Lindaland
  Global Unity
  Aiding and abetting the Enemy (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Aiding and abetting the Enemy
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 30, 2004 05:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Aiding and Abetting the Enemy
Phil Brennan
Thursday, Sept. 30, 2004


We are being conned. The grim situation in Iraq is nowhere as grim as the media and the Democrats would have us believe. Sure, it's tough going and will continue to be, but slowly but surely it's getting better. Somewhere down the line the insurgency will end and Iraqis will be able to stand on their own two feet, but for now the unrepentant Ba'athist bitterness endures and the al Qaeda thugs will continue to try to disrupt the process of building a stable government run for and by the Iraqis and their rebuilt security forces. But the thugs are losing despite what the media and John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy claim.

So what is the truth about the rebuilding of Iraq? To get that you have to go the people who are intimately involved in the pacification effort in Iraq. Last week Iraqi's Prime Minister Allawi explained that the overwhelming majority of the nation's provinces are peaceful and well on their way to stability. For saying that and defending the actions of the Bush administration he was slimed by John Kerry who implied that he was something of an administration puppet.

Today the American Thinker Web site published a letter from an American officer stationed in Iraq and close to the action. It should be an eye-opener for those of our fellow Americans who have been brainwashed by the media into believing that Iraq is a basket case beyond redemption.

Although the identity of the writer is not known, the American Thinker insists other sources verify the accuracy of what is reported in the letter, and I find it credible based on what other members of the armed forces have been saying. According to the Thinker "The letter ... has reached me via a number of American military officers. They tell me that it has privately circulated widely in military circles, and is generally regarded as credible by knowledgeable people. The version which appears below has had many corroborating details removed, to avoid compromising possibly sensitive military information. The author must remain anonymous. Thus, no guarantee of its provenance can be made. Nevertheless, the argument made by The Major is compelling enough that American Thinker readers deserve to see it. Caveat lector. Here are excepts from the letter:

"I'm a Major in the United States Military, in Iraq. The analysts and pundits, who don't see what I see on a daily basis, have no factual basis to talk about the situation - especially if they have yet to set foot in Iraq. The media filters out most events, through a sieve of their latent prejudices - personal, political, and professional."

He goes on to write that the "U.S. media recently buzzed with the news of an intelligence report that is very negative about the prospects for Iraq's future. CNN's website said, '[The]National Intelligence Estimate was sent to the White House in July with a classified warning predicting the best case for Iraq was 'tenuous stability' and the worst case was civil war.' "That report, along with the car bombings and kidnappings in Baghdad in the past couple days, were portrayed in the media as more proof of absolute chaos and the intransigence of the insurgency. From where I sit, at the Operational Headquarters in Baghdad, that just isn’t the case. The public is being misled about what is happening."

Noting that the "National Intelligence Estimate" was given to the White House in July and has no relevance now, he reports that "The report doesn't cover what has happened in July or August, let alone September. The naysayers will point to the recent battles in Najaf and draw parallels between that and what happened in Fallujah in April. They aren't even close."

Zeroing in on the events on Najaf he describes what happened there as the "HUGE favor" Al Sadr's troops did for the U.S. and Iraqi security forces by concentrating their forces in one place thus allowing the coalition forces to smash them. "Make no mistake," he wrote "Al Sadr's troops were thoroughly smashed. The estimated enemy killed in action is huge."

Where prior to the battle residents of the city were afraid to walk the streets, he wrote that now "Najafians can and do walk their streets in safety. Commerce has returned and the city is being rebuilt. Iraqi security forces and U.S. troops are welcomed and smiled upon. That city was liberated again. It was not like Fallujah - the bad guys lost and are in hiding or dead."

He wrote about another city, Samarra where just two ago, "that Sunni Triangle city was a 'No-go' area for US troops. But guess what? The locals got sick of living in fear from the insurgents and foreign fighters that were there and let them know they weren't welcome. They stopped hosting them in their houses and the mayor of the town brokered a deal with the U.S. commander to return Iraqi government sovereignty to the city without a fight. The people saw what was on the horizon and decided they didn't want their city looking like Fallujah in April or Najaf in August."

Boom, boom, just like that two major 'hot spots' cool down in rapid succession. Does that mean that those towns are completely pacified? No. What it does mean is that we are learning how to do this the right way. The U.S. commander in Samarra saw an opportunity and took it - probably the biggest victory of his military career and nary a shot was fired in anger. "And while the media such as CNN, ABC and the like prattle about how bleak the situation is here in Iraq, "from where I sit, it's looking significantly better now than when I got here. The momentum is moving in our favor, and all Americans need to know that."

That's the good news. Here's the bad: "the continuing defeatism is causing real harm. It is very demoralizing for us here in uniform to read & hear such negativity in our press. It is fodder for our enemies to use against us and against the vast majority of Iraqis who want their new government to succeed. It causes the American public to start thinking about the acceptability of 'cutting our losses' and pulling out, which would be devastating for Iraq for generations to come. Muslim militants would claim a huge victory, causing us to have to continue to fight them elsewhere (remember, in war 'Away' games are always preferable to 'Home' games). Reports like that also cause Iraqis to begin to fear that we will pull out before we finish the job, and thus they are less willing to openly support their interim government and U.S./Coalition activities. We are realizing significant progress here - not propaganda progress, but real strides are being made. It's terrible to see our national morale, and support for what we're doing here, jeopardized by sensationalized stories hyped by media giants whose #1 priority is advertising income, followed closely by their political agenda. Getting the story straight falls much further down on their priority scale, as Dan Rather and CBS News have so aptly demonstrated in the last week."

