Newsstand - Olbermann to Bush: "May this country forgive you."

Tonight, Keith Olbermann delivered the most stinging condemnation of Mr. Bush's stupidity and ineptness:

"This hole in the ground"
Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space. And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.

All the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and -- as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul -- two more in the Towers.

And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.

I belabor this to emphasize that, for me this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.

And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft,"or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.

However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this.

Five years later this space is still empty.

Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country's wound is still open.

Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.

At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field -- Mr. Lincoln said, "we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.

Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground." So we won't.

Instead they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing instead of doing any job at all.

Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir, on these 16 empty acres. The terrorists are clearly, still winning.

And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.

And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is its symbolism of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party -- tabled that.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election -- ignored that.

Those who wondered of his qualifications -- forgot that.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President -- and those around him -- did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."

They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated al-Qaida as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11 is "lying by implication."

The impolite phrase is "impeachable offense."

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space, and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible for anything in his own administration.

Yet what is happening this very night?

A mini-series, created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.

The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections? How dare you -- or those around you -- ever "spin" 9/11?

Just as the terrorists have succeeded -- are still succeeding -- as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero.

So, too, have they succeeded, and are still succeeding as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.

This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.

And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."

In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car -- and only his car -- starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An "alien" is shot -- but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials are seen manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves."

And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.

"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."

When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:

Who has left this hole in the ground?

We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

You have.

May this country forgive you.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240

Shame on Keith Olbermann.

On Clinton's watch:

US Cole attacked

Khobar Towers attacked

World trade Center-first attack



Bush was President for 8 1/2 months when this occurred, what about the 8 years of Clinton's presidency? He did nothing.

I would have to say no attacks on the US in 5 years is a positive thing in the war on terror.

Bush does not need to be forgiven, he has finally stood up and taken action.

Shame on him?
Why?

Shame on Keith Olbermann
Really? I think he got it exactly right.

Sept 11 is a sad time, and the saddest part for me is that while 5 years ago everyone felt comradre with the U.S. but now very few countries and peoples support the U.S. The world is a community and we should work within the community to make the world a safer place.

Yup, everything is Bush's fault.

Look at the absolute outrage in PA.

Look at the absolute outrage that the leftists WANTED to put at Ground Zero.

Forget the fact that NYC and NY are free to come up with and execute a solution, just blame Bush.

And sticking with the intelligence/maturity level of the current leftist movement: "All the cool kids [blame Bush.] :cool: "

The concept that we have "squandered" support we "had" in the Middle East is simply more propraganda from terrorist-funding Islamic apologist front organizations.

Yup, everything is Bush's fault.

Look at the absolute outrage in PA.

Look at the absolute outrage that the leftists WANTED to put at Ground Zero.

Forget the fact that NYC and NY are free to come up with and execute a solution, just blame Bush.

And sticking with the intelligence/maturity level of the current leftist movement: "All the cool kids [blame Bush.]


Yeah and your knee jerk reactionary stance against everyone who rightfully believes Bush butchered the goodwill he received from the US and indeed the world is somehow an intellectually honest bastion of truth?

I dont see many arguments in your post apart from some baseles accusations towards groups you have decided to call LEFTISTS.

Yeah and your knee jerk reactionary stance against everyone who rightfully believes Bush butchered the goodwill he received from the US and indeed the world is somehow an intellectually honest bastion of truth?Take the goodwill from France in one hand and poop in the other - see which one fills up first.

People somehow think that during the Clinton era there was a golden era when the Euroweenies loved us, blah, blah, blah. Not so. After Bosnia, Khobar Towers, Cole, Somalia, etc, etc, people in EMEA were highly critical of us.

Leftists (communists) want government control over everything, no personal freedom except for women to have the right to have an abortion at any time, and don't recognize that as soon as the terrorists have consolidated power with the leftists' help, the leftists will themselves be wiped out.

Women, gays, and atheists are regularly summarily executed by goverments that operate under Shariah law.

Despite what these people might have to say about the "Taliban of the Christian Right" are they persecuted in this way? Nope.

They'll be crying for Bush to return just like the Arabs at Abu Ghraib are right now. But it will be too late. Too late for the entire world.

But hey, Bush is evil, Islam is the Religion of Peace, blame the Jews...

Leftists (communists) want government control over everything, no personal freedom except for women to have the right to have an abortion at any time, and don't recognize that as soon as the terrorists have consolidated power with the leftists' help, the leftists will themselves be wiped out.

Women, gays, and atheists are regularly summarily executed by goverments that operate under Shariah law.

Despite what these people might have to say about the "Taliban of the Christian Right" are they persecuted in this way? Nope.

They'll be crying for Bush to return just like the Arabs at Abu Ghraib are right now. But it will be too late. Too late for the entire world.

But hey, Bush is evil, Islam is the Religion of Peace, blame the Jews...

ROTFLMAO

thanks for bringing a smile to my face on a sad day

They'll be crying for Bush to return just like the Arabs at Abu Ghraib are right now. But it will be too late. Too late for the entire world.

But hey, Bush is evil, Islam is the Religion of Peace, blame the Jews...LMFAO!

I saw a news report today from Amnesty Int'l about how the Iraqi's are running Abu Ghrab now and the abuses have begun as the government tries to track down the terrorists.

Terrible, but predictable.

Keith is my hero.

Truth to power, Keith. Truth to power. ^

This thread should be stopped immediately. Sure, it's all Clinton's fault, right? Does anyone remember Condie Rice saying "no one could have imagined planes begin used as bombs." Duh. But now, the previous regime is responsible? Obermann was brilliant, again: and the wanna-be Emperor is still wearing no clothes.

It's a day to remember. Remember those who have died, either in the attacks, or as they served as public safefy officers, or as a member of the armed forces, or in attacks since then, of which there have been many, though luckily, none at home for those who live in the United States.

It's also a day to remember we are at war. War with an enemy, Muslim terrorists. A war that is taking place nearly everywhere on Earth. And a war not only on the battlefield, but at home, with those among us who truly believe (unlike politicians who PRETEND to believe, in order to get votes) that WE are the enemy, and work to support our enemies against us.

I always get my political and world news from former ESPN Sportscenter hosts.

I am waiting for Stuart Scott to start doing the nightly ABC News so I can be "in the know"


Ken in Phx

I always get my political and world news from former ESPN Sportscenter hosts.

I am waiting for Stuart Scott to start doing the nightly ABC News so I can be "in the know"


Ken in Phx

Perhaps you prefer the former/current comedian Rush Limbaugh or the former "a current affair" host Mr O'Reily. Go Keith!

I always get my political and world news from former ESPN Sportscenter hosts.

I am waiting for Stuart Scott to start doing the nightly ABC News so I can be "in the know"


Ken in Phx



Boo-yah

I have always been a fan of Dennis Miller for the news and commentary, personally ^

Even his sportscasting actually, although many did not agree, for reasons which I can certainly appreciate :P

Take the goodwill from France in one hand and poop in the other - see which one fills up first.

People somehow think that during the Clinton era there was a golden era when the Euroweenies loved us, blah, blah, blah. Not so. After Bosnia, Khobar Towers, Cole, Somalia, etc, etc, people in EMEA were highly critical of us.


Still pissed that France(and Germany) were proven right I see when they said that what the US had shown as proof and justification for invading Iraq wwas basically nothing of substance.

