free web counter

Maries Two Cents

Far Right Conservative And Proud Of It!..... Stories That I Think Need Special Attention, And, Of Course, My Two Cents :-)

My Photo
Name:
Location: Del City, Oklahoma, United States




Click for Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Forecast





Homeland Security Advisory

October 06, 2007

Feed Shark Turbo Tagger

Obama Takes Off The Flag

Obama Stops Wearing Flag Pin To Protest Iraq War

WATERLOO, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin because it has become a substitute for "true patriotism" since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Asked about it Wednesday in an interview with KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the Illinois senator said he stopped wearing the pin shortly after the attacks and instead hoped to show his patriotism by explaining his ideas to citizens.

"The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.

"I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest," he said in the interview. "Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism."

On Thursday, his campaign issued a statement: "We all revere the flag, but Senator Obama believes that being a patriot is about more than a symbol. It's about fighting for our veterans when they get home and speaking honestly with the American people about this disastrous war."

Obama was campaigning in Iowa Thursday, the second day of a four-day trip to the early voting state.



At one stop, he called for new restrictions on deployment of National Guard and Reserve troops along with an expansion of benefits for them and their families.

"I will not be a president who extends tours for our Guard units overseas while Americans are stranded on rooftops right here at home," Obama said.

He said he would require "a period of rest and standard of readiness" before troops could be redeployed. He called for the head of the National Guard to be elevated to four-star rank and given a seat among the Joint Chiefs of Staff to reflect the heavy reliance on Guard soldiers and reservists during the Iraq war.

Since 2001, Obama said, more than 580,000 reservists have been activated, a level not seen since World War II.

In making his case, Obama pointed to an Iowa unit in which members learned from family and friends back home that their deployment had been extended. That unit—the 1st Battalion of the 133rd Infantry—recently returned after a 22-month deployment in Iraq.

"When we've got service members who have to find out that their tour has been extended in a phone call home, we're not keeping that trust and we're not keeping this country safe," Obama said.

He also called for increased mental health services, including screening and treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. He said nearly half of the National Guard troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from psychological problems, yet little emphasis is put on treating those disorders.

"We're not providing adequate treatment, screening and benefits," said Obama. "We need more mental health professionals and more training to recognize the signs."

Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So Obama doesnt like the Flag? What kind of nitwit is this guy? Does he understand that ALL of our Troops have to go through a mental stability and depression course before they are re-integrated back into Society again? He makes it sound like he thought up this idea when it has been implemented all along. How are these people suppose to run our Country when they dont even believe we are at War! Taking off the Flag pin is only a sign you dont like the symbol of America! Cant we leave the American Flag, the symbol of America OUT OF POLITICS?????

Labels: ,

78 Comments:

Blogger Gayle said...

He's desperate, Marie, and this refusal to wear a symbol of the American flag proves it. He's behind Hillary and thinks this will help him catch up. I predict it will have the exact opposite affect!

No, Obama is not the one we need to concern ourselves with. Hillary is the dangerous one, and there's also another danger: Conservatives who will refuse to vote if the front-runner isn't a candidate they can agree on every issue with. It was conservatives who threw the vote away in 06 because they were angry, and if they pull the same trick on 08 we will all be the worse off for it. I hope they've learned their lesson!

October 06, 2007 9:40 AM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Where in the article does it say he doesn't like the flag? I must have missed that part.

Oh...I get it now. If you're not for bombing the western hemisphere and if you're not for giving unconditional support for destruction of the Bill of Rights, then you must hate the flag and America. Logic at its finest. Sorry...I'm still stuck on the forefathers who wrote the Constitution. ("Dissent is patriotic."-Thomas Paine)

Wearing a flag pin doesn't make you patriotic, just like not wearing one does not make you unpatriotic.

October 06, 2007 10:53 AM  
Blogger Daniel Ruwe said...

Obama's not that smart- why not praise the flag every chance you get? You'd think that would be an issue that everyone agrees on.

October 06, 2007 10:59 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Gayle,

You are right he is desperate! I think you are also right this just sank his career among those that Love the US Flag.


Federalist,

I guess I will post this here since you are also in amy archives:

The law of the land since 1998 was to remove the Saddam Hussein Regime.

The Iraq Liberation Act

Signed into law by none other than Bill Clinton.

So when you say this is Bush's war or an unjust war, you might as well take that up with Bill Clinton. Because your point is moot.

President Bush was just enforcing the law of the land.



And as for people not being in the "Bill Of Right's" maybe you need to read it again:

THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:


Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.




Oh and Zarqowi (Top Al-Qaeda Leader, deceased) did go to Iraq after we whooped his ass in Afganistan for a leg operation, I wonder why?


I am all for dissent myself, but when you take off your flag pin as you are running to be a Presidential Candidate that says alot about your character, which Obama could have found another way to show his dessent besides not wearing his flag pin.

That also brings his patriotism into question.



Daniel,

You are right. Why cant we leave the American Flag, a symbol of America OUT of Politics?

It sounds like Obama has also be sucked into the George Soros funded groups.

October 06, 2007 11:42 AM  
Blogger Wild Phil said...

Hi Marie,

It looks as though that you have another Commie Libtard by the name of The Federalist.

He's the type that believed John Kerry's lies about the abuse that our troops were doing to the South Vietnamese, He's just a regular run of the Mouth Libtard which doesn't know the facts and just espouses the idiot far Leftist Marxist talking points.

Well The Federalist, you and your Leftist Commies can just get the heck out of the United States because your Patriotism stinks and if you don't like it you know right where you can stick it.

October 06, 2007 11:43 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Wild Phil,

It's never ending isnt it? lol

This guy is in my archives and all over the place lol

He should know better than to confront me with phoney crap because I will shove facts down his throat!

October 06, 2007 11:49 AM  
Blogger Wild Phil said...

Hi Marie,

Well you and I and most of the Conservatives already know that Libtards are not very good with facts they just whine and moan. That is because that they Hate America and love Dictators.

Poor Commiecrats are missing their Iraq Dictator now. LOL

October 06, 2007 12:11 PM  
Blogger Wild Phil said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 06, 2007 12:11 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Wild Phil,

In essence, they are backing the wrong dog in this race lol

October 06, 2007 12:23 PM  
Blogger Uncle Pavian said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 06, 2007 2:15 PM  
Blogger Uncle Pavian said...

Of course, Senator Hussein didn't mention that the reason Americans were left stranded on rooftops was that the Democratic mayor of New Orleans (since re-elected despite having fled the city and set up shop in Houston) let hundreds of school buses be flooded rather than use them to transport his own people out of the city before they got stranded on rooftops.
Mr. Obama made the right decision in taking off his flag pin. He doesn't deserve to wear it.

October 06, 2007 2:17 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Wild Phil,

I do not support John Kerry. Great intellectual debate with the Hannity-esque insults. Kudos.

Gayle,

Once again, the Bill of Rights is a document that shows what the federal government can and cannot do. If you read the history of the document, it will demonstrate to you the fearful sentiments of tyranny suffered from which that document is born.

Bush stated clearly that we were going to Iraq because Iraq had WMD and refused to disarm. (but let's be honest, if he came out with all the weapons and said, "You got me, okay, here there are.", we weren't going anyway? Kidding, right? 175,000 soldiers to "negotiate"?

There were no WMD. Period. Bush admitted it. If there had been, we would have seen a photo with Bush in cowboy boots standing on top of them.

October 06, 2007 2:20 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Moreover, the Iraq Liberation Act called for a regime change and war tribunals and was supported by your Republican congress.

October 06, 2007 2:22 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Gayle,

Re-reading your post, I agree with you that Obama could have done something else to show his support for the troops in harms way.
Good point.

October 06, 2007 2:39 PM  
Anonymous Reverend K said...

Our good friend William Hotaling (AKA Francis Lynn)of "American Virtues Under Attack" passed away two weeks ago. He was a good man and is missed. He always appreciated your comments to his articles.

October 06, 2007 3:35 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Marie,

What facts have you shoved down my throat?

October 06, 2007 3:41 PM  
Blogger WomanHonorThyself said...

perhaps he should wear a crescent and star Marie...great post girl!

October 06, 2007 4:25 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Uncle P,

Mr. Obama made the right decision in taking off his flag pin. He doesn't deserve to wear it.

Ya know, you're right!

I never thought of it that way.



The Federalist,

Moreover, the Iraq Liberation Act called for a regime change and war tribunals and was supported by your Republican congress.

Yep, and signed into law by William Jefferson Clinton, that makes it the law of the land!

I posted the link in a post up there ^




Angel,

No foolin! Thank's

October 06, 2007 4:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cutting and pasting a news story is now considered a post? Wow...

October 06, 2007 4:46 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Federalist,

Marie,

What facts have you shoved down my throat?


Well you were in my archives saying this was Bush's war and all that crap when in fact it was Clinton's and Bush was just enforcing it.

And you said they werent talking about peoples freedoms in the Bill Of Rights and I posted that too.

October 06, 2007 4:48 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Reverand K,

OMG! No way!

I was just over at his place a few days ago wondering why he hadnt posted in quite a while.

I am so sorry.

He will deffinately be missed.

I hope you all will decide to keep his blog on the internet, he was inspiring.

October 06, 2007 4:51 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

They're not talking about personal freedoms in the Bill of Rights. It lays out what the government can and cannot do TO THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF PEOPLE. The people are not the primary agent of the Bill of Rights.

This is Bush's war. He told us that we invaded Iraq because Saddam did not disarm. Cheney told us that Saddam played a role in 9/11. Rumsfeld said we knew exactly where the WMD were.

But what's tragic is that Osama Bin Laden executed 9/11 and we're not looking for him.