The Major recommends that readers watch the John Wayne movie, "The Green Berets," this weekend, and "pay special attention to the character of the reporter, Mr. Beckwith. His experience is directly related to the situation here. You'll have a different perspective on Iraq after the movie is over."

Just thought you'd like to hear it straight from the horse's mouth instead of from the other end out of which the media speaks.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/30/92736.shtml

IP: Logged

proxieme
unregistered
posted September 30, 2004 05:57 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It is very demoralizing for us here in uniform to read & hear such negativity in our press. It is fodder for our enemies to use against us and against the vast majority of Iraqis who want their new government to succeed. It causes the American public to start thinking about the acceptability of 'cutting our losses' and pulling out, which would be devastating for Iraq for generations to come. Muslim militants would claim a huge victory, causing us to have to continue to fight them elsewhere (remember, in war 'Away' games are always preferable to 'Home' games). Reports like that also cause Iraqis to begin to fear that we will pull out before we finish the job, and thus they are less willing to openly support their interim government and U.S./Coalition activities.

I agree w/ that bit 100%.
As I've said before, I wasn't for the inception of this war (at least not in the form its taken and with the evidence/for the reasons given) and I think that much of its been waged stupidly and with lack of foresight. That being said, it's the US's bride now, and we can't decide that she's too ugly and send her back. We'd be doing a horrible disservice to the Iraqi people if we left them firmly secured in the hands of fanatics far more scary and violent than us.
Like it or not, it's not only nationalists and Baathists fighting there - there are religious fundamentalists in the pot as well; and when things are in the terrible state they'd be in if the US military just suddenly cut losses and pulled out, the nastiest and most brutel have a tendency of boiling their way up to the top. I know people who've lived in theocracies, people who've escaped Afghanistan and Iran. A friend of mine has told me of her sister who was whipped and lost her hand because her burqa hitched up and public in someone caught a glance of her ankle.
That's the element that will take over Iraq if we leave at this point in time, and that is the element that Iraqis fear standing out to if that should come to pass.
(Well, that and the equally brutal - but secular - remaining Baathists.)

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted September 30, 2004 06:28 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In the mid-1980s, Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, told UPI the CIA had enjoyed "close ties" with Qasim's ruling Baath Party, just as it had close connections with the intelligence service of Egyptian leader Gamel Abd Nassar. In a recent public statement, Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staffer in the 1970s, confirmed this claim, saying that the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-communist Baath Party "as its instrument."
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r

(note-roger morris quit over Nixon's invasion of Cambodia)

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted September 30, 2004 08:11 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Lawmaker expresses "dismay" that White House allegedly wrote Allawi speech
Thu Sep 30, 3:36 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP


"To learn that this was not an independent view, but one that was massaged by your campaign operatives, jaundices the speech and reduces the credibility of his remarks,"

Her letter was a response to an article appearing in Thursday's Washington Post, which also alleged that Allawi was coached by US officials -- including Dan Senor, former spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq-- in perfecting his delivery of the speech delivered before a joint session of Congress one week ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&u=/afp/20040930/pl_afp/us_iraq_allawi_letter_040930193640&printer=1

IP: Logged

Isis
Newflake

Posts: 1
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 2009

posted September 30, 2004 08:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Isis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the relevance between the subject of this thread and your posts Petron. Please clarify. Thanks.

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted September 30, 2004 11:39 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
the first reply simply tied into my theme that the u.s. was responsible for covertly putting the ba'ath party and saddam into power in the first place....
The Iraqi leader seen as a grave threat in 1963 was Abdel Karim Kassem, a general who five years earlier had deposed the Western-allied Iraqi monarchy.......lol


then this newsmax author writes.....

"Last week Iraqi's Prime Minister Allawi explained that the overwhelming majority of the nation's provinces are peaceful and well on their way to stability"


so allawi "explained" this eh?
or was it bush standing next to him with his hand up the back of the "prime ministers" robe and throwing his voice?
(i think i saw the corner of bush dubya's mouth moving...)
it must be nice when your CAMPAIGN can write speeches for "soveriegn" nations ? you dont "get" that?


then the rest of the article is a completely unsourced piece ....

"Although the identity of the writer is not known, the American Thinker insists other sources verify the accuracy of what is reported in the letter, and I find it credible based on what other members of the armed forces have been saying."

americanthinker.com
"Thanks, Rush!
For calling The American Thinker a "brilliant new blog"on your show of September 23, 2004

lol

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted October 01, 2004 07:58 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1318050,00.html

"Last month, US commanders claimed that they had secured Samarra sufficiently to restore police patrols and revive the local council. Addressing the US Congress last week Ayad Allawi, the interim Iraqi prime minister, spoke of a new peace in Samarra, hailing it as a sign of political progress.

His words were woefully optimistic and, in reality, insurgents still held sway. Earlier this week armed fighters from the Tawhid and Jihad militant group led by the Jordanian, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi drove brazenly through the city's streets"

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 01, 2004 10:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Why do I get the idea that every bit and piece of bad news reported by media sources about Iraq thrills you Petron? I know it thrills John Kerry who has been pulling, hoping and praying for catastrophe in Iraq for political reasons, but why you Petron?

Here's some news that will depress you Petron. I know John Kerry will be depressed too. Weren't you just talking about Samarra?

