previous post ... the panel of political experts I refer to are from a television program I watched last night. The Powell mention is from a State Department webpage and is taken from a speech by him to Egyptian leader I-forget-his-name. Two completely different things.
As for there being no opposition to Saddam, the majority of the internet would disagree with you. There were/are several groups opposed to Saddam. The principle issue surrounding them was that they did not necessarily agree with one another in how to run a post-Saddam regime (including a rejection of a US-led regime,) nor did any of them welcome US military action (although the INC eventually came around once it became clear that they would be the principle leaders in Iraq's new gov't.) Two of the largest opposition groups were Kurdish, highly problematic for the US since Turkey, one of their biggest allies in the region, would risk a Kurdish insurgence themselves should Iraq be deemed an 'example' to Turkey's Kurds. The INC was a strong opposition group, in large part because of the backing it received from the Pentagon until 1995, when, I guess, the Clinton admin abandoned them. In fact, as I was reading, I found several sources who thought that re-funding the INC was the way to go.
Also, it is important to note that Saddam's hold on power was diminishing. It's not like he was a popular guy, his army was only 400,000 people and the sanctions were working, inhumane though they were. Again, you can find numerous sources, including quotes from Powell (previously mentioned,) Rumsfeld, Rice and a bunch of journalists and others who state that Saddam's regime was weakening. It is conceivable that a regeneration of the INC (and others) who had met several times with other opposition groups in the two years preceding the war to discuss unification, could have been successful given Saddam's weakening hold on his people.
Here are some quotes that give evidence of the existence of opposition groups in Iraq:
Dec 17, 2002:
"Leith Kubba, an Iraqi analyst at Washington-based think-tank the National Endowment for Democracy believes the Bush administration is distancing itself from tribal leaders, the Kurds and the Shia Muslims ... They are the most relevant on the ground but their political agenda is so problematic in the long term that they are not being taken on board,he said ... Dr Alani believes that the US is coming round to the view that its best option in the case of Iraq is to create instability and encourage a military revolt inside Iraq - perhaps with the assistance of some US special forces as in the case of Afghanistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1853522.stm
From August 8, 2002:
"Washington began looking for potential opponents to Hussein after the 1991 Gulf War ended with him still in power.
The U.S. began funding groups that oppose Hussein, and continued to do so even as tensions developed among the groups. Some in the U.S. government also doubt the groups' effectiveness in opposing Hussein.
A key opposition group is the Iraqi National Congress. The INC is an umbrella organization led by Ahmed Chalabi, a Shi'a Muslim exile based in London. The U.S. government helped establish the group.
Its members include the patriotic union of Kurdistan, a group of minority Kurds in northern Iraq. Jalal Talabani leads the PUK. The INC also represents: The Constitutional Monarchy Movement led by the exiled Iraqi royal family, which was overthrown by the military in 1958; the INA, a group of Iraqi military officials who have defected and now live outside Iraq; and the Supreme Council of the Islamic revolution in Iraq, a Shi'a group based in Iran ... In Washington today, INC Member Sharif Ali Bin al- Hussein, head of the Constitutional Monarchy Movement, appeared at a crowded news conference. Al-Hussein denied the Iraqi opposition is divided, and he said the Iraqi people would not fight to defend Saddam Hussein's regime ...
[Interviewer]: Do you think that the only way to get rid of Saddam Hussein is for the U.S. to take military action? Do you see any alternative?
SHARIF ALI BIN AL-HUSSEIN: I think, had we had more support from the international community and from regional countries, we could have done the job ourselves.
But the United States' decision is its own decision. We can't influence that decision and I think military action is based on the interests of the United States.
We intend to take advantage of that, and we intend to minimize as much as possible casualties to the Iraqi people.
Link: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/opposition_8-8.html
From Richard Perle (post 9/11, in 2001) on the INC and Washington's opinion of them:
Q: There seems to be a bit of a schizophrenic attitude toward the Iraqi National Congress in Washington. Can you define that for us and what it means?
A: Yes. The INC is highly regarded on Capitol Hill, and I believe highly regarded by a number of people who know the INC leadership well. It is not held in high regard by the Department of State and the Central Intelligence Agency, who are, together, the architects of the failed Iraq policy, including the mistakes of 1991 and repeated failures to deal with Saddam since then.
