| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - March 21 2003 : 9:40:30 PM
I recently saw a photograph of a U.S. naval ship in the middle east, on the side of the ship, just under the bridge was painted this list:
Why We Are Here
Oct 1983 Marine Barracks Beirut, Lebanon 243
Dec 1988 Pan Am Flt 103 Lockerbie, Scotland 244
Feb 1993 World Trade Center NYC, NY 6
Jun 1996 Khobar Towers Dhahran, SA 19
Aug 1998 US Embassies Kenya/Tanzania 224
Oct 2000 USS Cole Aden, Yemen 17
Sept 11th 2001 World Trade Center NYC, NY 3000+
Pentagon Washington DC
United Airlines Flt 93
That about says it all, it's not about oil people. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| ladylight |
Posted - March 23 2003 : 10:41:06 AM
Hail to Queenie!
What a reply! The MOTHER OF ALL REPLIES!
Love ya and respect ya, and am itching to reply to your comment re. the Ottomans, but next time, OK?
You know what, last night I scooted over to WWW.salon.com and took up a membership, broke that I am I could not afford THE premium one without commercialS, nonetheless the one with the commercialS ain't too bad either, lotsa stuff to read AND THAT'S WHAT COUNTS.
I am glad you wrote at length, I couldn't, still can't, am still wrestling with chronic fatigue syndrome, also the car accident from last year which shook me and hubby down to the core and it's still lingering, plus continuing effects of the financial holocaust I went through few years ago, and... well, am preparing The Horseman for republication!
At long last I got the rights back, sat down and went over it line by line to clean out the editorial camels that had leapt through the pinholes, CHANGED THE LAYOUT, NOW IT'S 12 PT NEW TIMES ROMAN WITH LOTSA GOOD MARGIN ALL AROUND, so the novel, with a few little additions that had been omitted from the version you read, rings in at 640 pages!!!! and am receiving lotsa support from http://www.lesartsturcs.com, from emotional/spiritual to advertising to graphics, to... and... I even changed its cover, new, nice cover now, and as
you can well imagine, THE TIMING COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MORE URGENT FOR THIS NOVEL TO SEE DAYLIGHT AGAIN!!!!!
Will write more, Queenie, but for now have to run and feed breakfast to poor beloved hubby, and considering that it's 10.30 AM, you can understand his sufferings and patience!
Love and blessigns to you and yours,
|
| Lainey |
Posted - March 23 2003 : 03:33:40 AM
quote:
Hello Elaine, dear Regina and Queenie of LOTM
It's been a long time since my last visit to your realm.
I am glad I found the time, and further, even gladder upon seeing your copious analyses re. Iraq.
You are a well-read woman, Queenie, with an above-average knowledge of the world and its environs, and you certainly write well.
I am terribly hard-pressed for the time right now, plus am suffering from constant migraine headaches due to overwork to get my latest project up and running (more about this another time), and thus I can not write all that I wish to re. this subject, today, therefore I will only point out a few things.
I certainly am a dove, but also, I am an American, and a die-hard Turkophile.
So...
Inasmuch as anti-Turkish rhetoric infuriates me , anti-American rhetoric makes me see red .
Re. Saddam Hussein.
Indeed I too am not convinced that he has ready-to-go nuclear weapons, or that he was active contributor to 9/11. And naturally Iraqi oil plays a tremendous role in this drama.
However, one truth the whole, global, anti-American hysteria forgets or deliberately overlooks, is that this man is not just a bully, but a ruthless tyrant, a megalomaniac a la Stalin, a man of great intelligence and finesse, who views himself as a modern day Nebucadenazzar (surely I misspelled this), who also WRITES ROMANCE NOVELS (!), who used Iraqi oil-for-food monies to lead a life of conspicuous consumption in superb splendor, building magnificent palaces furbished a la Rococo as well as Ottoman Sultan style, while he left his people in tatters and starving, and used a clever PR campaign blaming the West, and mostly America, for their plight.
I don't doubt that almost everyone has seen the gigantic likeness of his hands brandishing crossed swords over Baghdad's main thoroghfare.
Indeed Saddam is One Who's Lived by the Sword, and shall perish by the Sword.