But yeah you go on believing that yours is the one true nation with God on its side, the one true nation that has to protect the honour and freedoms which you yourself have lost the last few years all over the world.

Actually, Allah is on the Muslim's side didn't you know that? :rolleyes:

Anyone who has a problem with Christians and Jews, but not with Muslims, is either a Muslim or a leftist.

And let's see, when were those bombs found on German trains? AFTER they pulled out of Iraq, that's right. Those silly terrorists...

I remember President Bush saying that defeating the terrorists is the goal and not to get weary. We all had the resolve then. What has happened? Do you want them fighting on our soil against our kids in years to come? Or do you want to take the fight to them? I hate fighting but we did not start it.

This thread should be stopped immediately. Sure, it's all Clinton's fault, right? Does anyone remember Condie Rice saying "no one could have imagined planes begin used as bombs." Duh. But now, the previous regime is responsible? Obermann was brilliant, again: and the wanna-be Emperor is still wearing no clothes.

And deny the usual suspects with their predictible spouting here their soapbox?

Omni gives you so much less exposure? :rolleyes:

mike

Actually, Allah is on the Muslim's side didn't you know that? :rolleyes:

Anyone who has a problem with Christians and Jews, but not with Muslims, is either a Muslim or a leftist.

And let's see, when were those bombs found on German trains? AFTER they pulled out of Iraq, that's right. Those silly terrorists...

My oh my, what simplistic views you have.
They say ignorance is bliss so surely you must be in seventh heaven right now.

I know! Look how peaceful the Palestinians and Hezbollah became after Israel gave them back their land. It's those darn West Bankers who keep fighting the Zionists over their occupied territory. Oops, wait a minute... :rolleyes:

Yup, me and my feeble mind can't comprehend the complexities of such wonderful nuggets of knowledge such as:
"Islam is a religion of peace"
"9/11 was an inside job"
"0 WMDs were found in Iraq"
"Clinton was the best president ever"
"Bush used Katrina to murder blacks"

I remember President Bush saying that defeating the terrorists is the goal and not to get weary. We all had the resolve then. What has happened? Do you want them fighting on our soil against our kids in years to come? Or do you want to take the fight to them? I hate fighting but we did not start it.

We will get Bin Ladin dead or alive became I am not concerned with Bin Ladin, we have no secret jails became yeah we have secret jails, the war will pay for itself with all the oil reserves in iraq became a 400 billion US tax payer paid war with Cheney's old buddies making a killing, we dont torture became we changed the definitions of the word torture, direkt link between al Quade and Iraq became no links at all, Stockpiles of WMD became they didnt exist after all etcetera etcetera.

Gee I wonder what happened to make people weary of what this President and his administration have said and done the last few years.

I know! Look how peaceful the Palestinians and Hezbollah became after Israel gave them back their land. It's those darn West Bankers who keep fighting the Zionists over their occupied territory. Oops, wait a minute... :rolleyes:

This is the website of an Israeli human rights website.
The deatcounts on the page are the officialy accepted deathcounts on both sides as reported by the IDF(Israeli defense Forces, the Israeli army).
Look beyond both sides propaganda and see WHO is suffering.

http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp

No one in the Bush administration ever said Saddam was involved in 9/11. If you disagree, prove it. I can back up all of the statements I have made, if necessary.

Thousands of rockets were launched at Israel, targetting civilians, Jew and Arab Muslim alike, by terrorists, either from positions inside civilian areas, or from positions next to UN personnel.

This was after these terrorists made an across the border raid into Israel, killing and capturing Israeli soldiers.

But hey, if Israel just "went away" the terrorists would just become fun-loving peaceniks right?

Why does everyone keep editing their posts AFTER I already quoted them?

Makes it seem as if I deliberatly only quote part of their posts.
Cant they be tagged as edited at least?

I remember President Bush saying that defeating the terrorists is the goal and not to get weary. We all had the resolve then. What has happened? Do you want them fighting on our soil against our kids in years to come? Or do you want to take the fight to them? I hate fighting but we did not start it.

You're right we didn't start it, but either did Iraq. Al Qaeda did, that's why we destroyed the Taliban in Afganistan. As everyone clearly knows, Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11.

How's the saying go? Bombing for peace is like ....ing for virginity.

Why does everyone keep editing their posts AFTER I already quoted them?

Makes it seem as if I deliberatly only quote part of their posts.
Cant they be tagged as edited at least?

It's a vast right wing conspiracy. Ooga booga!

So we should have invaded Japan instead of nuking them? And let the Japanese fight to the last man, and commit suicide en masse, while inflicting unimaginable Allied casualties?

No one in the Bush administration ever said Saddam was involved in 9/11.

Pres. Bush in Oct. 2002 said that Saddam Hussein was aligned with OBL. And that wasn't the only occassion he or someone in the Administration peddled such fiction in private or public. ;)

No one in the Bush administration ever said Saddam was involved in 9/11. If you disagree, prove it. I can back up all of the statements I have made, if necessary.

Thousands of rockets were launched at Israel, targetting civilians, Jew and Arab Muslim alike, by terrorists, either from positions inside civilian areas, or from positions next to UN personnel.

This was after these terrorists made an across the border raid into Israel, killing and capturing Israeli soldiers.

But hey, if Israel just "went away" the terrorists would just become fun-loving peaceniks right?

Wow more examples of retarded black and white think, congrats on another job well done.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5329350.stm

It was Vice-President Dick Cheney who asserted most strongly in public that Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda had an operational relationship.

In a television interview in September 2003, he said there was "a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s... al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained... the Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organisation."

It was "clearly official policy" on the part of Iraq, he said.



In any case, yeah they made sure to NEVER directly state that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
They did however employ a propaganda tactic perfected by Joseph Goebbels in Nazi Germany.
Repetition and association.

Repeat the worlds Al Queda, Iraq, 9/11 and weapons of Mass destruction as often as possible without ever linking them together and you end up with a country where at one point 3 quarters of the people thought Iraq was responsible for the horrific acts of that day.

Its a proven propaganda tool, repitition and association, keep repeating the same keywords.
Simple but highly effective psychology at work.

You're right we didn't start it, but either did Iraq. Al Qaeda did, that's why we destroyed the Taliban in Afganistan. As everyone clearly knows, Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11.

How's the saying go? Bombing for peace is like ....ing for virginity.

Thats the thing, the Taliban is NOT destroyed.
Sadly they are growing and do control large parts of Afghanistan so for most of the country its back to the horror they have lived in for 30 years.

I always get my political and world news from former ESPN Sportscenter hosts.

The sad thing is that Olbermann was once one half of the best SportsCenter duo of all time.

And now he is just as much of a partisan shill and a pompass ... as Bill O'Reilly.

If you're scoring at home.

Or even if you're not.

Damn I almost made it through the entire day without seeing/hearing a pissing match about who to blame for 9/11 on 9/11.

Still pissed that France(and Germany) were proven right I see when they said that what the US had shown as proof and justification for invading Iraq wwas basically nothing of substance.Uh, no, actually, what they said was: give the inspections more time. Not quite the same thing. France is always up for invading smaller countries (Cote De Ivorie, for example) when they feel it's necessary. Iraq (and now Iran) was too valuable a trading partner for France or Germany or Russia (conv. that you left them out, yes?) to support any action.