I know you don't get it Petron and you may not be capable of getting it but the more terrorists enter Iraq and concentrate their forces there, where we can find and kill them, the fewer terrorists we will have to dig out from caves and under the rocks they hide under. It's certain that John Kerry isn't capable of getting it either.

Major Assault Kills Samarra Terrorists
NewsMax Wires
Friday, Oct. 1, 2004
SAMARRA, Iraq

U.S. and Iraqi forces launched a major assault Friday to regain control of the insurgent stronghold of Samarra, trading gunfire with militants as they pushed toward the city center. More than 100 insurgents and at least one American were killed, an Iraqi minister said.
Troops of the U.S. 1st Infantry Division, Iraqi National Guard and Iraqi Army moved in after midnight to secure government and police buildings in the city 60 miles north of Baghdad. As they advanced, insurgents attacked with rocket-propelled grenades and small arms, the military said.

Qasim Dowoud, minister of state for National Security, said more than 100 insurgents were killed and 37 others captured, including members of Saddam Hussein's regime. No foreign Arab fighters were captured, he said. A CNN correspondent embedded with the 1st Infantry Division reported that an estimated 3,000 U.S. troops moved into Samarra and 109 insurgents were killed.

Operations were continuing but the city was virtually in government hands, Dowoud said. The main mosque, one of Iraq's holiest, had been seized, along with the city hall, a pharmaceutical factory and other installations, he added. Earlier, the Interior Ministry said Iraqi and U.S. forces controlled more than 80 percent of the city by Friday afternoon.

``We are working on the complete cleanup of the city from all those terrorists,'' Dowoud said, describing Samarra as an ``outlaw city'' that had spun out of control.

``We will spare no effort to clean all the Iraqi lands and cities from these criminals and we will pave the way through these operations not only for the reconstruction but also for the general elections.''

Dr. Khalid Ahmed said at least 80 bodies and more than 100 wounded were brought to Samarra General Hospital, but it was not clear how many were insurgents.

One American soldier was killed and four were wounded, said Master Sgt. Robert Powell, spokesman for the 1st Infantry Division.

Smoke rose from an area around the Imam Ali al-Hadi and Imam Hassan al-Askari shrine, raising fears about one of the holiest sites for Shiite Muslims. But the shrine was not damaged and Iraqi forces had secured the site, said Maj. Neal O'Brien, another spokesman for the 1st Infantry Division.

``Coalition forces and Iraqi security forces will do everything possible to protect the valuable site from damage,'' he said.

Later Friday, the city appeared calm except for American snipers on rooftops of high buildings firing at anybody in the streets below.

Some residents had fled the city of 250,000 before the attack, but in small numbers because few were expecting the assault amid news of negotiations to resolve the crisis.

The push into Samarra appeared to be the start of a promised major offensive to retake several cities that insurgents have rendered ``no-go'' zones for U.S. and Iraqi troops. Officials have said recapturing those cities is key before nationwide elections scheduled for January.

The offensive came a day after a string of bombings across the country killed at least 51 people, including 35 children at a government-sponsored celebration to inaugurate a sewage plant in Baghdad.

Also Friday, U.S. warplanes and tanks attacked the vast Baghdad slum of Sadr City, killing 12 Iraqis and wounding 11 others, a hospital director said. The military said only one rebel was killed.

Samarra residents cowered in their homes as tanks and warplanes pounded the city. The sound of shelling mixed with the crackle of automatic gunfire. At least three houses were flattened and dozens of cars charred, residents said.

``We are terrified by the violent approach used by the Americans to subdue the city,'' said Mahmoud Saleh, a 33-year-old civil servant. ``My wife and children are scared to death and they have not being able to sleep since last night. I hope that the fighting ends as soon as possible.''

During the push, U.S. soldiers rescued a kidnapped Turkish construction worker held in the city. He was identified as Yahlin Kaya, an employee of the 77 Construction Company in Samarra.

U.S. and Iraqi forces blocked the roads into the city to prevent insurgents from moving in and out, O'Brien said.

As Iraqi forces secured the Samarra bridge, American soldiers saw insurgents in speedboats loading ordnance on the banks of the Tigris River, the military said. Soldiers fired warning shots and the insurgents returned fire, prompting U.S. forces to destroy the boats, killing their occupants, the statement said.

Water and electricity services were cut off, and troops ordered residents to stay off the streets as they moved from house to house in search of insurgents. A 7 p.m.-to-7 a.m. curfew was announced.

The military said insurgent attacks and acts of intimidation against the people of Samarra had undermined security in the city, regarded as one of the top three rebel strongholds in Iraq, along with Fallujah and Sadr City.

The Americans returned briefly on Sept. 9 under a peace deal brokered by tribal leaders under which U.S. forces agreed to provide millions of dollars in reconstruction funds in exchange for an end to attacks on American and Iraqi troops.

In recent weeks, however, the city saw sporadic clashes between U.S. troops and insurgents.

Masked gunmen carrying the flag of Iraq's most feared terror group, Tawhid and Jihad, surfaced in force in Samarra on Tuesday, staging a defiant drive through the streets.

The group, led by Jordanian terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, claimed responsibility for bloody attacks in Baghdad on Thursday, according to a statement posted on a militant Web site.

The authenticity of the statement could not be verified, and it was unclear whether the three ``heroic operations'' it cites - attacks on a government complex and ``a convoy of invading forces'' - included the bombs that killed the children.

Al-Zarqawi's group has also claimed to have killed several foreign hostages seized in recent months in a campaign against the United States and its allies.