Ironically, this greatly refined, often charming man and adroit Swordsman, who is also an ethnic Kurd, never won a major war. Case in point: the protracted (US supported) battle with Iran and its outcome.
It is a tragedy that innocent Iraqis have been, and still are, paying the price for Saddam's and his henchmen's, sins. Every night during this latest campaign, before falling asleep, I pray to God to save the innocents, from men, women, children, to cats, dogs, cattle, pigs, birds, hawks, snakes, and even rats.
But he has to be taken down as much as Bin Laden, Stalin, Hitler, Cauceuscu, and another, but little known in America, tyrant by the name of Enver Hodja (Albanian Communist), were needed to be taken down.
I am sorry that America is virtually the only nation with the guts to do so.
Regarding the Republic of Turkey.
First off, how many of those who are crying anti-Turkish slogans, are aware that there is a 2 MILLION STRONG population of Turkomans in Iraq, especially around the oil-rich Kerkuk and Erbil and Mosul areas? That they'been there for a thousand years? That they are as indigenous to the area, as the Kurds? How many of you know that these Turkomans, under Iraqi Baathist rule, were subjected to constant harassment, torture, and subjugation? How many of you remember that these used to be Ottoman Lands, before Great Britain, in its days of Empire building, carved up the Empire's Southern regions along the lines of which tribal, feudal head was most useful in serving the British interest, by biting off the hand of the master who fed him?
With regards and blessings to you all,
I say: to be continued....
Dear Auntie Vita (still my favorite!),
I can't tell you how delighted (Turkish delight, is it?) I am to see you here & read your thoughts regarding the Empire's New Robe! For those who don't know, dear Old Towne Crier lived for many, many years i |
| ladylight |
Posted - March 22 2003 : 9:50:54 PM
[/quote]
>>> I do seem to recall something along these lines, Ladylight, though I don't recall the Ottomans being all sweetness and light.<<
Dear Scott,
Yes, I agree, the Ottomans, starting out as Turks but ultimately comprised of Turks, Kurds, Greeks, Armenians, Bulgars, Albanians, Serbs (yes, Serbs), Arabs, etc., etc., were not always sweetness and light. Though when we look at them in the context of their times, they were not too shabby, either.
I fully realize that endeavoring to change the regime in Iraq, and especially, trying to bring DEMOCRACY, is quite a tall order. Besides, we have learned that even among the most democratically seasoned nations, democracy can easily give way to mob rule. One of the reasons Saddam was left in power, way back when, was because he seemed to be the only leader able to keep the warring  patchworks of his country, together. Of course by being cruel and cunning, and cruel again. Indeed when we lift the lid, there will be hell to pay.
May God help us all!
As the song goes, CRY ME A RIVER.
Blessings to you and yours,
|
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - March 22 2003 : 9:32:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ladylight
How many of you remember that these used to be Ottoman Lands, before Great Britain, in its days of Empire building, carved up the Empire's Southern regions along the lines of which tribal, feudal head was most useful in serving the British interest, by biting off the hand of the master who fed him?
I do seem to recall something along these lines, Ladylight, though I don't recall the Ottomans being all sweetness and light.
But you have pointed out that Iraq is a creation of the Allies after WWI, and not a nation that grew organically.
And the folks there don't necessarily get along very well together, left to their own devices.
The U.S. has made a commitment to "nation-building" following the regime change. That's a pretty tall order.
I think your comparison of Saddam to Stalin is quite apt. It is possible to keep mutually antagonistic peoples together with ruthless oppression. But when you lift the lid, there may be hell to pay.
I just hope we, and the people of Iraq, don't have to pay that bill.
I'd feel better if we'd kept our options open. I'm not suggesting that splitting up the country should be a goal, but I would like to have seen it retained as an option.
|
| Theresa |
Posted - March 22 2003 : 8:24:25 PM
Off subject here a little bit, YOTC, but by childrens' first pediatrician was Turkish. A delightful man who, unfortunately was killed in a Turkish earthquake a few years ago while visiting family still living in Turkey.
|
| ladylight |
Posted - March 22 2003 : 7:31:34 PM
Hello Elaine, dear Regina and Queenie of LOTM
It's been a long time since my last visit to your realm.