Like Ron Paul said, "If the mafia attacked us, we shouldn't bomb Italy."

October 06, 2007 4:56 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Federalist,

And the Bill Of Rights Works! It was made By The People For the People of the United States of America.

The System Works!!

We may not always like how the system works but it works nonetheless.

Our forefathers drew up documents that basically pertained to 2 hundered years ago, but allowing for the changing of time also left it up to those that followed to be able to ratify it, amend it, and the Supreme Court to claify as to what they meant.

We the People, For the People By the People!



This is Bush's war. He told us that we invaded Iraq because Saddam did not disarm. Cheney told us that Saddam played a role in 9/11. Rumsfeld said we knew exactly where the WMD were.

This in no way is Bush's war. It IS the law of the land since President Clinton signed it into law! Do I have to post the entire Iraq Liberation Act
For you also?

Saddam never dissarmed under Clinton either, and Hillary gave a nice little speech about If Saddam Hussein Left Unchecked with WMD it would be devistating for the United States"

Both houses voted for it, it was Clinton's law (The law of the land) and this whole point about it being Bush's war is moot!



But what's tragic is that Osama Bin Laden executed 9/11 and we're not looking for him.

What's tragic is that Bill Clinton had about 10 chances to get Usama and blew it, so Bush isnt the only one Usama has escaped from either!




Ron Paul's quote didnt even make a damn bit of sense, especially when we are at war with enemies that want us all dead.

No matter where they try to hide themselves.

We will not forget, we will not surrender, and there will be hell to pay for attacking America!

October 06, 2007 5:39 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Wow...that's the first I've heard that this is Clinton's war. Why didn't we go in before 9/11?

I think you're the only one I've ever heard make that argument...which tells me...

October 06, 2007 5:51 PM  
Blogger Conservative Chic said...

I've seen this on a few other posts and I say the same thing. There is no reason he should have taken it off. It's a symbol of our freedom, our unity, our country. Taking it off looks like he is ashamed of wearing it. Not a smart move for someone trying to be president!

October 06, 2007 6:51 PM  
Blogger Wild Phil said...

Hi Marie,

I agree with what Conservative Chic said it was not a smart move for some one who is supposed to be a candidate.

Oh by the way I am sorry that I took those out of my blog but I am kind of like a friend of mine Henry who always says don't feed the trolls and maybe they will go away if one ignores them. I just did one better though I made sure that they got the hint that Trolls were not welcome there.

I put up with them for 5 days a week and to have them go to my place and comment is a big no no.

You and J_G can have fun with them all you want but I don't like to have to wear a Toupee or a Wig before my time from pulling my hair out.

How to deal with Trolls Remember the Second Amendment.

October 06, 2007 7:34 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Wild Phil,

Well my method of attack is let them lie, counter and confront them on thier own lies, let them set themselves up for the kill with facts, links, stories, etc...

I May have a wee bit of devil in me lol, I like to mess with them till thier head explode lol

I let them have thier say because if I didnt I would certainly look like a hypocrate that didnt want to hear the other side. I am willing to have an intelligent dicussion on whatever topic with whatever supporter (Until it starts coming down to we attacked ourselves on 9-11, that is such malarki I cant even dignify that crap with any answer.

I dont mind intelligent discussions however.

October 06, 2007 8:42 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Conservative Chic,


Obama really stepped in it this time.

He has the right not to wear the pin (which makes him look un-American) but (Mr Obama) please dont make exuses that we dont give a rats ass about your reason for not wearing it Mr. Obama!

Spare us the spin.

Let's keep the Flag (Our American Symbol) out of politics!

October 06, 2007 8:49 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Federalist,

Wow...that's the first I've heard that this is Clinton's war. Why didn't we go in before 9/11?

I think you're the only one I've ever heard make that argument...which tells me...




You would have to ask Mr Or Mrs Clinton why we didnt go in before 9-11. I had heard so much about Usama over the '90's that when the second plane hit the WTC I already knew Bin Laden was at fault. A/K/A Islamic Extremeists.

Which Tells Me.....


That I'm right? Sonetimes the truth is hard to swallow I know.

October 06, 2007 8:54 PM  
Blogger Wild Phil said...

Hi Marie,

Here is a couple of good links for you.

Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror

The 15 May Organisation has been mentioned in official US government documents as late as 2001 as being supported by Saddam Hussein, despite the fact that many believe the group no longer exists.

October 06, 2007 9:52 PM  
Blogger Wild Phil said...

Hi Marie,

Speech given by Al Gore on September 29, 1992

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

During the 1992 presidential campaign, Al Gore criticized the first Bush administration for its "blatant disregard" of Iraq's ties to terrorism. During a speech given on September 29, 1992 Al Gore said, "The Reagan-Bush administration was also prepared to overlook the fact that the terrorists who masterminded the attack on the Achille Lauro and the savage murder of American Leon Klinghoffer, fled with Iraqi assistance. Nor did it seem to matter that the team of terrorists who set out to blow up the Rome airport came directly from Baghdad with suitcase bombs." Al Gore went on to say, "There might have been a moment's pause for reflection when Iraqi aircraft intentionally attacked the USS Stark in May of 1987 killing 37 sailors, but the administration smoothed it over very fast."

Following is a transcript of this campaign speech given by Al Gore on September 29, 1992. It is reprinted here as historical information of the events leading up to the second Iraq War which started on March 19, 2003.

October 06, 2007 9:59 PM  
Blogger Wild Phil said...

Hi Marie,

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi

Statement on U.S. Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998

Press Release by Congresswoman Pelosi

As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly, those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of U.S. troops participating in the current action.

I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is, unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program. While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a lasting solution through diplomatic means.

October 06, 2007 10:07 PM  
Blogger Wild Phil said...

Hi Marie,

Tapping an empty well: What’s happening in Iraq today

by Joe Proulx
Guest Columnist
On Nov. 10 at about 6 p.m., most of us here at Columbia were at home watching "The Simpsons." But at the Chicago Hilton and Towers, Madeline Albright was preparing to address a receptive crowd. The international ballroom was filled with ultra-conservatives, including members of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.

What Albright wasn't anticipating, however, was a large group of concerned civilians, some of whom belong to a dedicated, nonviolent organization called Voices in the Wilderness, sitting amongst the audience.

Voices in the Wilderness is a group dedicated to ending economic sanctions applied by the United Nations against Iraq. They opposed the Gulf War in a variety of nonviolent ways. Many of them have witnessed the consequences of these sanctions, as well as the war, firsthand.

In the tradition of Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Voices in the Wilderness advocate nonviolence as a means for social change. They oppose the development, storage and use in any country of weapons of mass destruction, be they nuclear, chemical, biological or economic. They develop effective methods of nonviolent social struggle. They are teachers, social workers, authors, health care professionals, tradespeople, and church workers.

Madeline Albright is no stranger to attacks by the media on her policies. In May of 1996, "60 Minutes" reporter Leslie Stahl, in reference to the millions of Iraqis, half of which were children, who had already died because of the sanctions, asked Albright, "Is the price worth it?" Albright's response: "Yes, I think the price is worth it."

After people's reaction to that comment, Albright has been careful to distance herself from media attention. An example of this was her refusal to have an open forum for questions at the Hilton.

But that didn't stop activists who needed to make a point. One by one, 14 activists stood up, holding pictures of friends and family who are dying in Iraq because of the embargo, demanding answers. "Madeline Albright, you could do so much good," said one of the activists. "So why are you killing the people of Iraq?"

These questions were quickly silenced by security and abuse from the angry right wing mob. The pictures were torn up, and protesters were dragged out of the room against their will.

When Albright could no longer restrain the crowd, she addressed the problem in Iraq with the following:

"If you remember in 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded another country, he plagued it, he set fire to it, and he decided that he could control the region. Before that, he had gassed his own people.

"Saddam Hussein had been acquiring weapons of mass destruction. We carried out with the help of an alliance, a war [Desert Storm], in which we put Saddam Hussein back into his box. The United Nations voted on a set of resolutions, which demanded Saddam Hussein live up to his obligations and get rid of weapons of mass destruction.

October 06, 2007 10:15 PM  
Blogger Wild Phil said...

Marie,

I could produce billions of more articles to prove Liberals wrong, I just don't have the patience to deal with Idiots.

October 06, 2007 10:17 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Wrong about what? That we dropped more bombs on Iraq during Clinton's presidency than in both Bush I and Bush II? That nearly every general has stated that the containment was working and that the regime was nearly toppled from the inside? That even Baker said an invasion plus occupation would be disastrous in Iraq?

What documents can you provide (factual, not from the Standard or Heritage or any other right-wing mouthpiece) that will show that when Bush said we were invading Iraq because of WMD and its ties to 9/11 it was all because of Clinton? Even Rice said in February of 2001 that Iraq had no functional WMD. How could that all of a sudden change on 9/12/01?

I know the truth hurts. Everyone was upset after 9/11, even I wanted to bomb someone, anyone. But, as always, the truth has risen out of the fear, hate and judgment and sadly, our invasion of Iraq has made things worse, not better. And we are no closer to finding Bin Laden than we were prior to 9/11. The answers lie in 2 countries we refuse to deal with correctly: Pakistan and Israel.

Marie, your questions on Saddam are legitimate, as many are shaking their heads as to why Rumsfeld created such a monster (along with arming Bin Laden to fight the Russians).

Maybe someday we'll get those answers. But here's a question: Why do you think Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991?