An unofficial French negotiator told a radio station that two journalists who have been held hostage in Iraq for more than a month could be released within hours. Philippe Brett told Europe-1 radio that he was with the two French hostages and that negotiations were being finalized for their release.

Christian Chesnot, 37, and George Malbrunot, 41, disappeared Aug. 20 with their Syrian driver while apparently heading toward Najaf. Militants calling themselves the Islamic Army in Iraq claimed responsibility, demanding that France revoke a law banning Islamic head scarves from state schools.

Brett is not an official negotiator for the French government. However, he has worked in Iraq for years, mainly through the French Office for Development of Industry and Culture, which he helped found.

In the southern city of Kufa, meanwhile, security forces prevented hundreds of Shiite Muslim supporters of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr from entering a major mosque for Friday prayers _ the first such action since the fall of Saddam Hussein last year. Police fired in the air to disperse the faithful, but there were no reported casualties.

Authorities have prevented worship inside the mosque since August clashes between al-Sadr's militia and U.S. and Iraqi troops in the nearby holy city of Najaf. Until Friday, however, they allowed them to hold prayers in a yard outside the shrine.

The clashes ended in late August with a peace deal brokered by Iraq's top Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani. Since then, the cleric's office took control of the Kufa Mosque and the shrine of Imam Ali in Najaf, one of the holiest in Iraq.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/10/1/92021.shtml

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted October 01, 2004 11:44 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
jwhop thats the same attack the guardian article was about lol, i thought allawi said it was peaceful there??

"Addressing the US Congress last week Ayad Allawi, the interim Iraqi prime minister, spoke of a new peace in Samarra, hailing it as a sign of political progress. "


From Wire Reports
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Only nine days ago, interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi told the U.S. Congress that Samarra was an example of how his government had "tackled the insurgents who once controlled the city."
That assertion came a few weeks after American commanders boasted they had re-entered Samarra, one of several cities under insurgent control, and "taken necessary steps to restore normalcy."
Asked what had happened between the Sept. 9 announcement and Friday, Adm. Greg Slavonic, the U.S. military's chief spokesman in Iraq, said, "I don't really have an answer to that question."
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/100204dnintsamarra.141ed.html

Street battles in Iraq kill 100
Doctors at Samarra’s hospital said 47 bodies were brought in, including 11 women, five children and seven old men. Staff could not cope with all the wounded, and bodies lay in the streets. http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1151112004

heres some more signs of peace in iraq....


worst month in iraq http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/292928|top|09-30-2004::17:47|reuters.html

reporter killed during live broadcast http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/13/wirq13.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/09/13/ixportaltop.html

more troops needed http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34111-2004Sep19.html


As children approach American troops giving away candy at a celebration, three bombs go off in succession.
At least 35 children die in Baghdad bombings http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/01/Worldandnation/At_least_35_children_.shtml


IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 02, 2004 12:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Petron, exactly what is the relevance of all the articles you're copying and pasting here?

We know there are terrorists in Iraq resisting the new government and the coming elections.

We know there are some members of the former Baathist regime resisting the new government and the coming elections.

But what is the point, specifically that you are attempting to make, if there is a point?

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted October 02, 2004 02:00 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
well jwhop i guess that would depend on YOUR point in posting this article referring to allawi's "speech"
and this anonymous , hand wringing testimony from some "officer" who says "you can walk the streets in safety"

He wrote about another city, Samarra where just two ago, "that Sunni Triangle city was a 'No-go' area for US troops. But guess what? The locals got sick of living in fear from the insurgents and foreign fighters that were there and let them know they weren't welcome. They stopped hosting them in their houses and the mayor of the town brokered a deal with the U.S. commander to return Iraqi government sovereignty to the city without a fight


you could say my links are "updates" to your newsmax press releases if you wish.........

have you read the aljezeera "version" of todays attack yet??

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted October 02, 2004 02:49 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
oh and btw you probly already know this about baathists being restored to positions of power right?

baathists
(CNN) -- The White House confirmed Thursday that the administration is moving to change a postwar policy that blocked members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party from Iraqi government and military positions. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/22/iraq.baathist/

"This is like allowing Nazis into the German government immediately after World War Two," said Governing Council member Ahmed Chalabi http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3651953.stm

IP: Logged

quiksilver
unregistered
posted October 03, 2004 01:41 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Proxieme, I agree with you completely and fully on that count. We can't just bail out now, leaving the job half done and in disarray. It's totally irresponsible. True, many areas are reportedly under control but if the U.S. pulls out before Iraq can effectively launch a free election, I'd say the whole thing was just pointless and a futile effort at best. Guess we'll see what happens....

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 04, 2004 04:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Petron, I don't get or take my news from Al-Jazeera any more than I pay any attention to so called civilian causality reports coming out of terrorist controlled cities from terrorist supporting doctors or hospital staff. We've already had the conversation about the impossibility of telling which are civilians and which are terrorists.

I know the Samaara terrorist population has been reduced. I know people are re-opening their businesses there and people are walking the streets again.

I know there are 2 other terrorist strongholds that are about to get the same treatment, one of them Falluja.

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted October 04, 2004 05:12 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Jwhop,

You speak as if anything that appears in newspapers or other media sources that does not agree with the Bush administration's assessment of how things are going in Iraq are all lies - while on the other hand anything that agrees with Bush's assessment is the truth.