Q: So how has that translated into the debate that is ongoing in Washington right now over future moves?
It's very clear that the CIA and the State Department are energetic opponents of support to the Iraqi opposition, partly because they believe that we are safe. That's going to get serious reconsideration when we examine the prospect that Saddam Hussein could -- and very possibly will -- transfer weapons of mass destruction to anonymous terrorists, and thereby escape the retaliatory capabilities that have always been the basis for the theory that he's in a box and can't get out.
And a nice handy list of some of Saddam's opposition groups:
Iraqi National Congress (INC)
An umbrella group founded in 1992. It has about 1,000 members, although many belong to its partner organizations. It has no armed forces.
Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP)
Based in northwest Iraq. Founded in 1946. Enjoys extensive self-government within an area off-limits to Iraqi military aircraft. The no-fly zone was set up by the United Nations after the Gulf War and is enforced by U.S. and British military jets. The KDP claims to have about 60,000 active and reserve forces. Others say it has 15,000 active troops and an additional 25,000 in its militia.
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK)
Based in northeast Iraq, also within the northern no-fly zone. It claims it can mobilize 100,000 fighters. Others say it has about 15,000 members and fighters. Its arsenal includes T-54 tanks, 60mm and 120mm mortars, rifles, and anti-aircraft guns and missiles.
Constitutional Monarchy Movement (CMM)
A moderate organization aiming to restore the monarchy that was ousted in 1958. Based in London.
Iraqi National Accord (INA)
Based in London. Founded in 1976. Works closely with the United States. It has several hundred members.
Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)
Based in Tehran, Iran. An umbrella group that claims to represent anti-government Shiite Muslims
_______________________________________
So, when you say that there was NO OPPOSITION, do you mean that there was no opposition, or that there was no opposition that fully satisfied US interests?
Read the previous post ... the panel of political experts I refer to are from a television program I watched last night. The Powell mention is from a State Department webpage and is taken from a speech by him to Egyptian leader I-forget-his-name. Two completely different things.
As for there being no opposition to Saddam, the majority of the internet would disagree with you. There were/are several groups opposed to Saddam. The principle issue surrounding them was that they did not necessarily agree with one another in how to run a post-Saddam regime (including a rejection of a US-led regime,) nor did any of them welcome US military action (although the INC eventually came around once it became clear that they would be the principle leaders in Iraq's new gov't.) Two of the largest opposition groups were Kurdish, highly problematic for the US since Turkey, one of their biggest allies in the region, would risk a Kurdish insurgence themselves should Iraq be deemed an 'example' to Turkey's Kurds. The INC was a strong opposition group, in large part because of the backing it received from the Pentagon until 1995, when, I guess, the Clinton admin abandoned them. In fact, as I was reading, I found several sources who thought that re-funding the INC was the way to go.
Also, it is important to note that Saddam's hold on power was diminishing. It's not like he was a popular guy, his army was only 400,000 people and the sanctions were working, inhumane though they were. Again, you can find numerous sources, including quotes from Powell (previously mentioned,) Rumsfeld, Rice and a bunch of journalists and others who state that Saddam's regime was weakening. It is conceivable that a regeneration of the INC (and others) who had met several times with other opposition groups in the two years preceding the war to discuss unification, could have been successful given Saddam's weakening hold on his people.
Here are some quotes that give evidence of the existence of opposition groups in Iraq:
Dec 17, 2002:
"Leith Kubba, an Iraqi analyst at Washington-based think-tank the National Endowment for Democracy believes the Bush administration is distancing itself from tribal leaders, the Kurds and the Shia Muslims ... They are the most relevant on the ground but their political agenda is so problematic in the long term that they are not being taken on board,he said ... Dr Alani believes that the US is coming round to the view that its best option in the case of Iraq is to create instability and encourage a military revolt inside Iraq - perhaps with the assistance of some US special forces as in the case of Afghanistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1853522.stm
From August 8, 2002:
"Washington began looking for potential opponents to Hussein after the 1991 Gulf War ended with him still in power.