October 06, 2007 10:36 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Wild Phil,

Good job posting Gore's speech. I like this part the best:

"Now, let me begin providing a basic historical frame of reference. In September of 1980, Iraq invaded Iran. Iraq was the odds-on favorite to win the war in short order. However, by May of 1982, Iraq was clearly in trouble. It had lost a major battle with Iran, and our policymakers began to imagine Iran under a radical Islamic government emerging as the dominant regional power: clearly a nightmare. I believe that is why in February 1982 President Reagan took Iraq off the list of states that sponsored terrorism. He did this not because Iraq had gone straight and given up terrorism, but because he wanted to help Iraq while there was time. By taking Iraq's name off the list, President Reagan opened the way for Iraq to receive US credits through subsidized agricultural loan guarantees and Export-Import Bank credits. Reagan's decision also removed certain kinds of export controls intended to block the transfer of US technology to countries on the official terrorism list."

October 06, 2007 10:59 PM  
Blogger Wild Phil said...

The Federalist,

Wrong about what?

Wrong, the containment was not working. Baker don't know squat.

That nearly every general has stated that the containment was working and that the regime was nearly toppled from the inside?

Come on The Federalist you want to prove your facts before you open your big fat ass trap and just spout your Pravda.

In June of 1997, Iraq officials had ratcheted up their obstruction of UNSCOM inspection efforts. They interfered with UNSCOM air operations and denied and delayed access of inspectors to sites.

In September, they burned documents at sites while inspectors watched outside the front entrance. By mid-November, Saddam Hussein had demanded an end to U-2 surveillance flights over Iraq and called on American inspectors to leave Iraq.

Iraqis also began moving equipment that could produce weapons of mass destruction out of the range of video cameras inspectors had installed inside key industrial facilities.

And we are no closer to finding Bin Laden than we were prior to 9/11. The answers lie in 2 countries we refuse to deal with correctly: Pakistan and Israel.

The Federalist don't even go there now I know that you're and Anti-Semite.

Now the real story behind The Federalist comes out, his hatred for the Jews. The Federalist is a Nazi.

The Federalist hates the Jews.

October 07, 2007 1:50 AM  
Blogger DD2 aka Debonair Dude said...

Isn’t this story a pisser?
And the freanken moonbat is proud of it. I just can’t believe that this assthat is actually where he is ..A real nominee for the President of the USA
What does that tell us?

October 07, 2007 8:32 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Federalist,

Wrong about what? That we dropped more bombs on Iraq during Clinton's presidency than in both Bush I and Bush II? That nearly every general has stated that the containment was working and that the regime was nearly toppled from the inside? That even Baker said an invasion plus occupation would be disastrous in Iraq?


Somehow I doubt we dumped more bombs on Iraq during Clinton than the other two.

And I guess the UN missed that too:
Resolution 1441

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)


Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,

Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations


Contained? My ass!

That vile SOB claimed he had WMD right up until the end, and with him litterally throwing out the weapons inspectors, everyone even the Israelis (Who have the best intelligence in the world) believed he still had them.

Everyone knew he had them and he moved them! (Still)


What documents can you provide (factual, not from the Standard or Heritage or any other right-wing mouthpiece) that will show that when Bush said we were invading Iraq because of WMD and its ties to 9/11 it was all because of Clinton? Even Rice said in February of 2001 that Iraq had no functional WMD. How could that all of a sudden change on 9/12/01?


Bush NEVER said Iraq had ties to 9-11. In case you have forgotten we are at war with Islamo Fruitcakes, and if they happen to hide in Iraq, then oh well! (Zarqowi For Instance)


I know the truth hurts. Everyone was upset after 9/11, even I wanted to bomb someone, anyone. But, as always, the truth has risen out of the fear, hate and judgment and sadly, our invasion of Iraq has made things worse, not better. And we are no closer to finding Bin Laden than we were prior to 9/11. The answers lie in 2 countries we refuse to deal with correctly: Pakistan and Israel.


We are winning the war on 2 fronts. Gee you dont seem to have alot of faith in our Military. We havent made things worse, Libya Dissarmed, Jordan is helping train Iraqi Troops, and a whole host of Muslim Countries has found out how out of control Al-Qaeda has is, and they dont want any part of them so they are ALL now helping with the exception of Syria and Iran.

Pakistan is helping as much as they can at great threat to President Musharraf's life.

You must remember Pakistan is a Soverign Nation WITH NUKES!!

How the hell did Israel get into this?



Marie, your questions on Saddam are legitimate, as many are shaking their heads as to why Rumsfeld created such a monster (along with arming Bin Laden to fight the Russians).

Rumsfeld?

Are you friggen serious? When that picture was taken of Saddam and Rumsfeld that was when Iraq was semi-sorta on our side against Iran!

Iran had just taken our hostages for 444 days, deposed the Shaw and installed the Ayatollah Kwomeini as the head of the Country.

All of that happened under Jimmy Carter. And carried on into the '80's.

Saddam was our ally at the time, so he offers to help us with Iran and we took the help.

Then Saddam went haywire on all of us and started gasing not only the Iranians but his own people!



Maybe someday we'll get those answers. But here's a question: Why do you think Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991?


I have those answers already! I am old enough to remember!


Saddam invaded Kuwait claiming Kuwait (All the sudden out of no where) was part of Iraq. And he wanted Kuwait's oil. Iraq doesnt produce as much oil as Kuwait.

Iran is even worse the have 1 just 1 oil pump.

You would think in those oil rich Countries they would have the capacity to flood the market with oil but they dont.

October 07, 2007 9:14 AM  
Blogger The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

All I can add to this great thread Marie is, that is OBADA cannot support the flag, how can he possibly represent the nation in which that flag is the symbol ?!?!?!?

October 07, 2007 9:16 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

DD,

What it tells me is he has no respect for the Symbol Of The United States of America!



Ken,

Great question. How can you run for President yet in protest take off the Symbol of the United States of America while we are at war!

October 07, 2007 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Joanne said...

I copied this right out of the Iraq Liberation Act that you linked to:

H.R.4655
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

Bill Summary & Status for the 105th Congress

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2))* in carrying out this Act.


*SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.

(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:

(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.

(Defense articles are weapons and services are essentially training.)


The Act authorized the President to assist all such organizations with: broadcasting assistance (for radio and television broadcasting), military assistance (education and training of an army),and humanitarian assistance (for individuals fleeing Saddam Hussein). The Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force to achieve its stated goals and purposes, except as authorized under the Act in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

And we have learned over the last few weeks that Saddam had offered to leave Iraq with $1 billion dollars. Mr. Bush ignored his offer, preferring military action instead.

The US could have had Saddam go into exile and rot in some desert backwater and then send into Iraq what was necessary to implement regime change.

The Iraq Liberation Act specifically prohibits military action by US armed forces.

And this from Ahmad Chalabi,President of the Executive Council of the Iraqi National Congress.

" The INC has worked long and hard to energize the conscience of world to the decades long suffering of the Iraqi people. We have worked hard to persuade the US Congress for action to help the Iraqi people to liberate themselves. We thank with gratitude the US Congress for their support of democracy in Iraq. They have created a strong bond between the people of the US and the people of Iraq in the pursuit of liberty.

Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq.

Therefore, President Clinton's action today is the most appropriate response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready to help their democratic forces with arms to do so. Only then will the
trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be free of weapons of mass destruction.


The Iraqi Liberation Act that President Clinton signed into law authorized the US to support the Iraqis TO LIBERATE THEMSELVES.

You can't use that Act to blame Bill Clinton and absolve George Bush for what he did to Iraq and to America when he decided to remove Saddam by invading Iraq.

October 07, 2007 9:45 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Joanne not you too lol,

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2))* in carrying out this Act.



Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.



It was US Policy from the time Clinton signed it.

The first paragraph tells it all.

You copied rules of construction! lol

But either way it's right there in the section you posted even.


And we have learned over the last few weeks that Saddam had offered to leave Iraq with $1 billion dollars. Mr. Bush ignored his offer, preferring military action instead.

Yeah, over the last few weeks? Why wasnt Saddam whining about this years ago? Sounds fishy to me.

The Iraq Liberation Act specifically prohibits military action by US armed forces.

No it doesnt it specically GIVES CONSENT. It was US Policy!!


You can't use that Act to blame Bill Clinton and absolve George Bush for what he did to Iraq and to America when he decided to remove Saddam by invading Iraq.


The hell I cant! I get tired of all these fruitcakes saying this is Bush's war when it isnt. You better go back and read the entire Iraq Liberation Act AGAIN!

Not only was it US Policy, the United Nations voted for it UN Resolution 1441 and so did both houses of Congress!

Bush covered all his bases and I know this ticks you people off but had he not he would have been impeached by now.

That's why no one has impeached him, cause they cant!

We are there now no matter how much you guy's want to try to twist the facts as to how we got there, and we are winning. And you guys are just along for the ride on this, because as long as you live in MY Country we are going to hunt these Islamo Fruitcakes down and finish it!

October 07, 2007 10:07 AM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Joanne,

Waste of time. This blog is "shoot first, ask questions later", like Cheney on a hunting trip.

Saddam wanted to sell Kuwaiti oil to the U.S. Secondly, Iraq has over 230 oil refineries, of which currently only 50 are operational.

Here are some links to show you and Wild Phil the thoughts on containment:

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0491/9104055.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

415 cruise missiles fired in 4 days in 1998, 315 more than the entire first Gulf War

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KNN/is_2000_Winter/ai_80305796/pg_2

Lastly, there were no Islamic extremists in Iraq prior to our occupation. Saddam simply killed them. He was ruthless, evil and tyrannical, no one argues that. Is the world better off without him? Probably, certainly for the Iraqi people. But Kim Jong is ruthless, evil and tryannical, too. Why not "spread democracy" there too?