But yeah you go on believing that yours is the one true nation with God on its side, the one true nation that has to protect the honour and freedoms which you yourself have lost the last few years all over the world.Blah, blah, blah. See my comment about poop and apply it to most of the world - there is a reason we have to restrict immigration, you know?

It's also worth noting that Europe (and what little of the rest of the world that enjoys it) has their freedoms because of the UK (which included Canada, natch) and the US in WWII. (Sure, the Soviets killed more than their share of the Germans, but then they turned around and wiped out many more of their own people and brought the iron curtain down for 50 years, so I call that a tie.)

See, scratch an American and you get WWII. :-)

Wow more examples of retarded black and white think, congrats on another job well done.

[snip]

They did however employ a propaganda tactic perfected by Joseph Goebbels in Nazi Germany.


Fishie goes and proves that P(you are hitler)=1 in any discussion where there is a normal distribution of intelligence.

He also successfully executes the "Neener Neener" corollary where you accuse an opponent of Manichean thinking by using a simple boolean strawman option.

When is Sports Center on again? I think they're replaying the famous NCSU amphibious dribble interview.

Yup, me and my feeble mind can't comprehend the complexities of such wonderful nuggets of knowledge such as:
"Islam is a religion of peace"
"9/11 was an inside job"
"0 WMDs were found in Iraq"
"Clinton was the best president ever"
"Bush used Katrina to murder blacks"
Oh, so you've seen the new Spike Lee film? Or was the new Michael Moore fakeumentary?

Uh, no, actually, what they said was: give the inspections more time. Not quite the same thing. France is always up for invading smaller countries (Cote De Ivorie, for example) when they feel it's necessary. Iraq (and now Iran) was too valuable a trading partner for France or Germany or Russia (conv. that you left them out, yes?) to support any action.

Blah, blah, blah. See my comment about poop and apply it to most of the world - there is a reason we have to restrict immigration, you know?

It's also worth noting that Europe (and what little of the rest of the world that enjoys it) has their freedoms because of the UK (which included Canada, natch) and the US in WWII. (Sure, the Soviets killed more than their share of the Germans, but then they turned around and wiped out many more of their own people and brought the iron curtain down for 50 years, so I call that a tie.)

See, scratch an American and you get WWII. :-)

Or Korea, Nam, Bay of pigs.

Its intellectually dishonest to compare Iraq to WW2, that being said, no WMD and no link with Al Queda, so what was your point again?

Cant they be tagged as edited at least?

Only if you edit them after five minutes. This change was made to FT last year, and has been the subject of discussion on TalkBoard.

This is the website of an Israeli human rights website.
The deatcounts on the page are the officialy accepted deathcounts on both sides as reported by the IDF(Israeli defense Forces, the Israeli army).
Look beyond both sides propaganda and see WHO is suffering.
Reminds me of the old joke: My grandfather wanted to rape the enviornment, but he was a butcher so didn't have much opportunity.

Fishie, don't worry, if the Pals could, they'd even up the stakes. Since Mein Kampf is so popular in the west bank, perhaps we should chalk up 6M for the other team and start from there?

Omni gives you so much less exposure? :rolleyes:

Looks like there are a lot of posters here that don't have OMNI access. Will be good to see some new posters over there after they have their 180 days and 180 posts to qualify.

I'm going to close with this

Wow more examples of retarded black and white think, congrats on another job well done.

Did I ever call you retarded? Nope.

Many things are black and white. Many things are not.

If one believes that NOTHING is black and white, that means that one believes in moral relativism / moral equivalence, or more accurately, immoral equivalence.

I don't know if you believe that or not, as you didn't state that you did.

OK, few more things.

-700 WMDs from before 1991 have been officially found in Iraq since 2003.

-Chiraq said he would use nukes if any terrorists attacked France.

-French troops fired on unarmed civilian crowds in the Ivory Coast, both ground troops with assault rifles, and attack helicopters.

Or Korea, Nam, Bay of pigs.

Its intellectually dishonest to compare Iraq to WW2, that being said, no WMD and no link with Al Queda, so what was your point again?
Really? You say?

Hey, who was in Vietnam, and wanted to use nukes in DBP, before us?

Bay of Pigs was a pitiful exercise - think Panama without US military involvement.

Korea was an amazing success, if you think about it. Sure, it took South Korea 25 years to hit some form of Democracy, but compare them to the rest of the region.

Stick with Vietnam - the leftist apparatchicks have convinced a generation that we lost because America was bad, not because congress screwed the South Vietnamese government (bad as it was) after an almost complete military victory.

History, the antidote to television.

Oh, and I didn't make any claims about WMD or Iraq/911 connections. Kinda not the point, is it?

Damn I almost made it through the entire day without seeing/hearing a pissing match about who to blame for 9/11 on 9/11.
:( It's what it has become - a tarp for fools, charlatans and imbeciles to cloak themselves in.

Looks like there are a lot of posters here that don't have OMNI access. Will be good to see some new posters over there after they have their 180 days and 180 posts to qualify.

Looking forward to it(cant we just bend the rules a lil :D )

I'm going to close with this



Did I ever call you retarded? Nope.

Many things are black and white. Many things are not.

If one believes that NOTHING is black and white, that means that one believes in moral relativism / moral equivalence, or more accurately, immoral equivalence.

I don't know if you believe that or not, as you didn't state that you did.

OK, few more things.

-700 WMDs from before 1991 have been officially found in Iraq since 2003.

-Chiraq said he would use nukes if any terrorists attacked France.

-French troops fired on unarmed civilian crowds in the Ivory Coast, both ground troops with assault rifles, and attack helicopters.

I provided a credible link with regards to disspel that nobody in the Bush admin ever linked Saddam to Al Queda.
Might I ask the same courtesy from you for your claims.

Perhaps you prefer the former/current comedian Rush Limbaugh or the former "a current affair" host Mr O'Reily. Go Keith!

I dont prefer Mr Oxycotin or Capt'n Loofah. But i certainly think its funny when people start taking these talking heads like Olbermann seriously. The dude was the ESPN anchor, then FoxSports Anchor and now makes a living attacking the right wingers.

Tonight, Keith Olbermann delivered the most stinging condemnation of Mr. Bush's stupidity and ineptness:

Five years later this space is still empty.

Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country's wound is still open.

Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.



Mr. Olbermann should spend less time frothing and more time paying attention to the facts. The fact that almost nothing has been built at ground zero has everything to do with bungling by NY politicians and almost nothing to do with Bush. Olbermann is an embittered partisan hack.

Shame on Keith Olbermann.

On Clinton's watch:

US Cole attacked

Khobar Towers attacked

World trade Center-first attack



Bush was President for 8 1/2 months when this occurred, what about the 8 years of Clinton's presidency? He did nothing.

I would have to say no attacks on the US in 5 years is a positive thing in the war on terror.

Bush does not need to be forgiven, he has finally stood up and taken action.

You may recall that at the time of Clinton and the 4 previous Presidents most of USA was busy financing, supplying and supporting IRA Terrorists. Strange how opionion and comment changes when the shoe is on the other foot.

I provided a credible link with regards to disspel that nobody in the Bush admin ever linked Saddam to Al Queda.
Might I ask the same courtesy from you for your claims.

Are you actually trying to find a defensible French position here? I never thought that was possible, but I am interested to see you try.

Are you actually trying to find a defensible French position here? I never thought that was possible, but I am interested to see you try.


I dont get this hatred towards the French from Americans, especially considering the rich intermingled history between the two countries.