Do you not understand that the premise of a free press in a democracy is to give both sides of the coin? Do you believe in a free press? I guess that is the number question to ask you.

During the Viet Nam war we got the same thing. We had the Johnson administration's view of how the war was going backed up by his military generals and the Pentagon. Just as it is in Iraq now they painted a positive picture all along while the body bags kept getting filled up. History tells us who was telling the real truth just as it will tell us who is doing the lying about Iraq.

It is my opinion that if you truly believe in a democracy rather than a totalitarian government where only the government version of things is heard and the citizens do not have the right to hear both sides of things then you would be rejoicing over the fact that we are hearing different versions of how things are going in Iraq. Instead it seems that you resent that.

The very fact that there is so much arguing back and forth and hostily towards those who would prefer to have John Kerry as their leader (and name calling) shows just how much Bush has divided the people of this country and that alone is not a good thing for any leader to do. After the attack on Pearl Harbor President Roosevelt told the American people, " The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." In doing that Roosevelt united the American citizens. Instead of doing that after the attack on the WTC on 9/11 George W. Bush has not only encouraged fear among the American citizens, he has used that fear to run his whole administration. He is using fear to run his election campaign too. He paints himself as the only one who can save us from the terrorists. Our redeemer as it were. That is garbage. Instead of uniting the people after 9/11 Bush divided not only the American people but the rest of the world as well by coming out and saying in so many words, "If you are not with us you are against us." Or "If you are not with us you are unpatriotic." That speaks volumes about the man.

Religiously speaking, the yardstick applied to determine if anything is of God is that it unites. Anything that divides is not of God but is evil. That yardstick is used by all the major religions. I apply it to my life as well.

In a democracy we don't have to agree and that is the beauty of a democracy. We should also form our opinions and judgments based on hearing both sides of all the issues. When we shut out the other side and refuse to hear it then we are not forming our opinions in an educated way. We are instead stubbornly sticking to our way of thinking regardless of information to the contrary. Pretty much like GW Bush does. What do you have to lose by taking into consideration things that are contrary to your thinking? What do you have to lose in admitting from time to time that you just might be wrong and changing your opinions? Bush calls that sort of thing "flip flopping." I call it thinking and weighing your opinion in light of further evidence. If that is "flip flopping" then give me a "flip flopper" any day over a person who stubbornly sticks to his way of thinking and never admits he is wrong or changes his tactics along with his mind. I call that closed minded. It is also very dangerous in a leader of a Democratic country to think he is right all the time and never listens to anything that disagrees with him. The truth is that Bush has fired people in his adminstration who disagree with him. And, any time anything has come out in the news such as the torturing of prisoners in the Iraqi prison, it is always some one else's fault. He has not once taken responsibilty for anything. While on the other hand Harry Truman stated regarding the desk of the President " The buck stops here." With Bush the buck is passed to subordinates or anyone else but him.

If Bush is not responsible for anything and everyone else is wrong who does not think as he does, then how am I to believe anything that he says regarding how things are going in Iraq? He also paints a rosy picture of how things are going on in the U.S. and we only have to look around to see that "ain't so."

Mirandee

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted October 04, 2004 07:12 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"I know people are re-opening their businesses there and people are walking the streets again."-jwhop


wow jwhop but i'd like to see your source that says THAT!! or did you just make that up too?
or do you mean theyll reopen their businesses when theyve got water and electric back, theyve buried their dead and the thousands that fled the city return?
do you think civilians there feel safe to "walk the streets today"?

this was yesterday....

Iraqis flee fighting in Samarra by river boats
Sun Oct 3, 2004 01:48 PM ET
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6396957
In Samarra, aid organisations said they were concerned about a lack of water and power and the fate of hundreds of families forced to flee.


and this today.....


The latest developments in Iraq
By Associated Press, 10/4/2004 18:07

In Samarra, 60 miles northwest of Baghdad, U.S. troops patrolled in tanks, armored personnel carriers and Humvees as sporadic gunfire broke the relative calm. U.S. soldiers, accompanied by Iraqi translators carrying lists, entered houses asking about specific people.
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/278/world/The_latest_developments_in_Ira:.shtml


so whered you get that from jwhop about businesses reopening today?

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted October 04, 2004 09:06 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"Petron, I don't get or take my news from Al-Jazeera any more than I pay any attention to so called civilian causality reports coming out of terrorist controlled cities from terrorist supporting doctors or hospital staff"-jwhop


i thought the theory was that most iraqis are happy but theres these "former baathists" and insurgents who are "causing trouble"...?
but you say even the hospital staff are terrorists ?

here i found what you mustve been referring to.....do you mean theyre opening iraq police recruitment centers again 2day?

and this is what you mustve meant about people "walking the streets"

" Abdul-Nasser Hamed Yassin, an official at the city's hospital, said 70 dead had been brought in since the fighting started, among them 23 children. At least 160 wounded were treated. Many residents carried their dead to the graveyard yesterday, waving white flags on sticks as they walked through deserted streets."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1319795,00.html

IP: Logged

Solane Star
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Canada
Registered: Aug 2010

posted October 04, 2004 11:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Solane Star     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Welcome Mirandee,

Very collective and obserant of you. See how he disappears.

Solane Star

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 05, 2004 12:06 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Mirandee, you write beautifully

Yes, I'm for a free press. I'm also for a truthful press. I'm also for a press accountable to the public they are supposed to serve. The people's right to know.....you know. I'm against a lying press, an irresponsible press, a press that withholds stories, slants the news to suit their political agenda and generally subverts the principles behind the First Amendment.