L. Paul Bremer fired over 450,000 Iraqi troops whom were promised a job post-invasion. The left with their weapons and artillery, unchecked. These are the primary people we're fighting in Iraqi civil war. Al-Qaeda is a minority in Iraq. But keep drinking the Bush punch when he tells you that the Al-Qaeda in Iraq is the same as the Al-Qaeda that attacked us. That is completely false.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/interviews/bremer.html

October 07, 2007 10:45 AM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Not very smooth at posting links. If someone could provide instructions I can gladly re-post them.

October 07, 2007 10:50 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Federalist,

Waste of time. This blog is "shoot first, ask questions later", like Cheney on a hunting trip.

LOL! That was a good one :-)


I guess back in Desert Storm you dont recall Saddam saying "By all rights Kuwait belongs to us"!

Nutball that Saddam had become.



415 cruise missiles fired in 4 days in 1998, 315 more than the entire first Gulf War

Yeah, and out of all that bombing what did they hit? An Asprin Factory! Way to go Clinton!



Lastly, there were no Islamic extremists in Iraq prior to our occupation. Saddam simply killed them. He was ruthless, evil and tyrannical, no one argues that. Is the world better off without him? Probably, certainly for the Iraqi people. But Kim Jong is ruthless, evil and tryannical, too. Why not "spread democracy" there too?


On NO, just Zarqowi one of the heads of Al-Qaeda that went to Iraq (When he could have gone anywhere else) for a leg operation.

As for Chia Pet, sanctions and talking with that guy seems to be working and he seems to be disarming.

Remember President Bush said "This was going to be a long war, unlike any we have ever seen, some operations will be covert and some will be overt."


L. Paul Bremer fired over 450,000 Iraqi troops whom were promised a job post-invasion. The left with their weapons and artillery, unchecked. These are the primary people we're fighting in Iraqi civil war. Al-Qaeda is a minority in Iraq. But keep drinking the Bush punch when he tells you that the Al-Qaeda in Iraq is the same as the Al-Qaeda that attacked us. That is completely false



Now you are on to something, Bremmer did make a mistake by disbanding the Iraqi Army, but you have to remember at the time "They were they enemy" and he really didnt have a choice, were mistakes made? YES! Name one war where mistakes havent been made!

Al Qaeda is exactly who we are fighting in Iraq. When Al-Qaeda blew up the Golden Mosque that was enough for the Iraqi's. They have had enough of Al-Qaeda, what Al-qaeda tried to do and succeeded in at first was causing a civil war, that has shifted now since the Golden Mosque and Iraqi's are turning in Al-Qaeda left and right. They have had enough. Sadr disbanded his Malitia, American casualites are sinking lower as a matter of fact they were at thier lowest level in September in over a year. Iraqi civilian casualties same story, dropping.

Iraqi's are helping root out these Islamo Fruitcakes and are helping our Military every day, they are glad to have them there.

BTW, do you know anyone in Iraq? I do! He's a Kurd. He has told me countless stories about Saddam. Most of his family was murdered by Saddam. He tells me there is actual tourism in Kurdistan, Iraq. And he knows in a matter of time it will happen in Baghdad too.

I would also invite you to read some blogs from Soldiers and Reporters in Iraq, for instance Iraq The Model

Maybe if you would actually talk to some people in Iraq and On the front lines you might get a better perspective of what's really going on there.

Al-qaeda in Iraq is the same outfit that attacked us, starting with Zarqowi who not only went to Iraq for a leg operation after we tore his butt up in Afghanistan, but also to start another "Base" because they no longer had one in Afganistan.

We are NOT going to leave the people of Iraq destitude and helpless, we will continue to fight the Islamo Nutballs that want us all dead, and as long as you live in MY Country, you are just along for the ride on this.

October 07, 2007 11:25 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Federalist,

Not very smooth at posting links. If someone could provide instructions I can gladly re-post them.

(Insert link in parenthesis) (Insert Name of Story between the arrow in a href and arrow in the slash a

It wouldnt let me show you any other way so I hope you got it.

October 07, 2007 11:35 AM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

80% accuracy rate during December 1998 bombing, no civilian deaths, first time ever recorded.

There are too many warring factions to name all of them here. To say that it is a simple question of us and the Iraqis vs. Al-Qaeda is not only foolish and ignorant, but dangerous.

I never said that Saddam was a nice guy. There were no Islamic extremists (Al-Qaeda) in Iraq under Saddam. His agreement was simple: stay out or I'll kill all of you, but if you happen to stumble across a WMD, I'll buy it from you, name your price.

Zarqawi was considered radical even by Bin Laden. Those who are affiliating themselves with Al-Qaeda are doing so for their own particular objectives: money, manpower, weaponry...but rarely ideology. It's an all out struggle for power in Iraq and there are at least 8 different groups vying for control.

This situation is much more complicated than Bush would want us to believe. It's easy when "They hate us for our freedoms" rhetoric is flying around and Fox News pumps that in your head every 2 seconds.

My next door neighbor is in Iraq, on the front lines in Baghdad. This is his 3rd tour. I communicate with him on a regular basis. I've done more research on this situation than Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Jane Fonda, Sean Penn and Ronald McDonald combined.

There is not one single concept that you could possibly illuminate for me on this situation.

As I've stated repeatedly, "you're either with us or against us" is such an incredibly weak and toxic ideology, that it does nothing to combat the issue of radical extremists and it does everything to divide this country, which ultimately is what the terrorists are hoping for.

By eliminating civil liberties, the terrorists win on a daily basis.

Please steer clear of the condescending attitude towards YOUR country. It's OUR country, as it's has always been.

Still cannot figure out how to post links.

October 07, 2007 12:02 PM  
Blogger J_G said...

Ah Marie, it appears your blog has been infected with a dreaded arpee repeater.

federalist is not a federalist. federalist is an arpee repeater.

Where was it hmmm, let me see, oh here it is.
arpee repeater said...Like Ron Paul said, "If the mafia attacked us...

Ha-hah you guys crack me the hell up. The real reason Saddam Hussein was attacked and overthrown was because he stopped his payments to the Trilateral Commission. Jacques Chirac and Vlad Putin were supposed to be paid more money but Saddam said no more. Then the Trilateral Commission got together with the Skull and Bones and sent American troops over to collect all the back money Saddam owed to the Commission.

Weren't you listening when arpee gives you all the facts or weren't you paying attention to that speech? As arpee said... the Trilateral Commission are the ones pulling the strings, our rights have been superceded by the Iluminati council and the Bildebergers have just confirmed the takeover. Got to go for now, I have to go inspect the work being done on the International Highway to see if they are keeping things on schedule.

Wild Bill, these are not libtards they rontards and in my great pity for them and their delusions, I prefer to refer to them as "arpees". They have no life of their own and are consumed by their conspiracies and their slavish devotion to the great arpee.

October 07, 2007 12:04 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Iraqis were the enemies? I thought Bush said we were going to liberate them?

I'm confused...

October 07, 2007 12:06 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Who's arpee?

The only think I like about Ron Paul so far was that quote...

And when there is tourism in Baghdad, I'm hoping that you all will post your pictures (sans body armor).

Interesting information, first number percentage/total, second number corresponds to source of information in bottom part

April 1991, Page 55

Figure It Out

Compiled by Parker L. Payson

Number of US soldiers in the Middle East per journalist: 360 1

Number of Kurds in Iraq: 4.8 million; in Iran: 6.7 million; in Turkey: 14 million 2

Percentage of Kuwait's 1,080 oil wells on fire on March 15: 56 3

Estimated daily revenue lost by Kuwait from burning oil: $140 million 4

Number of square miles of Iraq occupied by US troops on March 17, 1991: 40,448 5

Total number of square miles in Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Jersey: 39,983 6

Number of mines laid by Iraqi troops in Kuwait per square mile: 45 7

Percentage of Iraq's pre-war foreign earnings generated by oil production: 95 8

Estimated percentage of Iraq's oil production capacity destroyed: 80 9

Amount of potential annual oil revenue generated from 20 percent of Iraq's production capacity at $18 a barrel: $3.5 billion 10

Total Iraqi pre-war debt: $80 billion 11

Exchange rate of Lebanese pound to the US dollar in 1975: 3 to 1; in March 1991: 970 to 1 12

Amount of Egyptian debt forgiven by the US and Arab Gulf states during the Gulf crisis: $13.5 billion; Egypt's remaining foreign debt: $36 billion 13

Size of the pollution cloud over the Middle East on March 19 caused by burning Kuwaiti oil wells: 3 10,000 sqare miles 14

Average number of toxic micrograms per cubic meter in the pollution cloud on March 19: 55 15

Average number of toxic micrograms per cubic meter in the air over Los Angeles metropolitan airport: 11 16

Total bomb tonnage dropped by US forces on Indochina during the eight-and-a-half year Vietnam War: 66,375 17

Total bomb tonnage dropped by US forces on Kuwait and Iraq during the 43-day Gulf war: 88,500 18 (4 times that between 1993-1998)

Estimated percentage of bombs that missed their targets: 70 19

Percentage of Israelis who approved of Israel's decision not to retaliate against Saddam during the Gulf War: 75 20

Percentage of Jordanians living below the poverty line in March 1990: 23; In March 1991: 30 21

Number of French state-of-the-art AS-30 bombs in Iraq's possession in January 1991: 240 22

Number of AS-30 bombs in France's possession in January 1991: 180 23

Official price of a gallon of gasoline in Iraq on March 12, 1991: $1.14; actual market price: $121.12 24

Estimated incremental costs of Operation Desert Storm: $70 billion; US portion: $16 billion25

Funds allocated by the US Senate to bail out the savings-and-loan industry: $80 billion 26

Number of Iraqi prisoners-of-war captured by US and Saudi forces during the Gulf war: 65,000 27

Number of Palestinians arrested by Israeli Defense Forces since 1989: 75, 000 28

Percentage of Iraqis who are Shi'i Muslim: 55; percentage of Iranians: 95; percentage of Bahrainis: 70 29