In any case, it is past 6am over here and im sure this thread will be moved to OMNI by the time I get a chance to check the site again.
Too bad,I would have loved to see how this thread evolved.

http://politicscentral.com/audio/2006/09/Iraq_NGIC_Unclassified_WMDs_083106.pdf
500 WMDs, no idea where to find link to info on original 200 WMD finding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903311.html (Chiraq quote)

and from Nov 2004 about the French firing on civilians
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3989765.stm

Back when it happened, I watched videos of both the troops and helicopters firing, AFAIK no current mirrors. More info is on the net though, both news articles and blog coverage.

It's also worth noting that Europe (and what little of the rest of the world that enjoys it) has their freedoms because of the UK (which included Canada, natch) and the US in WWII. (Sure, the Soviets killed more than their share of the Germans, but then they turned around and wiped out many more of their own people and brought the iron curtain down for 50 years, so I call that a tie.)

:rolleyes: It really is not that simple. ;)

Any bets on how soon before this ends up in OMNI? Perhaps it can even be merged into an existing thread for confused and oversimplified thinking to be perpetuated, apparently confusing as that is. :D

.

Blah, blah, blah. See my comment about poop and apply it to most of the world - there is a reason we have to restrict immigration, you know?


If you go back 3-4 generations, you will find that all our families (yours included, I'm sure) came from "most of the world". Does that make your/my family poop? Maybe we should have restricted immigration when your ancestors were trying to enter the country?

If you go back 3-4 generations, you will find that all our families (yours included, I'm sure) came from "most of the world". Does that make your/my family poop? Maybe we should have restricted immigration when your ancestors were trying to enter the country?

I'm sure his ancestry goes back to the pilgrims - you know - those religous fanatics that nobody else wanted :p :D

Aired last night on PBS: America Rebuilds II return to ground zero (http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds2/index.html)

Also recommend Olberman Watch (reality-based news for the belligerently uninformed) (http://www.olbermannwatch.com/)

http://politicscentral.com/audio/2006/09/Iraq_NGIC_Unclassified_WMDs_083106.pdf
500 WMDs, no idea where to find link to info on original 200 WMD finding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903311.html (Chiraq quote)

and from Nov 2004 about the French firing on civilians
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3989765.stm

Back when it happened, I watched videos of both the troops and helicopters firing, AFAIK no current mirrors. More info is on the net though, both news articles and blog coverage.

This is hilarious.
Condemnation for Chirac came swiftly from his own people.

As for the WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, I knew you would bring up that report.
A report dismissed by those who had the most to gain from it, the Bush administration dismissed it as not being WMD.
A couple hundred grenades and short distance rockets with Sarin that had become nothing more then useless sludge over a decade ago and from which the Iraqi's didnt even know themselves that they still had em.
Useless rockets filled with a substance that at its worst will give you a skin rash.
If that constitutes a WMD you can dress me up, spank my ... and call me Shirley.

Nobody is contesting that Saddam is a piece of .... that should have been taken out long ago.

In fact I was saying just that back when Saddam was at his most gruesome in the 80s and people like this clown:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I14769-2003Dec19
Called him a great friend and ally of the US.

FWIW and for full disclosure, I generally agree with Olbermann. However, (IMHO, YVMV) the situation at the WTC site seems to be a primarily a NYC/NYS/DC/victims' families & friends matter, so I'll stay out of that one.

To follow a few points made above: both of the World Trade Center events (2/26/93 and 9/11/01) occurred early in a new administration, the first about a month into the Clinton Administration and the second about 8 months into the Bush 43 Administration. I believe both the 9/11 Commission and its predecessor the Hart-Rudman Commission (report issued around 3/01 with many of the same conclusions as the 9/11 Commission, though largely ignored until after the events of 9/11/01) observed that there needs to better security measures during these transitions. As far as I am aware, those processes still have not been substantially changed, and discussions on moving forward on 9/11 reforms seem to be fading into the past, for which both parties seem to be at fault.

I believe that any calm, rational look at recent terror events needs to focus separately on the events leading up to the event and then on the actions by the US following the event. One such event, the attack on the USS Cole, is often bandied about in the blame process. Some have opined that the failure to retaliate for the attack gave impetus to the terrorists to go forward on a larger event, which occurred on 9/11. If those opinions are correct, then both the Clinton and Bush Administrations share the blame for not retaliating. I understand that the 9/11 Commission concluded that some persons within the Intelligence sections of the Executive Branch had concluded before GWB was inaugurated in 1/01 who was responsible for the attack; but that information was not passed up to senior staff at the White House before the inauguration. Thus, Clinton, who was awaiting confirmation from the Intelligence community before ordering the retaliation, never gave the order. Once the information did reach the White House, GWB chose not to retaliate (for reasons which are not clear to me, so I won't speculate).

As my signature implies, I'm one who often sees a lot more gray in situations than black and white.

FWIW and for full disclosure, I generally agree with Olbermann. However, (IMHO, YVMV) the situation at the WTC site seems to be a primarily a NYC/NYS/DC/victims' families & friends matter, so I'll stay out of that one.

To follow a few points made above: both of the World Trade Center events (2/26/93 and 9/11/01) occurred early in a new administration, the first about a month into the Clinton Administration and the second about 8 months into the Bush 43 Administration. I believe both the 9/11 Commission and its predecessor the Hart-Rudman Commission (report issued around 3/01 with many of the same conclusions as the 9/11 Commission, though largely ignored until after the events of 9/11/01) observed that there needs to better security measures during these transitions. As far as I am aware, those processes still have not been substantially changed, and discussions on moving forward on 9/11 reforms seem to be fading into the past, for which both parties seem to be at fault.

I believe that any calm, rational look at recent terror events needs to focus separately on the events leading up to the event and then on the actions by the US following the event. One such event, the attack on the USS Cole, is often bandied about in the blame process. Some have opined that the failure to retaliate for the attack gave impetus to the terrorists to go forward on a larger event, which occurred on 9/11. If those opinions are correct, then both the Clinton and Bush Administrations share the blame for not retaliating. I understand that the 9/11 Commission concluded that some persons within the Intelligence sections of the Executive Branch had concluded before GWB was inaugurated in 1/01 who was responsible for the attack; but that information was not passed up to senior staff at the White House before the inauguration. Thus, Clinton, who was awaiting confirmation from the Intelligence community before ordering the retaliation, never gave the order. Once the information did reach the White House, GWB chose not to retaliate (for reasons which are not clear to me, so I won't speculate).

As my signature implies, I'm one who often sees a lot more gray in situations than black and white.

The supposed "non-response" to the attack on our ship in Yemen giving impetus to OBL & Co. to go forward to a larger event is a fantasy. They were on that path before the Cole incident.

The supposed "non-response" "giving impetus ... to go forward to a larger event" is a convenient fiction. Why is it a convenient fiction? I helps to justify future overreactions and security mistakes of the "pre-emptive" variety and ends up being:

1. a de facto advocacy for retaliation over retribution (i.e., retaliation = responses less constrained by an idea of proportionality);
2. a de facto opposition to retribution (i.e., measured responses constrained by proportionality);
3. a de facto displacement of police actions and legal proceedings.
4. a de facto advocacy for military solutions to non-military problems

Looking forward to it(cant we just bend the rules a lil :D )

Why bother? It seems as if we're creating an OMNI training ground here, in this thread. :rolleyes:

Mike

Take the goodwill from France in one hand and poop in the other - see which one fills up first.