I am glad I found the time, and further, even gladder upon seeing your copious analyses re. Iraq.
You are a well-read woman, Queenie, with an above-average knowledge of the world and its environs, and you certainly write well.
I am terribly hard-pressed for the time right now, plus am suffering from constant migraine headaches due to overwork to get my latest project up and running (more about this another time), and thus I can not write all that I wish to re. this subject, today, therefore I will only point out a few things.
I certainly am a dove, but also, I am an American, and a die-hard Turkophile.
So...
Inasmuch as anti-Turkish rhetoric infuriates me  , anti-American rhetoric makes me see red .
Re. Saddam Hussein.
Indeed I too am not convinced that he has ready-to-go nuclear weapons, or that he was active contributor to 9/11. And naturally Iraqi oil plays a tremendous role in this drama.
However, one truth the whole, global, anti-American hysteria forgets or deliberately overlooks, is that this man is not just a bully, but a ruthless tyrant, a megalomaniac a la Stalin, a man of great intelligence and finesse, who views himself as a modern day Nebucadenazzar (surely I misspelled this), who also WRITES ROMANCE NOVELS (!), who used Iraqi oil-for-food monies to lead a life of conspicuous consumption in superb splendor, building magnificent palaces furbished a la Rococo as well as Ottoman Sultan style, while he left his people in tatters and starving, and used a clever PR campaign blaming the West, and mostly America, for their plight.
I don't doubt that almost everyone has seen the gigantic likeness of his hands brandishing crossed swords over Baghdad's main thoroghfare.
Indeed Saddam is One Who's Lived by the Sword, and shall perish by the Sword.
Ironically, this greatly refined, often charming man and adroit Swordsman, who is also an ethnic Kurd, never won a major war. Case in point: the protracted (US supported) battle with Iran and its outcome.
It is a tragedy that innocent Iraqis have been, and still are, paying the price for Saddam's and his henchmen's, sins. Every night during this latest campaign, before falling asleep, I pray to God to save the innocents, from men, women, children, to cats, dogs, cattle, pigs, birds, hawks, snakes, and even rats.
But he has to be taken down as much as Bin Laden, Stalin, Hitler, Cauceuscu, and another, but little known in America, tyrant by the name of Enver Hodja (Albanian Communist), were needed to be taken down.
I am sorry that America is virtually the only nation with the guts to do so.
Regarding the Republic of Turkey.
First off, how many of those who are crying anti-Turkish slogans, are aware that there is a 2 MILLION STRONG population of Turkomans in Iraq, especially around the oil-rich Kerkuk and Erbil and Mosul areas? That they'been there for a thousand years? That they are as indigenous to the area, as the Kurds? How many of you know that these Turkomans, under Iraqi Baathist rule, were subjected to constant harassment, torture, and subjugation? How many of you remember that these used to be Ottoman Lands, before Great Britain, in its days of Empire building, carved up the Empire's Southern regions along the lines of which tribal, feudal head was most useful in serving the British interest, by biting off the hand of the master who fed him?
With regards and blessings to you all,
I say: to be continued....
quote:
Originally posted by Lainey
Bush Clings To Dubious Allegations About Iraq
By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 18, 2003; Page A13
As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week, it is doin |
| Lainey |
Posted - March 21 2003 : 11:39:34 PM
August 2, 2002
What About Those Chemical Weapons?
The Saddam in Rummy's Closet
by Jeremy Scahill
"Man and the turtle are very much alike. Neither makes any progress without sticking his neck out."
Donald Rumsfeld
Five years before Saddam Hussein's now infamous 1988 gassing of the Kurds, a key meeting took place in Baghdad that would play a significant role in forging close ties between Saddam Hussein and Washington. It happened at a time when Saddam was first alleged to have used chemical weapons. The meeting in late December 1983 paved the way for an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
With the Iran-Iraq war escalating, President Ronald Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy, a former secretary of defense, to Baghdad with a hand-written letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and a message that Washington was willing at any moment to resume diplomatic relations.