Number of candy bars eaten by CBS correspondent Bob Simon in 25 minutes after his release from 41 days of Iraqi captivity: 6 30

Percentage of Kuwaiti reconstruction projects, as of March 20, allocated to US firms: 67 31

Estimated number of phone calls by American businesses to the US Department of Commerce's Gulf Reconstruction Center hotline during the week of March 3: 35,000 32

1 National Newspaper Association; 2 Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Middle East and North Africa; 3 US Defense Department; 4 House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich; 5US Defense Department; 6 The 1991 World Almanac; 7 US Defense Department; 8 The Economist; 9 Ibid.; 10 Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries; 11 The Washington Post; 12 The Wall Street Journal; 13 The Middle East magazine; 14 Pacific Sierra Research Corporation; 15 Ibid.; 16 Ibid.; 17 US Defense Department; 18 US Air Force; 19 US Defense Department, The Washington Post; 20 The Washington Post; 21 The United Nations Children's Fund; 22 Le Figaro magazine; 23 Ibid.; 24 Middle East Times; 25 Senate Foreign Affairs Committee; 26 The McLaughlin Report; 27 US Defense Department; 28 Israeli Defense Force Judge Advocate General Brig. Gen. Amnon Strashnov; 29 US State Department, CIA 1990 World Factbook; 30 CBS producer Peter Bluff, Middle East Times; 31 US Department of Commerce; 32 Small Business Subcommittee of the House Banking Committee

October 07, 2007 12:16 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up'
Former Top Commander Condemns Pentagon Officials Over Iraq War

May 21, 2004





Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni once commanded America's troops in the Middle East (CBS)


Iraq War Strategy Flawed

Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni once commanded America's troops in the Middle East. Now, he tells Steve Kroft why he condemns Pentagon officials for planning the war in Iraq.

Battle For Iraq

(CBS) Retired General Anthony Zinni is one of the most respected and outspoken military leaders of the past two decades.

From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. That was the same job held by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf before him, and Gen. Tommy Franks after.

Following his retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration thought so highly of Zinni that it appointed him to one of its highest diplomatic posts -- special envoy to the Middle East.

But Zinni broke ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq, and now, in his harshest criticism yet, he says senior officials at the Pentagon are guilty of dereliction of duty -- and that the time has come for heads to roll. Correspondent Steve Kroft reports. “There has been poor strategic thinking in this,” says Zinni. “There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that we are going to ‘stay the course,’ the course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it's been a failure.”

Zinni spent more than 40 years serving his country as a warrior and diplomat, rising from a young lieutenant in Vietnam to four-star general with a reputation for candor.

Now, in a new book about his career, co-written with Tom Clancy, called "Battle Ready," Zinni has handed up a scathing indictment of the Pentagon and its conduct of the war in Iraq.

In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was dereliction in lack of planning,” says Zinni. “The president is owed the finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He didn’t get the first two.”

Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy. And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress: “This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it needs to be done now.”

But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war the civilians wanted.

“I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him,” says Zinni.

“Now, at the same time, we had this war on terrorism. We were fighting al Qaeda. We were engaged in Afghanistan. We were looking at 'cells' in 60 countries. We were looking at threats that we were receiving information on and intelligence on. And I think most of the generals felt, let's deal with this one at a time. Let's deal with this threat from terrorism, from al Qaeda.”

One of Zinni's responsibilities while commander-in-chief at Centcom was to develop a plan for the invasion of Iraq. Like his predecessors, he subscribed to the belief that you only enter battle with overwhelming force.

But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld thought the job could be done with fewer troops and high-tech weapons.

How many troops did Zinni’s plan call for? “We were much in line with Gen. Shinseki's view,” says Zinni. “We were talking about, you know, 300,000, in that neighborhood.”

What difference would it have made if 300,000 troops had been sent in, instead of 180,000?

“I think it's critical in the aftermath, if you're gonna go to resolve a conflict through the use of force, and then to rebuild the country,” says Zinni.

“The first requirement is to freeze the situation, is to gain control of the security. To patrol the streets. To prevent the looting. To prevent the 'revenge' killings that might occur. To prevent bands or gangs or militias that might not have your best interests at heart from growing or developing.” Last month, Secretary Rumsfeld acknowledged that he hadn't anticipated the level of violence that would continue in Iraq a year after the war began. Should he have been surprised?

“He should not have been surprised. You know, there were a number of people, before we even engaged in this conflict, that felt strongly we were underestimating the problems and the scope of the problems we would have in there,” says Zinni. “Not just generals, but others -- diplomats, those in the international community that understood the situation. Friends of ours in the region that were cautioning us to be careful out there. I think he should have known that.”

Instead, Zinni says the Pentagon relied on inflated intelligence information about weapons of mass destruction from Iraqi exiles, like Ahmed Chalabi and others, whose credibility was in doubt. Zinni claims there was no viable plan or strategy in place for governing post-Saddam Iraq.

“As best I could see, I saw a pickup team, very small, insufficient in the Pentagon with no detailed plans that walked onto the battlefield after the major fighting stopped and tried to work it out in the huddle -- in effect to create a seat-of-the-pants operation on reconstructing a country,” says Zinni.

“I give all the credit in the world to Ambassador Bremer as a great American who's serving his country, I think, with all the kind of sacrifice and spirit you could expect. But he has made mistake after mistake after mistake.” What mistakes?

“Disbanding the army,” says Zinni. “De-Baathifying, down to a level where we removed people that were competent and didn’t have blood on their hands that you needed in the aftermath of reconstruction – alienating certain elements of that society.”

Zinni says he blames the Pentagon for what happened. “I blame the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly. Because if they were given the responsibility, and if this was their war, and by everything that I understand, they promoted it and pushed it - certain elements in there certainly - even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs, then they should bear the responsibility,” he says.

“But regardless of whose responsibility I think it is, somebody has screwed up. And at this level and at this stage, it should be evident to everybody that they've screwed up. And whose heads are rolling on this? That's what bothers me most.”

Adds Zinni: “If you charge me with the responsibility of taking this nation to war, if you charge me with implementing that policy with creating the strategy which convinces me to go to war, and I fail you, then I ought to go.”

Who specifically is he talking about?

“Well, it starts with at the top. If you're the secretary of defense and you're responsible for that. If you're responsible for that planning and that execution on the ground. If you've assumed responsibility for the other elements, non-military, non-security, political, economic, social and everything else, then you bear responsibility,” says Zinni. “Certainly those in your ranks that foisted this strategy on us that is flawed. Certainly they ought to be gone and replaced.”

Zinni is talking about a group of policymakers within the administration known as "the neo-conservatives" who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel. They include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq.

“I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do,” says Zinni.

“And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested.”

Adds Zinni: “I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.”

Zinni said he believed their strategy was to change the Middle East and bring it into the 21st century.

“All sounds very good, all very noble. The trouble is the way they saw to go about this is unilateral aggressive intervention by the United States - the take down of Iraq as a priority,” adds Zinni. “And what we have become now in the United States, how we're viewed in this region is not an entity that's promising positive change. We are now being viewed as the modern crusaders, as the modern colonial power in this part of the world.” Should all of those involved, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, resign?

“I believe that they should accept responsibility for that,” says Zinni. “If I were the commander of a military organization that delivered this kind of performance to the president, I certainly would tender my resignation. I certainly would expect to be gone.”

“You say we need to change course -- that the current course is taking us over Niagara Falls. What course do you think ought to be set,” Kroft asked Zinni.

“Well, it's been evident from the beginning what the course is. We should have gotten this U.N. resolution from the beginning. What does it take to sit down with the members of the Security Council, the permanent members, and find out what it takes,” says Zinni.

“What is it they want to get this resolution? Do they want a say in political reconstruction? Do they want a piece of the pie economically? If that's the cost, fine. What they’re gonna pay for up front is boots on the ground and involvement in sharing the burden.”

Are there enough troops in Iraq now?

“Do I think there are other missions that should be taken on which would cause the number of troops to go up, not just U.S., but international participants? Yes,” says Zinni.

“We should be sealing off the borders, we should be protecting the road networks. We're not only asking for combat troops, we’re looking for trainers; we’re looking for engineers. We are looking for those who can provide services in there.”

But has the time come to develop an exit strategy?

“There is a limit. I think it’s important to understand what the limit is. Now do I think we are there yet? No, it is salvageable if you can convince the Iraqis that what we're trying to do is in their benefit in the long run,” says Zinni.

“Unless we change our communication and demonstrate a different image to the people on the street, then we're gonna get to the point where we are going to be looking for quick exits. I don't believe we're there now. And I wouldn't want to see us fail here.” Zinni, who now teaches international relations at the College of William and Mary, says he feels a responsibility to speak out, just as former Marine Corps Commandant David Shoup voiced early concerns about the Vietnam war nearly 40 years ago.

“It is part of your duty. Look, there is one statement that bothers me more than anything else. And that's the idea that when the troops are in combat, everybody has to shut up. Imagine if we put troops in combat with a faulty rifle, and that rifle was malfunctioning, and troops were dying as a result,” says Zinni.

“I can't think anyone would allow that to happen, that would not speak up. Well, what's the difference between a faulty plan and strategy that's getting just as many troops killed? It’s leading down a path where we're not succeeding and accomplishing the missions we've set out to do.”

60 Minutes asked Secretary Rumsfeld and his deputy Wolfowitz to respond to Zinni's remarks. The request for an interview was declined.