People somehow think that during the Clinton era there was a golden era when the Euroweenies loved us, blah, blah, blah. Not so. After Bosnia, Khobar Towers, Cole, Somalia, etc, etc, people in EMEA were highly critical of us.

You might have to go back to the era of Bush I and the massacres of innocent Iraqi's during that war, then the sanctions your country (via the UN) imposed on Iraq to find out why the rest of the world really hates what the U.S. does.

If you think attacks which were essentially to avenge what your country did to innocent Iraqis in the first Gulf War were not justified, then why does your country justify killing innocent Afghans, Iraqi's and many others? Is it not a cycle that will continue to repeat itself?

Yes, it WAS a day to remember. And how did the President choose to remember it? By bringing the country together? By talking of the strength of the American people and the Country? No! Instead he chose to continue his political attack on us Americans that believe the greatest strength of our form of government is to question the ignorant actions of our leaders!

Shame on you, Mr. President.


It's a day to remember. Remember those who have died, either in the attacks, or as they served as public safefy officers, or as a member of the armed forces, or in attacks since then, of which there have been many, though luckily, none at home for those who live in the United States.

It's also a day to remember we are at war. War with an enemy, Muslim terrorists. A war that is taking place nearly everywhere on Earth. And a war not only on the battlefield, but at home, with those among us who truly believe (unlike politicians who PRETEND to believe, in order to get votes) that WE are the enemy, and work to support our enemies against us.

We will get Bin Ladin dead or alive became I am not concerned with Bin Ladin, we have no secret jails became yeah we have secret jails, the war will pay for itself with all the oil reserves in iraq became a 400 billion US tax payer paid war with Cheney's old buddies making a killing, we dont torture became we changed the definitions of the word torture, direkt link between al Quade and Iraq became no links at all, Stockpiles of WMD became they didnt exist after all etcetera etcetera.

Gee I wonder what happened to make people weary of what this President and his administration have said and done the last few years.
Sounds like you want a neat little war. War is not neat, it is hell. Decisions have to be made on the spot and some of them are better than others. I love and admire our soldiers as my son was one.

Sounds like you want a neat little war. War is not neat, it is hell. Decisions have to be made on the spot and some of them are better than others. I love and admire our soldiers as my son was one.

..., no I dont and I have been opposed to this one from as soon as I saw the signs on the wall.

..., no I dont and I have been opposed to this one from as soon as I saw the signs on the wall.
Aren't you glad you live in a great country where you can express your opinions? Where you don't fear having to look over your shoulder to say them. Thank a soldier.
I know the President is privy to much more information than you or I. He has said some of our intelligence was incorrect. But as the President in a country that was horribly attacked as we have been, many more times than 9/11. You do not sit on your arse and ask "What's next?" We had eight years of that. There were Al Queda training camps in Iraq and he was trying to perfect the bomb. He was given sanction after sanction and he ignorred them, he was a cruel dictator.

Sept 11 is a sad time, and the saddest part for me is that while 5 years ago everyone felt comradre with the U.S. but now very few countries and peoples support the U.S. The world is a community and we should work within the community to make the world a safer place.

False. Anti-Americanism was there a long time before 9-11, and it manifested itself just days afterward (all sorts of columns in foreign press basically saying "the U.S. deserved what it got,'' TV programs in Canada and Britain basically saying the same thing).

This alleged "squandering" of goodwil is a red herring.

...Bush does not need to be forgiven, he has finally stood up and taken action.

Yeah. And the actions he has taken are exactly the point.

.
which were essentially to avenge what your country did to innocent Iraqis in the first Gulf War

When did we start killing innocent Iraqi's during Gulf War I? Did I miss something here?

When did we start killing innocent Iraqi's during Gulf War I? Did I miss something here?

Sorry you dont know what the U.S. military did during the first war. You won't find much reporting in the western press on the scale of the bombing that took place and the casualties it caused. You won't see too many pictures in the western press showing U.S. soldiers, Sailors and Fly Boys writing messages such as "prepare to meet Allah" or "Good night Rag Head" either. Fortunately (but unfortunatley for the U.S.), people in the rest of the world remember this quite vividly and if you pay attention to what OBL says, this is one of the reasons he commissioned 9/11 and other attrocities.

Deleted by poster (Me) :)

I don't get why conservatives are so loathe to admit that perhaps they don't own a unique wisdom on how to proceed against terrorism in the 21st century. Look Clinton screwed up. A simply internet search also makes clear that Republicans resisted his use of the military on several occasions. Bush screwed up too. I'm sure he means well, but clearly things have not gone as planned in Iraq and are starting to deteriorate in Afghanistan. Reagan screwed up by arming Saddam to fight off Iran and Carter screwed up by supporting a tyrannical secular regime in Iran. How far back do you want to go people?

Instead of making idiotic comments that liberals have either "forgotten" 9/11 or don't understand the nature of evil, perhaps we can concede that it'll take more than 50% of the country's imagination to succeed in this war. Conservatives don't possess any unique insight just by virtue of how they voted. And perhaps we can stop making the false argument that opponents of the Iraq War simply believe terrorists will leave us alone if we leave Iraq. And maybe liberals can stop making moronic claims that Bush is out to rule the world's oil and that he "lied" about WMD, as if him, Cheney and Rumsfeld sat in a dark musty room trying to figure out ways to deceive the American people.

Clearly the Bush Administration made a series of blunders in the planning and execution of post 9/11 foreign policy. That has had some serious consequences. And clearly there was no consensus among Democrats that offered any viable alternatives at the time many of these decisions were made. However, it is clear now that Plan A isn't working so great, and we need to start working on Plan B. Republicans aren't helping by saying the only way to succeed is to continue sticking with Plan A, and while Democrats are correct in recognizing its time for Plan B, maybe they should start focusing exactly on what Plan B should be, since most Republicans are clearly unwilling or unable to come to that conclusion.

THIS, my flyertalk friends, doesn't seem so unreasonable, does it? Why don't we do our country a favor and push these points, rather than trying to decide if Clinton is 30% or 70% to blame for 9/11, or continue preaching to your respective choirs that Bush is an oil-mad madman out for world domination or that liberals don't understand the difference between good and evil.

C'mon people, our leaders in government won't start working together until we force them to. And working together doesn't mean "staying the course because I said so" or "Bush lied people died". Working together as Americans means recognizing that Plan A isn't working, let's work together to figure out what Plan B should be and get the ball rolling.

I notice this is your first post. Welcome to FlyerTalk :)

Sorry you dont know what the U.S. military did during the first war. You won't find much reporting in the western press on the scale of the bombing that took place and the casualties it caused. You won't see too many pictures in the western press showing U.S. soldiers, Sailors and Fly Boys writing messages such as "prepare to meet Allah" or "Good night Rag Head" either. Fortunately (but unfortunatley for the U.S.), people in the rest of the world remember this quite vividly and if you pay attention to what OBL says, this is one of the reasons he commissioned 9/11 and other attrocities.


Is there any documentation of these "atrocities" of civilians that you speak of? I guess, enlighten us with some facts? Unless writing "prepare to meet Allah" constitutes an atrocity against civilians. Is your point that coalition troops purposely bombed innocents during Gulf War I. I like some proof personally, since its so readily available outside the US?