That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld's December 19-20, 1983 visit to Baghdad made him the highest-ranking US official to visit Iraq in 6 years. He met Saddam and the two discussed "topics of mutual interest," according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. "[Saddam] made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world," Rumsfeld later told The New York Times. "It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems."
Just 12 days after the meeting, on January 1, 1984, The Washington Post reported that the United States "in a shift in policy, has informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war with Iran would be 'contrary to U.S. interests' and has made several moves to prevent that result."
In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq war growing more brutal by the day, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. On the day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the United Nations: "Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of U.N. experts has concluded... Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination."
The day before, the Iranian news agency alleged that Iraq launched another chemical weapons assault on the southern battlefront, injuring 600 Iranian soldiers. "Chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in the areas inspected in Iran by the specialists," the U.N. report said. "The types of chemical agents used were bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide, also known as mustard gas, and ethyl N, N-dimethylphosphoroamidocyanidate, a nerve agent known as Tabun."
Prior to the release of the UN report, the US State Department on March 5th had issued a statement saying "available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons."
Commenting on the UN report, US Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick was quoted by The New York Times as saying, "We think that the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We've made that clear in general and particular."
Compared with the rhetoric emanating from the current administration, based on speculations about what Saddam might have, Kirkpatrick's reaction was hardly a call to action.
Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department "evidence." On the contrary, The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name."
A month and a half later, in May 1984, Donald Rumsfeld resigned. In November of that year, full d |
| Lainey |
Posted - March 21 2003 : 11:25:24 PM
article | Posted August 15, 2002
The Men From JINSA and CSPby Jason Vest
JINSA/CSP advisers Richard Perle and Douglas Feith have spent the past fifteen years working quietly to keep the US arms sluice to Turkey open. Click here.
A lmost thirty years ago, a prominent group of neoconservative hawks found an effective vehicle for advocating their views via the Committee on the Present Danger, a group that fervently believed the United States was a hair away from being militarily surpassed by the Soviet Union, and whose raison d'être was strident advocacy of bigger military budgets, near-fanatical opposition to any form of arms control and zealous championing of a Likudnik Israel. Considered a marginal group in its nascent days during the Carter Administration, with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 CPD went from the margins to the center of power.
Just as the right-wing defense intellectuals made CPD a cornerstone of a shadow defense establishment during the Carter Administration, so, too, did the right during the Clinton years, in part through two organizations: the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP). And just as was the case two decades ago, dozens of their members have ascended to powerful government posts, where their advocacy in support of the same agenda continues, abetted by the out-of-government adjuncts from which they came. Industrious and persistent, they've managed to weave a number of issues--support for national missile defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism in general--into a hard line, with support for the Israeli right at its core.
On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war--not just with Iraq, but "total war," as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it last year. For this crew, "regime change" by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative. Anyone who dissents--be it Colin Powell's State Department, the CIA or career military officers--is committing heresy against articles of faith that effectively hold there is no difference between US and Israeli national security interests, and that the only way to assure continued safety and prosperity for both countries is through hegemony in the Middle East--a hegemony achieved with the traditional cold war recipe of feints, force, clientism and covert action.
For example, the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board--chaired by JINSA/CSP adviser and former Reagan Administration Defense Department official Richard Perle, and stacked with advisers from both groups--recently made news by listening to a briefing that cast Saudi Arabia as an enemy to be brought to heel through a number of potential mechanisms, many of which mirror JINSA's recommendations, and which reflect the JINSA/CSP crowd's preoccupation with Egypt. (The final slide of the Defense Policy Board presentation proposed that "Grand Strategy for the Middle East" should concentrate on "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot [and] Egypt as the prize.") Ledeen has been leading the charge for regime change in Iran, while old comrades like Andrew Marshall and Harold Rhode in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment actively tinker with ways to re-engineer both the Iranian and Saudi governments. JINSA is also cheering the US military on as it tries to secure basing rights in the strategic Red Sea country of Eritrea, happily failing to mention that the once-promising secular regime of President Isaiais Afewerki continues to slide into the kind of repressive authoritarianism practiced by the "axis of evil" and its adjuncts.