October 07, 2007 12:18 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Airpower and a decade of containment - JFQ Forum - Suddam Hussein and Iraq
Joint Force Quarterly, Winter, 2000 by Paul K. White

The third crisis, Desert Strike, was a response to a skillful attack against the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan in Irbil. Iraqi forces surrounded the city, smashed the Kurdish forces, and destroyed a protracted covert operation funded by the Central Intelligence Agency to destabilize the regime. American officials vowed retaliation and in September 1996 launched two waves of cruise missiles against targets in southern Iraq. In addition, the United States announced the unilateral extension of the southern no-fly zone to the 33d parallel, depriving Iraq of two air bases and moving the zone closer to Baghdad. Saddam began aggressively rebuilding air defenses damaged by cruise missile strikes as more allied fighters were deployed. SAMs engaged coalition aircraft during the following weeks, but tensions subsided and the crisis was over by mid-November.

This confrontation was a victory for Iraq. Weakened by economic and political turmoil, Saddam performed some internal housecleaning. He settled a grievance with a Kurdish faction and annihilated U.S. intelligence-gathering efforts in the north. He also drove another wedge into coalition strategy as Turkey and Saudi Arabia decided not to allow air strikes from their territory (hence the cruise missile strikes) and France suspended its participation in Southern Watch. The attack on Irbil also highlighted the limits of containment in the north. Because of its distance from land- and carrier-based assets and the inability to employ forces in Turkey, the coalition had few options to stop the attack on Irbil other than an all-out assault on Baghdad.
Advertisement

The fourth crisis, culminating in Operation Desert Fox, resulted from inspection incidents that nearly led to U.S. and coalition air strikes in November 1997 and in February and November 1998. In all three instances Saddam instigated confrontation by halting or hampering inspections, accusing U.N. team members of espionage, and demanding an end to U-2 reconnaissance flights. In each case, air strikes were averted at the last minute by concessions on both sides, but constant cheat and retreat tactics by Iraq were wearing thin. By December 1998 U.S. forces had increased their presence in the region in preparation for an armed response. On the evening of December 16, with an impending vote to impeach President Clinton, Operation Desert Fox commenced.

The President ordered a series of air strikes that lasted four nights. For the first time since Desert Storm, the targets included Republican Guard units and facilities in downtown Baghdad. In seventy hours the coalition flew 650 sorties against 100 targets and sustained no casualties. A total of 415 cruise missiles were launched, including 325 Tomahawk missiles fired by the Navy and 90 heavier cruise missiles from B-52s. The strikes hit 80 percent of their designated targets, which analysts calculated set back the Iraqi ballistic missile program by up to two years.

Low-Level Attrition

The weeks following Desert Fox proved that the operation had a decisive impact. Saddam lashed out at perceived enemies inside and outside the country, called for the overthrow of several neighbors, and threatened bases in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait that facilitated aircraft flying no-fly zone patrols. Following a familiar pattern, Iraq announced it would fire on coalition aircraft that entered its airspace, including no-fly zones, and offered a bounty to air defense units that shot them down. In late December, F-15s and F-16s patrolling the northern no-fly zone responded to the launch of a SA-3 missile near Mosul with a series of almost daily cat-and-mouse confrontations between SAM operators and coalition aircrews.

October 07, 2007 12:20 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Sorry.

October 07, 2007 12:21 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Federalist,

And when there is tourism in Baghdad, I'm hoping that you all will post your pictures (sans body armor).

Interesting information, first number percentage/total, second number corresponds to source of information in bottom part

April 1991, Page 55

Figure It Out

Compiled by Parker L. Payson

Number of US soldiers in the Middle East per journalist: 360 1

Number of Kurds in Iraq: 4.8 million; in Iran: 6.7 million; in Turkey: 14 million 2

Percentage of Kuwait's 1,080 oil wells on fire on March 15: 56 3

Estimated daily revenue lost by Kuwait from burning oil: $140 million 4

Number of square miles of Iraq occupied by US troops on March 17, 1991: 40,448 5

Total number of square miles in Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Jersey: 39,983 6

Number of mines laid by Iraqi troops in Kuwait per square mile: 45 7

Percentage of Iraq's pre-war foreign earnings generated by oil production: 95 8

Estimated percentage of Iraq's oil production capacity destroyed: 80 9

Amount of potential annual oil revenue generated from 20 percent of Iraq's production capacity at $18 a barrel: $3.5 billion 10

Total Iraqi pre-war debt: $80 billion 11

Exchange rate of Lebanese pound to the US dollar in 1975: 3 to 1; in March 1991: 970 to 1 12

Amount of Egyptian debt forgiven by the US and Arab Gulf states during the Gulf crisis: $13.5 billion; Egypt's remaining foreign debt: $36 billion 13

Size of the pollution cloud over the Middle East on March 19 caused by burning Kuwaiti oil wells: 3 10,000 sqare miles 14

Average number of toxic micrograms per cubic meter in the pollution cloud on March 19: 55 15

Average number of toxic micrograms per cubic meter in the air over Los Angeles metropolitan airport: 11 16

Total bomb tonnage dropped by US forces on Indochina during the eight-and-a-half year Vietnam War: 66,375 17

Total bomb tonnage dropped by US forces on Kuwait and Iraq during the 43-day Gulf war: 88,500 18 (4 times that between 1993-1998)

Estimated percentage of bombs that missed their targets: 70 19

Percentage of Israelis who approved of Israel's decision not to retaliate against Saddam during the Gulf War: 75 20

Percentage of Jordanians living below the poverty line in March 1990: 23; In March 1991: 30 21

Number of French state-of-the-art AS-30 bombs in Iraq's possession in January 1991: 240 22

Number of AS-30 bombs in France's possession in January 1991: 180 23

Official price of a gallon of gasoline in Iraq on March 12, 1991: $1.14; actual market price: $121.12 24

Estimated incremental costs of Operation Desert Storm: $70 billion; US portion: $16 billion25

Funds allocated by the US Senate to bail out the savings-and-loan industry: $80 billion 26

Number of Iraqi prisoners-of-war captured by US and Saudi forces during the Gulf war: 65,000 27

Number of Palestinians arrested by Israeli Defense Forces since 1989: 75, 000 28

Percentage of Iraqis who are Shi'i Muslim: 55; percentage of Iranians: 95; percentage of Bahrainis: 70 29

Number of candy bars eaten by CBS correspondent Bob Simon in 25 minutes after his release from 41 days of Iraqi captivity: 6 30

Percentage of Kuwaiti reconstruction projects, as of March 20, allocated to US firms: 67 31

Estimated number of phone calls by American businesses to the US Department of Commerce's Gulf Reconstruction Center hotline during the week of March 3: 35,000 32

1 National Newspaper Association; 2 Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Middle East and North Africa; 3 US Defense Department; 4 House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich; 5US Defense Department; 6 The 1991 World Almanac; 7 US Defense Department; 8 The Economist; 9 Ibid.; 10 Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries; 11 The Washington Post; 12 The Wall Street Journal; 13 The Middle East magazine; 14 Pacific Sierra Research Corporation; 15 Ibid.; 16 Ibid.; 17 US Defense Department; 18 US Air Force; 19 US Defense Department, The Washington Post; 20 The Washington Post; 21 The United Nations Children's Fund; 22 Le Figaro magazine; 23 Ibid.; 24 Middle East Times; 25 Senate Foreign Affairs Committee; 26 The McLaughlin Report; 27 US Defense Department; 28 Israeli Defense Force Judge Advocate General Brig. Gen. Amnon Strashnov; 29 US State Department, CIA 1990 World Factbook; 30 CBS producer Peter Bluff, Middle East Times; 31 US Department of Commerce; 32 Small Business Subcommittee of the House Banking Committee



Huh?

What the hell are you talking about? It seems your braker just tripped.

October 07, 2007 12:24 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Jenn,

I dont know what happened here but we have drifted so far off the point of Obama taking off his flag pin this is unreal lol.

October 07, 2007 12:25 PM  
Blogger Wild Phil said...

The Federalist,

The Federalist said: Still cannot figure out how to post links.

Come on now The Federalist can not figure out how to post links, now that is either funny or nothing but a big excuse for not wanting to point to proof. You can't tell me that Federalist when you have a blog of your own that you don't know how to post links. Another fairy tale by The Federalist.

The Federalist said: Iraqis were the enemies? I thought Bush said we were going to liberate them?

I'm confused...


That's alright Federalist, you were born confused. It's not your fault that you were born with only one brain cell.


J_G,

J_G said... Wild Bill, these are not libtards they rontards and in my great pity for them and their delusions, I prefer to refer to them as "arpees". They have no life of their own and are consumed by their conspiracies and their slavish devotion to the great arpee.

Ok J_G to start with the name is Wild Phil, It don't matter to me if they are Libtards or Rontards they are still dealing with the same delusional mindset.

As far as the name that you have for them arpees I get where the R and the P comes from in that but please spell it out how you get the term arpees where Rontards seems to me the best description of a delusional mindset.

October 07, 2007 12:34 PM  
Blogger Wild Phil said...

Hi Marie,

The Federalist tells me not to post links from the Heritage Foundation and any other Right Wing news source so what does he do, he posts links from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml
the Leftwing news sources for which we all know are liars.

October 07, 2007 12:40 PM  
Blogger J_G said...

Wild Phil, As far as the name that you have for them arpees I get where the R and the P comes from in that but please spell it out how you get the term arpees where Rontards seems to me the best description of a delusional mindset.

the word "arpee" does not the have the word Ron or Paul in it therefore it is another step they have to make to google their worthless lives away looking for things to rebutt when the great arpee is shown for the being the phony cardboard standup character he is.

Anyway Marie, Obamma Hussein does not wear a flag on his lapel because the flag symbolizes America and American greatness and that does not fly well with the people that support Obamma Hussein.