Ken in Phx

Thank you to Mr. Olberman for on this day, and many others, having the courage to speak the truth without the need to varnish it with the lies of those who seek favor of those who dont understand. He is a real American hero. Oh and for those who criticized him for being a former sportscaster, I suggest you read the biography of the 40th president of the United States.

Shame on Keith Olbermann.

On Clinton's watch:

US Cole attacked

Khobar Towers attacked

World trade Center-first attack



Bush was President for 8 1/2 months when this occurred, what about the 8 years of Clinton's presidency? He did nothing.

I would have to say no attacks on the US in 5 years is a positive thing in the war on terror.

Bush does not need to be forgiven, he has finally stood up and taken action.

Bzzzzt! No points for invading the wrong country and capturing the wrong guy.......

ESPECIALLY, when doing so lets the real enemy escape. You have a very different idea of "action" than I do. Touching oneself is technically action as well, but it aint stopping the terrorists.

Aren't you glad you live in a great country where you can express your opinions? Where you don't fear having to look over your shoulder to say them. Thank a soldier.
I know the President is privy to much more information than you or I. He has said some of our intelligence was incorrect. But as the President in a country that was horribly attacked as we have been, many more times than 9/11. You do not sit on your arse and ask "What's next?" We had eight years of that. There were Al Queda training camps in Iraq and he was trying to perfect the bomb. He was given sanction after sanction and he ignorred them, he was a cruel dictator.

Yes I am gratefull everyday that I live in Belgium and not in some totalitarian state.


All the information proved to be incorrect, much of the information was disproven even before the war with some even disproven BEFORE Bush mentioned it(the aluminum tubes found were declared to be unsuitable for nuclear purposesby the international community including Americans, the reports that the Niger claims were unsubstantiated and most likely false etcetera).
When Bush claimed that the aluminum tubes were proof of an ongoing nuclear plan it had already been disproven so it was a willfull lie.
The meetings between Al Queda and Iraq never happened.
When the White House claimed that they had credible evidence that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague before 9/11 it was disproven by the FBI since Atta at the time it had supposedly taken place was inside the US.
Despite that Cheney kept reiterating that lie till more then a year after the FBI disspelled it.

Iraq did not have All Queda trainingcamps, did not have WMD and was not working on the bomb.
The sanctions did what they were designed to do, cripple Iraq's capabilities(as well as sadly help kill a million Iraqi civilians)

Saddam was a cruel dictator who plunged his own country into depths it will take generations to recover from yes, but when Saddam was doing those things the West was his friend, Rumsfeld visited him shook his hand and said he was a great ally of the US.
When Saddam gasbombed Hallabja in Norther Iraq the CIA released a report trying to whitewash him from it claiming it was Iran that was using banned weapons on civilian populations.
http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-35,GGLJ:nl&q=rumsfeld%20saddam&sa=N&tab=wi


I cant believe that after all these years there are still people who believe that WMD have been found, Iraq was at least complicit with Al Queda, had training camps and somehow attacking Iraq has made the world and Iraq itself a safer place when all those things have been disproven time and time again.

Is there any documentation of these "atrocities" of civilians that you speak of? I guess, enlighten us with some facts? Unless writing "prepare to meet Allah" constitutes an atrocity against civilians. Is your point that coalition troops purposely bombed innocents during Gulf War I. I like some proof personally, since its so readily available outside the US?

Ken in Phx

Do a search for highway of death(its partially visible in the movie Jarhead as well)

Yeah and your knee jerk reactionary stance

"Reactionary stance". I love it. What nostalgia! I haven't heard that once since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Would somebody please throw in "running dogs of the Western imperialists"?

Sorry you dont know what the U.S. military did during the first war. You won't find much reporting in the western press on the scale of the bombing that took place and the casualties it caused. You won't see too many pictures in the western press showing U.S. soldiers, Sailors and Fly Boys writing messages such as "prepare to meet Allah" or "Good night Rag Head" either. Fortunately (but unfortunatley for the U.S.), people in the rest of the world remember this quite vividly and if you pay attention to what OBL says, this is one of the reasons he commissioned 9/11 and other attrocities.

Unfortunately, the habit of writing messages on ammunition to be used against others gained a lot of popularity in WWII and was certainly done in the 1st Gulf War. And it probably occurs today as well. While it is often just a non-understanding young servicemember, the shock value to the rest of the world is undeniable. I can tell you that the practice is strongly discouraged, but it is often overlooked by ground commanders. The problem is that most US servicemembers don't get to meet any of the locals in person, so they don't get a chance to see them as human beings instead of targets. Rest assured, all deploying troops get some degree of cultural awareness and sensitivity training before deploying to the Gulf region. What they do with that training, is often up to them or their supervisors. Where proper respectful behavior is enforced, the local population tends to respond better to US troop presence. Where the inmates are allowed to run the asylum, the local population tends to be anti-American.

That being said, no one should:
1) Excuse Saddam Hussein for his invasion of Kuwait
2) Excuse UBL for his acts of terrorism

I'm also glad when I see US servicemembers who commit atrocities brought to justice for their actions. Those reservists at Abu Ghraib caused more damage to the US image than any radical Imam could possibly do. Ditto for the rapists in Haditha.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; PPC; 240x240) Opera 8.60 [en])

Sorry you dont know what the U.S. military did during the first war. You won't find much reporting in the western press on the scale of the bombing that took place and the casualties it caused. You won't see too many pictures in the western press showing U.S. soldiers, Sailors and Fly Boys writing messages such as "prepare to meet Allah" or "Good night Rag Head" either. Fortunately (but unfortunatley for the U.S.), people in the rest of the world remember this quite vividly and if you pay attention to what OBL says, this is one of the reasons he commissioned 9/11 and other attrocities.

Unfortunately, the habit of writing messages on ammunition to be used against others gained a lot of popularity in WWII and was certainly done in the 1st Gulf War. And it probably occurs today as well. While it is often just a non-understanding young servicemember, the shock value to the rest of the world is undeniable. I can tell you that the practice is strongly discouraged, but it is often overlooked by ground commanders. The problem is that most US servicemembers don't get to meet any of the locals in person, so they don't get a chance to see them as human beings instead of targets. Rest assured, all deploying troops get some degree of cultural awareness and sensitivity training before deploying to the Gulf region. What they do with that training, is often up to them or their supervisors. Where proper respectful behavior is enforced, the local population tends to respond better to US troop presence. Where the inmates are allowed to run the asylum, the local population tends to be anti-American.

That being said, no one should:
1) Excuse Saddam Hussein for his invasion of Kuwait
2) Excuse UBL for his acts of terrorism

I'm also glad when I see US servicemembers who commit atrocities brought to justice for their actions. Those reservists at Abu Ghraib caused more damage to the US image than any radical Imam could possibly do. Ditto for the rapists in Haditha.

Sorry, I have to point out that WE, and I am not Belgian, excused Saddams invasion of Kuwait. Our ambassador at the time was told about the plan to invade and told Saddam that we did not have a position on the issue.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; PPC; 240x240) Opera 8.60 [en])



Sorry, I have to point out that WE, and I am not Belgian, excused Saddams invasion of Kuwait. Our ambassador at the time was told about the plan to invade and told Saddam that we did not have a position on the issue.


We being the US, US ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam that the US wouldnt interfere and would see Iraq acting up on their historical claim(Saddam's words for invading Kuwait) would be considered an internal Arab affair.