The U.S. began funding groups that oppose Hussein, and continued to do so even as tensions developed among the groups. Some in the U.S. government also doubt the groups' effectiveness in opposing Hussein.
A key opposition group is the Iraqi National Congress. The INC is an umbrella organization led by Ahmed Chalabi, a Shi'a Muslim exile based in London. The U.S. government helped establish the group.
Its members include the patriotic union of Kurdistan, a group of minority Kurds in northern Iraq. Jalal Talabani leads the PUK. The INC also represents: The Constitutional Monarchy Movement led by the exiled Iraqi royal family, which was overthrown by the military in 1958; the INA, a group of Iraqi military officials who have defected and now live outside Iraq; and the Supreme Council of the Islamic revolution in Iraq, a Shi'a group based in Iran ... In Washington today, INC Member Sharif Ali Bin al- Hussein, head of the Constitutional Monarchy Movement, appeared at a crowded news conference. Al-Hussein denied the Iraqi opposition is divided, and he said the Iraqi people would not fight to defend Saddam Hussein's regime ...
[Interviewer]: Do you think that the only way to get rid of Saddam Hussein is for the U.S. to take military action? Do you see any alternative?
SHARIF ALI BIN AL-HUSSEIN: I think, had we had more support from the international community and from regional countries, we could have done the job ourselves.
But the United States' decision is its own decision. We can't influence that decision and I think military action is based on the interests of the United States.
We intend to take advantage of that, and we intend to minimize as much as possible casualties to the Iraqi people.
Link: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/opposition_8-8.html
From Richard Perle (post 9/11, in 2001) on the INC and Washington's opinion of them:
Q: There seems to be a bit of a schizophrenic attitude toward the Iraqi National Congress in Washington. Can you define that for us and what it means?
A: Yes. The INC is highly regarded on Capitol Hill, and I believe highly regarded by a number of people who know the INC leadership well. It is not held in high regard by the Department of State and the Central Intelligence Agency, who are, together, the architects of the failed Iraq policy, including the mistakes of 1991 and repeated failures to deal with Saddam since then.
Q: So how has that translated into the debate that is ongoing in Washington right now over future moves?
It's very clear that the CIA and the State Department are energetic opponents of support to the Iraqi opposition, partly because they believe that we are safe. That's going to get serious reconsideration when we examine the prospect that Saddam Hussein could -- and very possibly will -- transfer weapons of mass destruction to anonymous terrorists, and thereby escape the retaliatory capabilities that have always been the basis for the theory that he's in a box and can't get out.
And a nice handy list of some of Saddam's opposition groups:
Iraqi National Congress (INC)
An umbrella group founded in 1992. It has about 1,000 members, although many belong to its partner organizations. It has no armed forces.
Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP)
Based in northwest Iraq. Founded in 1946. Enjoys extensive self-government within an area off-limits to Iraqi military aircraft. The no-fly zone was set up by the United Nations after the Gulf War and is enforced by U.S. and British military jets. The KDP claims to have about 60,000 active and reserve forces. Others say it has 15,000 active troops and an additional 25,000 in its militia.
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK)
Based in northeast Iraq, also within the northern no-fly zone. It claims it can mobilize 100,000 fighters. Others say it has about 15,000 members and fighters. Its arsenal includes T-54 tanks, 60mm and 120mm mortars, rifles, and anti-aircraft guns and missiles.
Constitutional Monarchy Movement (CMM)
A moderate organization aiming to restore the monarchy that was ousted in 1958. Based in London.
Iraqi National Accord (INA)
Based in London. Founded in 1976. Works closely with the United States. It has several hundred members.
Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)
Based in Tehran, Iran. An umbrella group that claims to represent anti-government Shiite Muslims
_______________________________________
So, when you say that there was NO OPPOSITION, do you mean that there was no opposition, or that there was no opposition that fully satisfied US interests?
Wow,nobody brings up the fact of cheney ties to Haliburton,who services every U.S.military base in the world ,right down to the knives and forks.All 130 of them.Nobody brings up the fact of bush's ties to ken lay of enron whom he met behind closed doors to furmulate our failed energy policy.I could go on and on.The right has no idea of truth or integrity.