Try being an honest arpee about your motivations.That's one thing that is totally missing from the arpee movement; honesty

October 07, 2007 12:51 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Wild Phil,

When you can deliver an entire post free of grammatical errors we could then begin to discuss brain cells.

Keep up the insults, that appears to be all you have.

Marie,

That post was full of FACTUAL data (two words the right hate more than anything), most of which refers to the Middle East. This was designed to highlight my previous post about the bombing of Iraq under Clinton.

October 07, 2007 1:10 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

I don't know how to post links in the "comment" format. I cut and pasted the entire article instead. I don't expect you to read it as it contains too many facts and expert opinions.

On my blog, which contains only original material (i.e. no cutting and pasting of articles and then a 4-5 question remark) I certainly know how to post links, as the format is different than that of the "comment" option.

Once again, apologies for the lengthy posts of articles. When I learn how to use the link in this option I will use it exclusively.

October 07, 2007 1:14 PM  
Blogger Wild Phil said...

The Federalist said... I don't know how to post links in the "comment" format. I cut and pasted the entire article instead. I don't expect you to read it as it contains too many facts and expert opinions.

Actually Federalist, if you don't know how to post links and you think that what you are copying and pasting is by any way factual than you are brain damaged.

Also Federalist, Are you always this stupid or are you making a special effort today.

October 07, 2007 1:41 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Wild Phil,

You mean the information and statistics supplied by the Department of Defense are not factual and accurate? Watch out Wild Phil, you could be called treasonous in this day and age...

Intellect over emotion is the first rule in debate Wild Phil. Your insults continue to illuminate your lack of intelligence.

Let your light shine...


Regarding Obama, he should consider an alternative approach to showing his patriotism. I prefer a t-shirt with a portrait of James Madison.

October 07, 2007 2:17 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Wild Phil,

Also, a suggestion. Try to foster an original thought and then use a different lexicon other than the Hannity/Limbaugh one.

It's too transparent.

October 07, 2007 2:18 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Wild Phil,

Apologies. I should not have used that word without furnishing a definition.

"Lexicon" - Meaning #1: a language user's knowledge of words

October 07, 2007 2:20 PM  
Blogger Wild Phil said...

The Federalist,

The Federalist said... You mean the information and statistics supplied by the Department of Defense are not factual and accurate?

Not that one you brain dead retard. I am referring to the Commie Leftist sites that you have been referring to such as ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC. those kind of links are worthless.

The Federalist, Brains aren't everything. In fact in your case they're nothing.

October 07, 2007 2:31 PM  
Blogger Wild Phil said...

The Federalist, don't let you mind wander - it's far too small to be let out on its own.

October 07, 2007 2:33 PM  
Blogger Wild Phil said...

Hi Marie,

The Federalist always finds himself lost in thought - it's an unfamiliar territory.

October 07, 2007 2:34 PM  
Blogger Wild Phil said...

Speaking of the meanings of the Words Federalist.

The Federalist doesn't know the meaning of the word "fear" - but then again he doesn't know the meaning of most words.

October 07, 2007 2:37 PM  
Blogger Wild Phil said...

Hi Marie,

I don't know what makes The Federalist so dumb but what ever it is it really works.

October 07, 2007 2:39 PM  
Blogger Uncle Pavian said...

Hey, Marie...
At what point did you realize that this thread had gotten completely out of control?
Oh, and is arpee "Ron Paul" or "RuPaul"? Just checking...

October 07, 2007 4:26 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Uncle P,

I noticed that sometime today I think Uncle P.

I think arpees is like RP's

There I think I've got it.

October 07, 2007 5:00 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

There were no WMD. Period. Bush admitted it. If there had been, we would have seen a photo with Bush in cowboy boots standing on top of them.


What we didn't find were the stockpiles that we thought he had.

The 500 canisters of degraded sarin, btw, still constitutes a violation of the cease-fire agreements. Whether pre-'91 or not, he had not accounted for nor destroyed these weapons.

Based upon what we knew at the time, and a history of the previous 12 years at the very least, removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do. The irresponsible course would have been the status quo.


The world's best intelligence agencies right up until the last 6 months before the war- not just our flawed and incompetent CIA intell- overwhelmingly believed that Saddam indeed posed a danger and possessed weapons that he was hiding from the rest of the world. This included the French, the British, the Germans, The Israeli’s, the United Nations (UNSCOM and IAEA), and members from both sides of the political aisle.

And then there's this about the UN losing track of wmd just prior to war:

U.N. satellite imagery experts have determined that material that could be used to make biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles has been removed from 109 sites in Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors said in a report obtained Thursday.

U.N. inspectors have been blocked from returning to Iraq since the U.S.-led war in 2003 so they have been using satellite photos to see what happened to the sites that were subject to U.N. monitoring because their equipment had both civilian and military uses.

In the report to the U.N. Security Council, acting chief weapons inspector Demetrius Perricos said he’s reached no conclusions about who removed the items or where they went. He said it could have been moved elsewhere in Iraq, sold as scrap, melted down or purchased.




This is Bush's war.


This is not Bush's war. Nations go to war. Not one man. The majority in both the House and the Senate authorized where we find ourselves today. They are just as culpable. But if they insist that this is "Bush's war", what are they going to say 50 years down the road when Bush will have been proven right?

He told us that we invaded Iraq because Saddam did not disarm.

Uh...yeah. That's one out of several reasons given. And it's absolutely true. Saddam through those 12 years was in constant violation of the original cease-fire agreements. After 17 UN Resolutions and no "serious consequences" ever happening, it becomes a running joke. Saddam thought he could go on snubbing his nose at the UN and the U.S. He was actually surprised when we did go in.



Cheney told us that Saddam played a role in 9/11.


Link me up please (no, it's not the first time I've heard this charge. I just want to see what you link to).


Rumsfeld said we knew exactly where the WMD were.

We thought we did.

Doesn't help when you give your enemy plenty of time and warning.

Have you heard about the Saddam tapes where he actually instructs his officials to hide things from inspectors?


[...]Inconveniently for critics of the war, Saddam made tapes in his version of the Oval Office. These tapes landed in the hands of American intelligence and were recently aired publicly.

The first 12 hours of the tapes ? there are hundreds more waiting to be translated ? are damning, to say the least. They show conclusively that Bush didn't lie when he cited Saddam's WMD plans as one of the big reasons for taking the dictator out.


Remember: What President Bush said is that we must act before the threat became imminent...not that the threat is imminent.



Nobody disputes the tapes' authenticity. On them, Saddam talks openly of programs involving biological, chemical and, yes, nuclear weapons.

War foes have long asserted that Saddam halted his WMD programs in the wake of his defeat in the first Gulf War in 1991. Saddam's abandonment of WMD programs was confirmed by subsequent U.N. inspections.

Again, not true. In a tape dating to April 1995, Saddam and several aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had found traces of Iraq's biological weapons program. On the tape, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, is heard gloating about fooling the inspectors.

"We did not reveal all that we have," he says. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."


as late as 2000, Saddam can be heard in his office talking with Iraqi scientists about his ongoing plans to build a nuclear device. At one point, he discusses Iraq's plasma uranium program ? something that was missed entirely by U.N. weapons inspectors combing Iraq for WMD.

This is particularly troubling, since it indicates an active, ongoing attempt by Saddam to build an Iraqi nuclear bomb.

"What was most disturbing," said John Tierney, the ex- FBI agent who translated the tapes, "was the fact that the individuals briefing Saddam were totally unknown to the U.N. Special Commission (or UNSCOM, the group set up to look into Iraq's WMD programs)."

Perhaps most chillingly, the tapes record Iraq Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz talking about how easy it would be to set off a WMD in Washington. The comments come shortly after Saddam muses about using "proxies" in a terror attack.

9-11, anyone?



Charles Duelfer and David Kay from their reports, both seem to indicate that Saddam did indeed pose a danger to us.

More regarding translations of the Saddam tapes...

Turnout among journalists for the formal unveiling was low, partly because ABC had already broken the story, partly because many journalists have little interest in information that contradicts the assumption Saddam had no WMD.

The highlights were:


* On a 1992 tape, Saddam made it clear he still considered himself at war with the United States. "The Mother of All Battles is continuing," he said.

* Saddam's WMD programs were revived soon after the first Gulf War, and lots of resources were devoted to them. A 1992 tape discusses the diversion of electric power from a massive plant in Basra for a process for enriching uranium like that the U.S. used to create the first atomic bomb. In a later tape, a scientist explains to Saddam how uranium is being enriched through the process of plasma separation.

* Saddam and his aides were not merely confident they could hide their WMD programs from UN inspectors, they were scornful of UNSCOM. "All they will confirm is our cover story," Saddam said on one of the tapes.

* On one of the later tapes, foreign minister Tariq Aziz seems to indicate Iraq would soon acquire nuclear weapons. The topic is a proxy terror attack on the United States. Aziz argued biological weapons would be best, because they would be the hardest to link to Iraq. If there were "destruction," he said, it would be harder for Iraq to plausibly deny involvement.

* One of Saddam's aides hints at what happened to the WMD. "Where was the nuclear material transported to?" he asks rhetorically. Then, answering his own question, he says: "A number of them were transported out of Iraq."

* On another tape, there is what Mr. Tierney said is a discussion of using proxies to attack the U.S. Here the goof in providing ABC with an advance copy of the tapes is most damaging. The translator ABC hired translated the relevant passages as Saddam telling his aides he warned the U.S. groups like al Qaida were planning to attack us.


Mr. Tierney's quirks make it easier for those who wish to do so to dismiss his translation. He is a born again Christian who told National Review's Byron York that G-d had directed him to join the Army. Mr. Tierney resigned from the Army after he was charged with improper behavior because he prayed with an Iraqi Christian defector prior to interrogating him.