If what you say is true, WE changed our minds pretty quickly and ended up over there taking care of the Iraqi problem. Were we merely acting on a Saudi request?

I know that there are a lot of dirty politics involved in this whole deal. I feel (without drifting off into OMNI land) that we would be better off without the electoral college or political parties.

On the other hand, (without defending the current administration), was Saddam best left alone in his despotic regime?

Do a search for highway of death(its partially visible in the movie Jarhead as well)

Which innocent Iraqi civilians were killed on the highway of death? Last time I checked that was the fleeing Iraqi army that got destroyed. In additon, please dont reference a fictional movie as some type of reference point and still be expected to be taken seriously


Ken in Phx

Which innocent Iraqi civilians were killed on the highway of death? Last time I checked that was the fleeing Iraqi army that got destroyed. In additon, please dont reference a fictional movie as some type of reference point and still be expected to be taken seriously


Ken in Phx

Movie is fictional, the event is not.
Which can not be said of the fictional WMD, link with Al Quada, the costs of the war etcetera

We being the US, US ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam that the US wouldnt interfere and would see Iraq acting up on their historical claim(Saddam's words for invading Kuwait) would be considered an internal Arab affair.


Just a slight misquote of watch actually transpired. I believe the quotes were that the US wouldnt interfere with the border dispute which would be quite different than allowing a full invasion of Kuwait. But sounds like you need to couch the comments to fit your mold.

Ken in Phx

Movie is fictional, the event is not.
Which can not be said of the fictional WMD, link with Al Quada, the costs of the war etcetera

The event killed Iraqi soldiers fleeing Kuwait. Wheres the problem with defeating the opposing army? You do know that means killing them?

A trafic jam with fleeing people several miles long indiscriminatly bombed is a normal act of war now?

This isn't in Omni yet???? :D

We being the US, US ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam that the US wouldnt interfere and would see Iraq acting up on their historical claim(Saddam's words for invading Kuwait) would be considered an internal Arab affair.

When it was clear the Soviet Union was a has-been, Saddam Hussein had outlived his usefulness to those who were his strongest supporters a decade earlier -- namely, us.

The event killed Iraqi soldiers fleeing Kuwait. Wheres the problem with defeating the opposing army? You do know that means killing them?

"The event" also killed a lot of civilians living in southern Iraq at the time.

What's part of the reason for why our-sponsored shia insurrection in Iraq failed after Iraq was out of Kuwait? A large number of non-combattant shias fleeing our bombing of the area died on those roads, and some of their relatives supplied Baathists with lists of those (mostly shia) individuals cooperating with US and allied intel to spark and foment a wider shia insurrection. Also, a lot fewer Iraqi shias were willing to get involved in the insurrection given their deep suspicion and hostility of the US after what had transpired a few weeks before. That "benefit" of mass killing of fleeing "troops" was entirely wiped out by images and stories of mass killing of fleeing civilians too.

"The event" also killed a lot of civilians living in southern Iraq at the time.

What's part of the reason for why our-sponsored shia insurrection in Iraq failed after Iraq was out of Kuwait? A large number of non-combattant shias fleeing our bombing of the area died on those roads, and some of their relatives supplied Baathists with lists of those (mostly shia) individuals cooperating with US and allied intel to spark and foment a wider shia insurrection. Also, a lot fewer Iraqi shias were willing to get involved in the insurrection given their deep suspicion and hostility of the US after what had transpired a few weeks before. That "benefit" of mass killing of fleeing "troops" was entirely wiped out by images and stories of mass killing of fleeing civilians too.

I think you are confused on the amount of civilian deaths. It was predominately Iraqi conscripts and the 1st Armored Division of the Iraqi Republican Guard. What images of mass killings of civilians are out there? Since it was mostly military I question the use of the words "mass killings of civilians" and "a lot"

Ken in Phx,

See Chapter 3 of the HRW report titled "Needless Deaths in the Gulf War". Unfortunately it only includes reports of verifiable deaths (as you know in any war there are many reported but unverified as well as unreported, unverified deaths. Sorry if I sound like Donald Rumsfeld)

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/gulfwar/


Chapter Three: The Means and Methods of Attack

U.S. Public Statements

Daytime Bomb and Missile Attacks on Targets in Populated Areas

One Hundred Killed in Daytime Attack on Bridge in Southern City

Scores of Civilians Killed in Flawed Attack on Bridge in Western Iraq

Denials and then Admissions by the Allies about the Attack

Scores of Civilians Killed in Daytime Attack on Bridge near Market in Southern City

Scores of Workers Killed in Market Area of Southeastern City

Morning Bombing Near Crowded Market Area in Basra

Daytime Bombing of Bridges in Basra

Scores of Civilians, Waiting for Cooking Gas, Killed and Injured During Daytime Attack

Civilian Factory in Southern City Bombed in Afternoon; Seven Killed

Legal Standards, Conclusions and Unanswered Questions

"Smart" Bombs, "Dumb" Bombs, and Inaccurate Attacks on Targets in Civilian Population Centers

The Lack of Warning Prior to Attack: The Ameriyya Air Raid Shelter

The killing didn't stop with the end of Operation Desert Shield. It went on and on, well before the first attack on the WTC in the nineties, before the attack on the USS Cole and many other such attrocities.

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/sancirq.htm

Under Iraqi Skies, a Canvas of Death

By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday , June 16, 2000 ; A01

TOQ AL-GHAZALAT, Iraq –– Suddenly out of a clear blue sky, the forgotten war being waged by the United States and Britain over Iraq visited its lethal routine on the shepherds and farmers of Toq al-Ghazalat about 10:30 a.m. on May 17.
Omran Harbi Jawair, 13, was squatting on his haunches at the time, watching the family sheep as they nosed the hard, flat ground in search of grass. He wore a white robe but was bareheaded in spite of an unforgiving sun. Omran, who liked to kick a soccer ball around this dusty village, had just finished fifth grade at the little school a 15-minute walk from his mud-brick home. A shepherd boy's summer vacation lay ahead.

That is when the missile landed.

Without warning, according to several youths standing nearby, the device came crashing down in an open field 200 yards from the dozen houses of Toq al-Ghazalat. A deafening explosion cracked across the silent land. Shrapnel flew in every direction. Four shepherds were wounded. And Omran, the others recalled, lay dead in the dirt, most of his head torn off, the white of his robe stained red.

"He was only 13 years old, but he was a good boy," sobbed Omran's father, Harbi Jawair, 61.

What happened four weeks ago at Toq al-Ghazalat, 35 miles southwest of Najaf in southern Iraq, has become a recurring event in the Iraqi countryside. A week of conversations with wounded Iraqis and the families of those killed, around Najaf and in northern Iraq around Mosul, showed that civilian deaths and injuries are a regular part of the little-discussed U.S. and British air operation over Iraq.

Lt. Gen. Yassin Jassem, spokesman for Iraq's air defense command, said about 300 Iraqis have been killed and more than 800 wounded by U.S. and British retaliatory attacks in the 18 months since President Saddam Hussein ordered his antiaircraft batteries to fire on allied warplanes enforcing "no-fly" zones in northern and southern Iraq. Of those killed, Jassem said in an interview, "well more" than 200 were civilians like Omran Harbi Juwair, caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The Iraqi death toll has been substantiated in part by a U.N. survey that examined some incidents independently and accepted Iraqi reports on others. While not conclusive on the overall toll, interviews and observations during lengthy drives through the regions where airstrikes have often been reported backed up the government's contention that civilian casualties have become routine.