Indeed, there are some in military and intelligence circles who have taken to using "axis of evil" in reference to JINSA and CSP, along with venerable re |
| Lainey |
Posted - March 21 2003 : 11:16:45 PM
Eight Washington Lies About Iraq
by Jon Basil Utley
7/31/02
ONE
IRAQ WAS INVOLVED IN THE 9/11 ATTACK ON AMERICA OR IS CLOSE TO OBTAINING NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
ANSWER: The War Party in Washington has mounted a vast campaign in conservative media to attack Iraq again. See Georgie Anne Geyer column on lobby in Anti-Arab Advocates Risk U.S. Interests. Saddam is an enemy of Islamic Fundamentalists. Iraqi women are among the most emancipated in the Moslem world. You never see Saddam wearing a robe and shouting about Holy War. Iraq has not been a supporter of "global terrorism," although it does support Palestinian terrorists against Israel's UN declared illegal settlements on the West Bank. There is no evidence of Iraqi nuclear ability, nor that it ever provided chemical weapons to other nations or terrorists.
TWO
IF WE DON'T BOMB IRAQ, SADDAM WILL USE HIS WMD AGAINST US OR HIS NEIGHBORS OR ISRAEL
ANSWER: Saddam is rational. He had these weapons during the First Gulf War and didn't use them because he feared our threats of worse consequences even when his nation was being decimated. Israel has some 200 atomic bombs and its own active biological and chemical weapons program. It can well defend itself. Meanwhile Washington arms all Iraq's neighbors (except Iran), and Turkey bombs and invades Iraq at will. Yet the pressure now in Congress to attack Iraq is based upon its unreal threat to Israel. Also, Iraq's neighbors oppose an American attack. If Iraq was such a threat, why do they not fear it?
THREE
IRAQ WOULDN'T LET THE UN--US MONITORS INSPECT POSSIBLE WMD PRODUCTION OR STORAGE SITES. THAT'S WHY AMERICA STARTED BOMBING.
ANSWER: Untrue – Iraq did allow them from 1991 until 1998, but Washington still wouldn’t take off the trade blockade, under which thousands of children were dying every week without clean water, electricity, etc. Scott Ritter, the former UNSCOM inspector, told CNN on 2/18/01 "In terms of large-scale weapons of mass destruction programs, these had been fundamentally destroyed or dismantled by the weapons inspectors as early as 1996." Yet Madeleine Albright declared in 1997: “We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted.” Clinton went one step further when he said, “sanctions will be there until the end of time, or as long as he [Saddam] lasts." THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT REPUDIATED THESE STATEMENTS.
Then in 1998 Washington made new demands, access to all government personnel files, the basis of its power structure. UN weapons inspectors were still roaming Iraq and the country had been found "clean" for 7 years. Iraq saw that U.S. demands were just always escalated with no hope of sanctions being lifted. The Iraqis also complained that most of the UN inspectors were British and American intelligence agents, who were trying to overthrow their government (Scott Ritter on CNN 1/5/02 said he had been working with Israeli intelligence from 1995-98). Clinton then launched a new bombing campaign using information from the "spy UN inspectors" for bombing targets. Iraq now fears, justifiably, that this would happen again.
FOUR
IT'S SADDAM'S FAULT THAT HALF A MILLION CHILDREN DIED SINCE THE ECONOMIC BLOCKADE, SADDAM COULD FEED HIS PEOPLE IF HE CARED INSTEAD OF USING HIS MONEY TO BUY WEAPONS – " More than one million Iraqis have died – 500,000 of them children – as a direct consequence of economic sanctions... As many as 12% of the children surveyed in Baghdad are wasted, 28% stunted and 29% underweight." – UN FAO, December 1995. For details see Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi Children 1990-98.
ANSWER: Nearly all oil sales money has been controlled through United Nations officials, subject to over 35% reduction for reparations (Iraq is forbidden to contest any claim) and UN expenses, and subject to Washington's veto and foot dragging. Washington allowed food and medicine imports, |
| Lainey |
Posted - March 21 2003 : 11:07:22 PM
(Just doing my patriotic duty. Don't shoot the messenger!}
March 10, 2003
Smearing Sy Hersh
Richard Perle, Ex-patriot?
By KURT NIMMO
Seymour Hersh is a rarity in America these days -- an investigative journalist.