History has spoken about Vietnam and history didn't come down on the side of the American press and media....far from it. American military forces won the battles on the battlefields. North Vietnam won the battles conducted in the American news media and in the halls of Congress.

It's important to think critically Mirandee, not to be confused with being critical. Much of what you say cannot stand any examination, sounds good but conflicts with factual information on the record. Bush is not dividing America.

The Democrats favorite game is class warfare, envy, greed and division. They've practiced that for more than 40 years. This election cycle is no different.

There are several Democrats I might be able to bring myself to vote for, if national security was the main issue. John Kerry is the very last person at the bottom of that list. Kerry is a liar, he vacillates, flip flops back and forth but in reality, Kerry is a political opportunist with no core values. He'll tell anyone anything to get elected. You may think that admirable, I don't. You may think someone with that personality flaw thoughtful, willing to change their mind when facts become available indicating a different course of action. Kerry changes his mind like he changes his underwear, daily.

Religiously, I've never heard the doctrine you enunciated and I've heard just about everything. Anything of God, unites. Anything that divides is of the devil? Where did you find that?

I don't recall Bush being accused of torturing anyone in Iraq or any place else. Those who committed the offense should be and are being punished. You think Bush ordered torture? What proof have you? Critical thinking Mirandee, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. If there are obvious lies contained in a statement, you should examine the rest of what's being said. Chances are the rest is equally flawed. Remember Dan Rather? Attempting to bring down the President with forged documents? The truth doesn't need lies to support it.

People working in the White House who do not agree with the President's policies should resign. Failing that, Bush should fire them. He should also fire on the spot, anyone in his administration who disagrees with him publicly or leaks stories to the press. It's the President who has the sole responsibility, not aides, cabinet heads, et. al. Their job is advisory, they don't make decisions. I'm glad he fired Paul O'Neill. O'Neill was arguing with the President, publicly too, about using tax cuts to stimulate the economy. The President was right about the issue and O'Neill was wrong, as a rapidly expanding economy indicates.

Curious Mirandee, when you look around the US, what just isn't so?

IP: Logged

QueenofSheeba
unregistered
posted October 05, 2004 01:24 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You know, I love it how people keep insisting that Iraq is getting better. Hello, people? Wake up and smell the cordite?

It's a basket case, just like Afghanistan. Why, just the other day our brave Marines- umm, excuse me, Iraqi security forces- had to retake Samarra from terrorists. There are car bombings every day. Lots of people have died. Like, lots... more than three or four. Do you have a concept of a number greater than three or four? Thought not. Anyway, Iraq is scheduled for elections soon, and what a triumph that will be. I shall be terribly amused if they elect a government not to our liking.

And you know, the best part (for terrorists) is that G.Dub keeps on encouraging young Muslim men to become terrorists by invading their countries. He's their biggest recruiter. So let's reelect him, okay?

------------------
Hello everybody! I used to be QueenofSheeba and then I was Apollo and now I am QueenofSheeba again (and I'm a guy in case you didn't know)!

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted October 05, 2004 09:47 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sheeba, I'm inclined to agree with you. We need a reality check here.

Bush and Reality
By BOB HERBERT

Published: October 4, 2004

For 90 minutes, at least, democracy seemed to be working. The two men in dark suits took their places at the lecterns. The analysts, the handlers, the spinmeisters and the hangers-on had been cleared out of the way. With no commercial interruptions, more than 60 million Americans got a rare, unedited, close-up look at the candidates in one of the most important presidential elections in the nation's history.

John Kerry got the better of President Bush in last Thursday's debate in Coral Gables, Fla. The president seemed listless, defensive and not particularly well prepared. His facial expressions and body language at times were odd. Some of his strongest supporters were dismayed by his performance, and polls are showing they had reason to be concerned.

There undoubtedly were many reasons for Mr. Bush's lackluster effort. But I think there was one factor, above all, that undermined the president in last week's debate, and will continue to plague him throughout the campaign. And that was his problematic relationship with reality.

Mr. Bush is a man who will frequently tell you - and may even believe - that up is down, or square is round, when logic and all the available evidence say otherwise. During the debate, this was most clearly displayed when, in response to a question about the war in Iraq, Mr. Bush told the moderator, Jim Lehrer, "The enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us."

Moments later Senator Kerry clarified, for the audience and the president, just who had attacked the United States. "Saddam Hussein didn't attack us," said Mr. Kerry. "Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us."

Given a chance to respond, Mr. Bush flashed an unappreciative look at Senator Kerry and said, "Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us - I know that."

With no weapons of mass destruction to exhibit, and no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, Mr. Bush has nevertheless tried to portray the war in Iraq as not only the right thing to do but as largely successful. The increasing violence and chaos suggest otherwise. Even as the presidential debate was being conducted, details were coming in about car bombings earlier in the day in Baghdad that killed dozens of Iraqis, including at least 34 children.

The children were not in school because the turmoil had prevented the opening of schools.

The political problem for Mr. Bush is that while he is offering a rosy picture of events in Iraq - perhaps because he believes it, or because he wants to bolster American morale - voters are increasingly seeing the bitter, tragic reality of those events. A president can stay out of step with reality only so long. Eventually there's a political price to pay. Lyndon Johnson's deceit with regard to Vietnam, for example, has never been forgiven.