But it is what is on the tapes, and not Mr. Tierney's religious beliefs, on which we should focus. They call into question the tentative conclusion of Iraq Survey Group chief Charles Duelfer that Iraq had ended its nuclear program by 1995.


Saddam was a danger to the world. The fact that he was deposed along with his murderous sons is a good thing.

Charles Duelfer before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2004 reported that a lot of material left Iraq by way of Syria. Additionally, that Saddam had weapons labs ready to reconstitute wmd programs as soon as sanctions were lifted.


But what's tragic is that Osama Bin Laden executed 9/11 and we're not looking for him.

Because the media doesn't cover it, doesn't mean we're not looking for him.


Like Ron Paul said, "If the mafia attacked us, we shouldn't bomb Italy."

In other words: Treat Islamic terrorism as if it were a law enforcement issue. We did that through the 90's. Where did that get us?

The analogy is flawed anyway. Italy isn't a state-sponsor of criminal gangsters. Iraq was sponsored, funded, trained, and harbored terrorists.


That nearly every general has stated that the containment was working and that the regime was nearly toppled from the inside?

And from the Food for Oil scandal, we now know that containment most certainly wasn't working. And corrupt officials within the UN were actively working toward sanctions being lifted.

Weapons both conventional and unconventional were being supplied to Saddam, in spite of sanctions.



I know the truth hurts. Everyone was upset after 9/11, even I wanted to bomb someone, anyone. But, as always, the truth has risen out of the fear, hate and judgment and sadly, our invasion of Iraq has made things worse, not better.


What is that...?.....violins I hear playing?


Please.


Marie, your questions on Saddam are legitimate, as many are shaking their heads as to why Rumsfeld created such a monster (along with arming Bin Laden to fight the Russians).

We did not "create" Saddam. Tell me who supplied the majority of Saddam's weapons arsenal? Here's a hint: The U.S. supplied less than 1% of Saddam's weapons.

And it is a myth that the CIA funded bin Laden in Afghanistan.


here's a question: Why do you think Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991?

He's an asshole.

Or was.

And is still.

In memory and in hell.


Plus what Marie said.


Next.



Good job posting Gore's speech. I like this part the best:

Lol...is that supposed to be a "gotcha" moment? It's like saying "shame, shame....we aligned with Stalin in WWII. We should not have done that. We could have avoided the Cold War."


joanne wrote:

And we have learned over the last few weeks that Saddam had offered to leave Iraq with $1 billion dollars. Mr. Bush ignored his offer, preferring military action instead.

You conveniently left out "information on wmd" when you mentioned "$1 billion dollars". I'd say that's a pretty important omission. I'm of a similar opinion on this as Curt.


back to the Federalist:

there were no Islamic extremists in Iraq prior to our occupation. Saddam simply killed them.

That's not accurate either. There were Islamic terrorists there. Not only that, but a whole training camp at Salman Pak.

And it is another myth that a secular Saddam would not work with religious extremists. Saddam sought to establish a relationship with al-Qaeda. But for the most part, was rejected by Osama and Zawahiri.



He was ruthless, evil and tyrannical, no one argues that. Is the world better off without him? Probably, certainly for the Iraqi people. But Kim Jong is ruthless, evil and tryannical, too. Why not "spread democracy" there too?

One thing at a time. You might as well ask, "Why not Iran?"

Saddam had 12 years and 17 UN Resolutions to get his act straightened out. Remember, all three constitute what Bush labeled "Axis of Evil".



L. Paul Bremer fired over 450,000 Iraqi troops whom were promised a job post-invasion.


Oh, yawn....that's only relevant as an anti-war talking point. That decision should be left up to historians to decide. Christopher Hitchens' take.


These are the primary people we're fighting in Iraqi civil war.

At varying times, perhaps. But it's hardly a "civil war". Not in the classical definition sense. As if it matters what you call it. The only reason why those on the left wanted to call it a civil war right after the Golden Mosque bombing, is because it helps them politically, to try and achieve a U.S. defeat.


Al-Qaeda is a minority in Iraq.

The foreign fighters may be a minority, but they are the ones fomenting chaos and instability and the so-called "civl war". Besides the Iranian element, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is made up of foreign fighters, in leadership positions. The foot soldiers are recruited from the Iraqis themselves.


But keep drinking the Bush punch when he tells you that the Al-Qaeda in Iraq is the same as the Al-Qaeda that attacked us. That is completely false.


It's not. The problem I see, is that you are still reading yesterday's anti-war, left-leaning headlines. There are ties between Al-Qaeda led by Osama and Zawahiri and what has become Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia.


I never said that Saddam was a nice guy.


Why must "your side" always throw that in? Right before they make so many excuses for why deposing him should not have happened.


This situation is much more complicated than Bush would want us to believe.

Um...no. Bush realizes more than you do, the complexities and the difficulties. Don't misunderestimate his grasp of the situation.


It's easy when "They hate us for our freedoms" rhetoric is flying around and Fox News pumps that in your head every 2 seconds.

That is the funniest "soundbyte" from your entire comment stream. I do watch FOX....as I do CNN and MSNBC. But your caricature of FOX is hilarious.

Are you sure you're not an ArPee supporter?

They most certainly do "hate us for our freedoms", so to speak. It can be reduced to simplicity. Which is different than being simplistic. And all you have to do, is listen to the rhetoric itself. Not the U.S. foreign policy/Israel kay-rap. But the Qutbist, salafist, wahhabist rejection of modernity and anything that does not abide by Sharia and the Hadith.



My next door neighbor is in Iraq, on the front lines in Baghdad. This is his 3rd tour. I communicate with him on a regular basis. I've done more research on this situation than Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Jane Fonda, Sean Penn and Ronald McDonald combined.

Not exactly saying much. Is your friend's last name "Beauchamp"? Does he speak for all the soldiers? How do you reconcile the opinions of those soldiers who don't share your political opinions on Iraq? I hope your neighbor stays safe.



There is not one single concept that you could possibly illuminate for me on this situation.

Then why waste our time? It may look like I'm doing nothing but refuting everything you say. I'm not. I am addressing those points I take issue with. If I take the time to try and learn something from you, why are you so arrogant to assume you have nothing to learn, in return? Why assume you've read and have done more research than those who you don't even know? This is the first time I've even heard of you.



As I've stated repeatedly, "you're either with us or against us" is such an incredibly weak and toxic ideology,

The fact that all you can grasp from it is the soundbyte, is grounds for a weak argument.

Why are you even drudging up all of the old talking point arguments? Been there, done that arguing, countless times for the last 4 years. When is the last time President Bush has even used that line of rhetoric?


that it does nothing to combat the issue of radical extremists and it does everything to divide this country, which ultimately is what the terrorists are hoping for.

Who's dividing the country? Does it only work in one direction? One side only is being divisive?



By eliminating civil liberties, the terrorists win on a daily basis.

That's another Ron Paul talking point. And a leftist one at that. How exactly are you being stripped of your civil liberties?





Still cannot figure out how to post links.


You mentioned you make posts, right? Just check the html code the next time you are creating a post. You should be albe to figure it out. If not, I'll explain it directly.

October 08, 2007 8:48 AM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Captured Iraqi Terrorist Says Bin Laden Had al-Qaeda Camps in Iraq Under Saddam's Regime

October 08, 2007 8:53 AM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Nantucket,

Your post deserves more attention than I can give it at this moment.

But to clear up any confusion, I rarely watch any television news and I am not a Ron Paul apologist. Other than that quote of his which appeared sensical (meaning, because the Mafia was born in Italy does not mean that we bomb that country because a mafioso committed a crime here in the U.S., unlike your take which you believe I was comparing it to a law enforcement issue).

Civil war = A war between two or more factions or regions of the same country.

I'll address your points later this evening in a more systematic manner.

Thanks for your post. Nice to read something without name-calling or personal insults.

October 08, 2007 12:28 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Federalist,

I was trying to debate you in a Civil way, well... till you started going all hawyire lol

But hey Word is the best person to debate with on my blog.

He knows every fact from god knows how long ago to a few minutes ago.

Worsmith is a great Debater :-)

October 08, 2007 8:29 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Worsmith is a great Debater :-)

Worsmith is awesome!

Wordsmith is only so-so, though.



Your post deserves more attention than I can give it at this moment.


I perfectly understand. We all have busy lives. In fact, this is an extremely busy week for me.

Take as much time as you need; and forgive me if I don't always respond in a timely manner. Sometimes I spread myself too thin, and get bogged down on too many blogs. That's why "drive-by" commenting is sometimes preferable than embroiling in debate.


Thanks for your post. Nice to read something without name-calling or personal insults.

Thanks for that.

If I ever get snide or "smartalecky", just take it all in good stride. I usually don't mean to say things in a malicious way, unless I've known you for quite a while and discovered I actually don't like you.

I remember when Joanne used to drive Marie crazy. Now they're like "the Odd Couple".

October 08, 2007 10:29 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

LOL! Word,

Joanne still drives me nuts but she is the only Liberal I can tolerate because she isnt so far out there that she's a wacko.

She has some wit, that I like.

Federalist does to, we were having a good debate there for a while and then I think Phil stepped in and all heck broke loose lol

You know me, I love a good debate when things dont go haywire :-)

October 09, 2007 9:02 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

RepublicanGOP.com The Ring of Republican Websites
Ring Owner: Republicans Site: republicangop.com/ - The Ring of Republican Websites
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Free Site Ring form Bravenet

Proud Member Of The Alliance

........In Memory Of President Ronald Wilson Reagan....................................................................In Memory Of President Ronald Wilson Reagan........


Click for Harbor City, California Forecast


Click for Carthage, Tennessee Forecast


Click for Dekalb, Illinois Forecast