"Hersh is not a nice man in the Washington sense," writes Eric Alterman of Salon, "he does not know how to make small talk, flatter his bosses, spin his defeats and conceal his fierce competitiveness. He is simply the best investigative reporter alive and expects his work to speak for itself."
Because Hersh does what he does so well, the chicken hawk Richard Perle called him a terrorist on CNN the other day.
That's right. Perle equated Hersh with Osama bin Laden and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. "Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist," Perle told Wolf Blitzer.
Perle slandered Hersh because the award winning journalist wrote in the March 17th issue of the New Yorker: "There is no question that Perle believes that removing Saddam from power is the right thing to do. At the same time, he has set up a company that may gain from a war."
I have not read the New Yorker article, so I can't comment on it. I don't know if Perle set up a company situated to profit from his boss' plan to mass murder possibly a half million Iraqis or not. But if Hersh said it, there must be something to it. Hersh is known for his meticulous research. He conducts interviews, double checks facts. Seymour Hersh does not make things up. Due to his professionalism Hersh has won more than a dozen major journalism prizes, including the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting and four George Polk Awards.
On the other hand, Perle and the neocons are liars.
One big lie is that Mohammed Atta met with Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, an official at Baghdad's embassy in Prague. US intelligence agencies went over records of Atta's travels and concluded that during the period in question he was in Virginia Beach, not in Prague. Perle knew this was a fabrication. He attempted to pass it off on the American people as truth. There are many other lies, as well, but I will not bother you with enumeration.
That's how the neocons make their case before the American people -- through deceit, half-truth, fabrications, and outright lies. It should be a crime. But for now he is allowed to bend the ear of George W. Bush and prod the half-wit dictator into destroying America.
When Perle was working for Senator Scoop Jackson, he was investigated by the Justice Department and found to have violated US policies relating to unlawful transmission of sensitive classified US information to Israel.
"An FBI summary of a 1970 wiretap recorded Perle discussing classified information with someone at the Israeli embassy," writes Paul Findley (They Dare To Speak Out, Chicago, Ill, Lawrence Hill Books 1989)."He came under fire in 1983 when newspapers reported he received substantial payments to represent the interests of an Israeli weapons company. Perle denied conflict of interest, insisting that, although he received payment for these services after he had assumed his position in the Defense Department, he was between government jobs when he worked for the Israeli firm."
In other words, Richard Perle was spying for Israel.
Perle should be expatriated immediately -- or made to share a cell with Jonathan Pollard, the spy who spent 18 months collecting and selling classified American intelligence to Israel from his position in U.S. Naval Intelligence. So pleased were the Israelis with the information passed on to them, two of the four government officials who had dealt with Pollard were promoted (Col. Aviem Sella, Pollard's primary contact, was given full control of a major Israeli Air Force base). So arrogant are the Israelis that Sharon asked Bush to pardon and release Pollard.
If these are our friends, who needs enemies?
Okay, I'm going to use a word that will upset some of you -- Zionist. These days |
| Lainey |
Posted - March 21 2003 : 10:55:50 PM
From the Toledo Blade, Toledo, Ohio.
"Stanley Heller, American and Jewish, has tried to keep his co-religionists honest for 20-odd years. In a Feb. 20 article at www.antiwar.com, he cited "rabid neocons" - some of whom, "like Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser, actually worked for Israeli think tanks writing grand papers for (Likud) Prime Minister Netanyahu on how the U.S. and Israel should take apart and reconstruct the Middle East," and who now hold key roles in shaping U.S. foreign policy
Though Mr. Heller ascribes most war zeal to oil, empire dreams, and weapons testing, he says "We owe it to Americans to tell them the whole truth, that part of the war drive is being fueled by a wacko militarist clique from Israel and its interlocking bands of American Jewish and Christian supporters."
He’s not alone. In the Feb. 23 (London) Observer Ed Vulliamy, and in the March 3 San Diego Union-Tribune, James O, Goldsborough, speak in the same vein - of America’s first religious war and proponents’ visions of empire.