The president likes to tell us that "freedom is winning" in Iraq, that democracy is on the march. But Americans are coming to realize that Iraq is, in fact, a country in agony, beset by bombings, firefights, kidnappings, beheadings and myriad other forms of mayhem. The president may think that freedom is winning, but television viewers in the U.S. could see images over the weekend of distraught Iraqis pulling the bodies of small children from smoking rubble - a tragic but perfect metaphor for a policy in ruins.

Mr. Bush got his big bounce in the public opinion polls from the Swift boat nonsense and the mocking, nonstop criticism of Senator Kerry at the Republican National Convention. Those were distractions from the real world. But reality cannot be kept at bay indefinitely. Readers of The Washington Post got a disturbing dose of it yesterday from a front-page article about the strain being put on the overloaded systems of veterans' disability benefits and health care by the thousands of American troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with physical injuries and mental health problems.

The article noted that "President Bush's budget for 2005 calls for cutting the Department of Veterans Affairs staff that handles benefits claims."

A staff sergeant who was paralyzed in a mortar attack near Baghdad was quoted as saying: "I love the military; that was my life. But I don't believe they're taking care of me now."

The real world is President Bush's Achilles' heel. He can't keep his distance from it forever.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/04/opinion/04herbert.html?th

I posted this article because I noticed that Bush has a problem with reality. I know I'm not alone in that observation.

[QUOTE]Curious Mirandee, when you look around the US, what just isn't so?[QUOTE]

All that political hype that you just gave us about the economy being on an "upswing," Jwhop. Same political hype we get from Bush and his cronies. Again proof that Bush has a reality problem. The stats don't support that claim with 11 million American jobs lost to outsourcing, the increasing numbers of foreclosures on homes across the country, 43 million Americans without medical insurance and the list goes on.

Regarding the statement you made about the religious yardstick I spoke about:

[QUOTE]Religiously, I've never heard the doctrine you enunciated and I've heard just about everything. Anything of God, unites. Anything that divides is of the devil? Where did you find that?[QUOTE]

Well, you learn something new everyday, Jwhop I found it in theology books from religious classes where I was a 4.0 student for years. It comes from a Scripture reference in Acts. I did not say that anything that divides is from the devil because I do not believe in the devil. I said evil - meaning the opposite of God and good.

[QUOTE]I don't recall Bush being accused of torturing anyone in Iraq or any place else. Those who committed the offense should be and are being punished. You think Bush ordered torture? What proof have you? Critical thinking Mirandee, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. If there are obvious lies contained in a statement, you should examine the rest of what's being said. Chances are the rest is equally flawed.

[QUOTE]Critical thinking, Jwhop if it doesn't fit you must acquit. I did not say or even imply that Bush ordered torture. You are reading something into what I said that was not there. I do have proof that he does or at least he must condone torture. The proof is in legislation that he is trying to get passed through the House and Congress that would enable him to deport anyone he names a terrorist either residing in the U.S. or entering the U.S. to Syria, Egypt or a few other countries where torture is practiced on anyone held in their custody. Which means that if that law were in effect a couple of weeks ago, Cat Stevens could have been taken off that plane and sent to one of those countries. The point is, to push for such legislation as Bush is doing, knowing the human rights records of those countries (and it is known worldwide) must mean that Bush at least condones torture. Otherwise why he specify those countries? Also if you remember that while Bush and Rumsfeld took no responsibility for the torture of the prisoners in Iraq and told the American people it was an isolated event by a few people who would be punished - on Aug. 25 the Army Internal Affairs Committee investigating the tortures released it's findings and stated that 35 military intelligence personnel were also involved in the tortures of prisoners and one death by a crushed windpipe. That lends creedence to what those charged said from the beginning,they were following orders. Now if Bush and Rumsfeld were ignorant of what the military intelligence were doing in that prison then I would have to say they are not doing their jobs very competently. If Rumsfeld knew and did not tell Bush then he needs to resign. In fact, he needs to take responsibility for what his own military personnel do in Iraq and step down anyway.

[QUOTE]Mirandee, you write beautifully[QUOTE]

Thank you. You write rather well yourself.


IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted October 05, 2004 01:12 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
here lies bush dubya

September 7, 2002


Q Mr. President, can you tell us what conclusive evidence of any nuclear -- new evidence you have of nuclear weapons capabilities of Saddam Hussein?

THE PRESIDENT: We just heard the Prime Minister talk about the new report. I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020907-2.html


The IAEA did issue a report in 1998, around the time weapons inspectors were denied access to Iraq for the final time, but the report made no such assertion. It declared: "Based on all credible information to date, the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material." The report said Iraq had been six to 24 months away from nuclear capability before the 1991 Gulf War.

The White House said that Bush "was imprecise on this" and that the source was U.S. intelligence, not the IAEA. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A61903-2002Oct21¬Found=true

june 10 2002

Q Mr. President, good morning, sir. Do you plan any new initiatives on -- to combat global warming?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I've laid out that very comprehensive initiative. I read the report put out by a -- put out by the bureaucracy. I do not support the Kyoto treaty http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020604-16.html


Q Ari, I just would like to set the record straight on something the President said last week, when he was up at the NSA, when he was asked about the report on global warming by the EPA. He said he read the report. I believe the report is 260-some pages -- he meant he read the full report?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President -- whenever Presidents say they read it, you can read that to be he was briefed. (Laughter.)

Q Frankness. (Laughter.)

Q Refreshing. (Laughter.)

MR. FLEISCHER: I've enjoyed working here, thank you. (Laughter.) http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020610-3.html


IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted October 05, 2004 08:51 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Exactly, Petron and you notice when it all went down that there were no WMD's in Iraq we can see who had to take the blame for it...the Intelligence people. How could anyone believe there were nuclear weapons in Iraq in the first place when the country had been bombed during the Golf War and again in Clinton's administration? They didn't even have airplanes in Iraq after all the bombings.

Now, Jwhop my man, I will reply to two more of your quotes in your response to my post.

You said, "Yes, I'm for a free press. I'm also for a truthful press. I'm also for a press accountable to the public they are supposed to serve. The people's right to know.....you know. I'm against a lying press, an irresponsible press, a press that withholds stories, slants the news to suit their political agenda and generally subverts the principles behind the First Amendment."

In that case I presume you do not like Fox News.

Fox News has hit a new low: they've gone from spinning stories to fabricating them outright. On Friday, Fox ran a story by chief political correspondent Carl Cameron with phony quotations from John Kerry. The bogus lines speak for themselves:


"Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!"

"Women should like me! I do manicures."

"I'm metrosexual -- he's a cowboy," the Democratic candidate said of himself and his opponent. A "metrosexual" is defined as an urbane male with a strong aesthetic sense who spends a great deal of time and money on his appearance and lifestyle.[1]

Incredibly, Fox insists the sham story was a good-humored mistake due to "fatigue." While a Fox staff memo called this "a dismissable offense," the network has failed to take any serious action.[2]

Carl Cameron's bias in this election is clear. Roger Ailes, the CEO of Fox News, must fire him.

Roger Ailes is himself a Republican political operative who continues his electioneering under the guise of journalism.

You also said:

"History has spoken about Vietnam and history didn't come down on the side of the American press and media....far from it. American military forces won the battles on the battlefields. North Vietnam won the battles conducted in the American news media and in the halls of Congress."

Winning battles is not the same as winning the war. Just as winning the war is not the same as winning the peace. It's ludicrous to blame the American press and Congress for assisting the enemy just as it is ludicrous to blame them for "aiding and abetting the the enemy" in what is going on in Iraq. The real victory of the Viet Nam war was democracy. What we showed the rest of the world was that the people of the U.S. do have a voice in what goes on in this government. We showed them that Democracy works. All the press did was report the truth about Viet Nam and you can hardly say they lied when those reporters were right there on the battlefields reporting. What our government learned from that is not to let the press have free reign as they did in Viet Nam because seeing war as it really is turns public opinion against it. So now what we have is a censored version of war and from the air as if it were a video game.

Really, I for one am getting tired of the Viet Nam war being brought up in every election campaign since the war ended in the 1970's. Americans seem to be hung up about Viet Nam. I think we should just go back and refight the war. We have more than proven since then that we can be just as barbaric as the enemy we fight. Besides Viet Nam had nothing to do with 9/11 or the terrorists so they are just asking for it anyway.


IP: Logged

Isis
Newflake

Posts: 1
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 2009

posted October 05, 2004 09:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Isis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The freakin' Baby Boomers just can't let Nam go...(no offense to our Baby Boomers)

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted October 05, 2004 10:06 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

talk about aiding and abetting the enemy.....

***************
Q The President laid out two reasons why the administration believes it cannot declassify those 28 pages. But that said, isn't there something in that 28 pages that can be declassified? And secondly, do you have anything to say about how the Saudis have cooperated in the war on terrorism, because they say that they are being unfairly maligned here and cannot respond to blank pages?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as you're aware from what I said earlier, we worked very closely with the joint congressional inquiry and provided unprecedented cooperation

Q No, I don't think anyone really quibbles with that. But a Republican Senator on the Hill who you know is on the Senate Intelligence Committee has said that 95 percent of this could be declassified without endangering national security. So what do make of what Senator Shelby had to say?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I continue to reiterate what we said earlier

Q Senator Graham today said the only reason this is being withheld, that these 28 pages are blank, in his words, is it's all politics. He says that the administration is trying to avoid embarrassing the Saudi government.

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think the national security of the American people has anything to do with politics.

Q How do you explain the difference between Senator Shelby and the White House over what could be declassified? Surely he's not somebody whose views on national security issues would run counter to what you normally believe. But he says 95 percent can be declassified without compromising anything. Why do you take such an opposite view? Where's the problem here?

MR. McCLELLAN: We respect the views of members of Congress and those that were involved in the intelligence committee


Q The other question is, New York Times reporter, Stephen Kinzer, has just come out with a book called, All the Shah's Men, An American Coup in the Roots of Middle East Terror. He documents a CIA operation, Ajax, which was a coup that overthrew a democratic-elected Mossadegh. And he makes the following argument -- and I was wondering if you agree to this -- he says, "It is not farfetched to draw a line from Operation Ajax through the Shaw's repressive regime and the Islamic revolution to the fireballs that engulfed the World Trade Center in New York."

MR. McCLELLAN: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on a book that I haven't read, but -- you're asking about the Central Intelligence Agency?

Q It was a coup by the United States of a democratically elected leader in Iran.

MR. McCLELLAN: Russell, I haven't even seen that book --

Q Can you walk us through who exactly, in terms of the NSC or CIA or FBI, is making the decisions about what should be classified and what shouldn't? Because with the NIE and the State of the Union debacle, we all found out how difficult cooperation and communication can be between the various intelligence agencies. So who's making the final call ?--


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030729-8.html

you really have to read the page yourself to figure out the answer to that last straightforward question , its a long complicated array of evasions....

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a