Mr. Vulliamy takes on the empire theme. In 1992, he says Paul Wolfowitz wrote a blueprint for America’s 21st century foreign policy that seems a play book for this administration. It talks of using "nuclear, biological, and chemical weaponry, pre-emptively ‘even in conflicts that do not directly engage U.S. interests.’"
Is this what Americans want? Does Israel have too strong a hand in our foreign policy, or do its interests merely coincide with ours? Americans won’t know without open discussions free of political repercussions and stifling accusations." |
| Lainey |
Posted - March 21 2003 : 10:45:26 PM
Bush Clings To Dubious Allegations About Iraq
By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 18, 2003; Page A13
As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged -- and in some cases disproved -- by the United Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence reports.
For months, President Bush and his top lieutenants have produced a long list of Iraqi offenses, culminating Sunday with Vice President Cheney's assertion that Iraq has "reconstituted nuclear weapons." Previously, administration officials have tied Hussein to al Qaeda, to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and to an aggressive production of biological and chemical weapons. Bush reiterated many of these charges in his address to the nation last night.
But these assertions are hotly disputed. Some of the administration's evidence -- such as Bush's assertion that Iraq sought to purchase uranium -- has been refuted by subsequent discoveries. Other claims have been questioned, though their validity can be known only after U.S. forces occupy Iraq.
In outlining his case for war on Sunday, Cheney focused on how much more damage al Qaeda could have done on Sept. 11 "if they'd had a nuclear weapon and detonated it in the middle of one of our cities, or if they had unleashed . . . biological weapons of some kind, smallpox or anthrax." He then tied that to evidence found in Afghanistan of how al Qaeda leaders "have done everything they could to acquire those capabilities over the years."
But in October CIA Director George J. Tenet told Congress that Hussein would not give such weapons to terrorists unless he decided helping "terrorists in conducting a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."
In his appearance Sunday, on NBC's "Meet the Press," the vice president argued that "we believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." But Cheney contradicted that assertion moments later, saying it was "only a matter of time before he acquires nuclear weapons." Both assertions were contradicted earlier by Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who reported that "there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities."
ElBaradei also contradicted Bush and other officials who argued that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. The IAEA determined that Iraq did not plan to use imported aluminum tubes for enriching uranium and generating nuclear weapons. ElBaradei argued that the tubes were for conventional weapons and "it was highly unlikely" that the tubes could have been used to produce nuclear material.
Cheney on Sunday said ElBaradei was "wrong" about Iraq's nuclear program and questioned the IAEA's credibility.
Earlier this month, ElBaradei said information about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium were based on fabricated documents. Further investigation has found that top CIA officials had significant doubts about the veracity of the evidence, linking Iraq to efforts to purchase uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger, but the information ended up as fact in Bush's State of the Union address.
In another embarrassing episode for the administration, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cited evidence about Iraq's weapons efforts that originally appeared in a British intelligence document. But it later emerged that the British report's evidence was based in part on academic papers and trade publications.
Sometimes information offered by Bush and his top officials is questioned by administration aides. In his March 6 news conference, Bush dismissed Iraq's destruction of its Al Samoud-2 missiles, saying they were being dismantled "even as [Hussein] ha |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - March 21 2003 : 10:03:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by CT•Ranger
...it's not about oil people.
That's right! If Saddam Hussein is "allowed", through our inaction, to develop or acquire nuclear weapons and sell them to terrorist organizations, the world will pay a terrible price. That list will be a whole lot longer. 9/11 would pale in comparison. |
| Lainey |
Posted - March 21 2003 : 9:57:34 PM
CT, to do honor to the 3727+ who died America must be just & honest.
The list shows;
In-country Hezbullah
Libya
Al Qaeda Saudi nomads
Al Qaeda Saudi nomads
Al Qaeda Saudi nomads
Al Qaeda Saudi nomads
Al Qaeda Saudi nomads
Not Iraq. Not Iraq. Not Iraq. Yes, much more than oil is "why we are here." |
| Theresa |
Posted - March 21 2003 : 9:52:18 PM
C.T.
I think that if it was about oil, then why didn't we just go ahead and do that in 1991 while in Kuwait? I believe we could have done that, if it was about oil. And let's not forget that it was firefighters from this country [TEXAS, Natalie] who helped in putting out those fires. |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