U.S. and British warplanes enforcing the zones were heard almost daily crisscrossing the skies, although they were invisible flying at more than 20,000 feet. The Iraqi air defense command says it has detected penetrations into Iraqi airspace by more than 21,600 U.S. and British warplanes since December 1998, when Iraqis started opposing the patrols with antiaircraft fire. The sustained military operation results in bomb or missile attacks on an average of once every three days. The Pentagon says more than 280,000 sorties have been flown in the near decade since the no-fly zones were imposed, without a single loss of aircraft to hostile fire.

Visits to a dozen airstrike sites, chosen by this correspondent, showed that Iraqi antiaircraft equipment--gray snouts of multibarreled cannons sticking out of dugouts in the sandy soil--is sometimes installed near towns and villages. That increases chances of civilians being hurt or killed when allied planes retaliate. But the travels showed that air attacks have occurred as well in vast, open fields or grazing grounds--such as in the strike at Toq al-Ghazalat--with no signs of any military target present or having been present near the sheep and the boys who tend them in scenes reminiscent of the Bible.

The mounting toll--averaging one civilian death every other day by Iraq's count--has prompted France to freeze participation in enforcing the no-fly zones. It has generated growing protests from Russia and has left neighboring Saudi Arabia and Turkey increasingly uneasy about continuing to provide air bases for the U.S. and British enforcement aircraft.

Challenge and Response The U.S.-led air campaign over Iraq has been underway since shortly after the Persian Gulf War in 1991, but civilian casualties began to mount after Operation Desert Fox in December 1998--a 70-hour U.S. bombing campaign against targets across Iraq to retaliate for the government's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. Iraqi air defenses received orders after that campaign to fire on U.S. and British patrols, drawing retaliatory airstrikes.

"That was a watershed," Riyadh Qaysi, undersecretary in the Foreign Ministry, said in an interview.

Previously, U.S. and British aircraft were rarely challenged. When they were, pilots replied to the source of the challenge, usually with AGM-88 HARM missiles that homed in on the radars that guide antiaircraft missiles. But after Iraq's decision to challenge patrols regularly, U.S. forces were authorized to attack any Iraqi air defense target--even unconnected to a specific attack, or at a time well after any challenge--in retaliation for antiaircraft fire, radar illumination or missile launch.

The United States and its allies first imposed the northern no-fly zone in April 1991, six weeks after the end of Operation Desert Storm, citing a need to protect northern Iraq's Kurdish population after an uprising against the Baghdad government. They imposed the southern no-fly zone in August 1992, citing a similar need to protect southern Iraq's largely Shiite Muslim population, which also had risen up against Saddam Hussein immediately after his defeat in the Gulf War.

The northern operation, based at Incirlik, Turkey, banned Iraqi flights north of the 36th parallel, which runs just south of Mosul. The southern operation, enforced by planes based in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and aboard U.S. aircraft carriers in the gulf, banned Iraqi flights south of the 32nd parallel.

President Clinton ordered the southern no-fly zone widened to the 33rd parallel in 1996, after Iraqi forces intervened in clashes between two Kurdish guerrilla bands in northern Iraq. That gesture brought the southern ban right to the outskirts of Baghdad, the capital, and left 60 percent of the country off-limits to Iraqi planes.

Since they were imposed, the no-fly zones have become more than just a means to protect restive Kurds or Shiites from retribution. According to officials in Washington, the Clinton administration also sees them as a tool to contain and degrade the Iraqi military, humiliate Saddam Hussein and perhaps generate opposition to his rule.

'Lifted . . . Into the Air' "I was thrown to the ground and covered with dirt," recalled Ziad Ibrahim Taha, a 50-year-old shepherd. "Then another blast. It lifted me right up into the air."

Taha was with scores of people on a broad, flat expanse of open land 45 miles west of Mosul just before 10 a.m. on May 12 of last year. As he and others in the nearby village of Abu Auani recalled it, two, perhaps three warplanes made repeated passes over the congregated villagers, firing missiles and raking the area with machine guns.

According to Iraqi authorities, 14 people were killed on the spot and five more died later from their injuries. Forty-six people were wounded and several hundred sheep were killed. Taha's right leg was injured at the ankle--red scar tissue, angry and twisted, has replaced its normal contours. Two of his sons, Mohammed, 24, and Ahmed, 20, were killed, leaving him with one remaining son.

"They are trying to destroy the Islamic people," Taha responded when asked what lay behind the attack.

Taha and others in Abu Auani said a group of youths were tending 400 head of sheep that morning and had taken refuge from the searing sun in a goatskin tent pitched on the grazing range less than a mile from the village of 500 residents. Older people remained at home, tending to their affairs.

Then, Taha said, he heard the tremendous crash of an exploding missile coming from the direction of the grazing range. Alarmed, he and many others from the village ran to the site. Inhabitants of several other nearby villages also ran to look.

What they found, Taha said, was carnage. Many sheep lay dead or dying. Several of the young shepherds were killed or wounded. As the wounded boys were carried away and owners began to slaughter their injured sheep and round up those that had fled, the number of rescuers and onlookers grew.

"When all the people were there together, another plane came, and another missile came down," he recalled.

Nine missiles were fired in all, as best as he can remember, over an area of about 200 square yards. He said aircraft firing machine guns crossed the zone twice.

Continued...
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/sancirq.htm

I don't get why conservatives are so loathe to admit that perhaps they don't own a unique wisdom on how to proceed against terrorism in the 21st century. Look Clinton screwed up. A simply internet search also makes clear that Republicans resisted his use of the military on several occasions. Bush screwed up too. I'm sure he means well, but clearly things have not gone as planned in Iraq and are starting to deteriorate in Afghanistan. Reagan screwed up by arming Saddam to fight off Iran and Carter screwed up by supporting a tyrannical secular regime in Iran. How far back do you want to go people?

Instead of making idiotic comments that liberals have either "forgotten" 9/11 or don't understand the nature of evil, perhaps we can concede that it'll take more than 50% of the country's imagination to succeed in this war. Conservatives don't possess any unique insight just by virtue of how they voted. And perhaps we can stop making the false argument that opponents of the Iraq War simply believe terrorists will leave us alone if we leave Iraq. And maybe liberals can stop making moronic claims that Bush is out to rule the world's oil and that he "lied" about WMD, as if him, Cheney and Rumsfeld sat in a dark musty room trying to figure out ways to deceive the American people.

Clearly the Bush Administration made a series of blunders in the planning and execution of post 9/11 foreign policy. That has had some serious consequences. And clearly there was no consensus among Democrats that offered any viable alternatives at the time many of these decisions were made. However, it is clear now that Plan A isn't working so great, and we need to start working on Plan B. Republicans aren't helping by saying the only way to succeed is to continue sticking with Plan A, and while Democrats are correct in recognizing its time for Plan B, maybe they should start focusing exactly on what Plan B should be, since most Republicans are clearly unwilling or unable to come to that conclusion.

THIS, my flyertalk friends, doesn't seem so unreasonable, does it? Why don't we do our country a favor and push these points, rather than trying to decide if Clinton is 30% or 70% to blame for 9/11, or continue preaching to your respective choirs that Bush is an oil-mad madman out for world domination or that liberals don't understand the difference between good and evil.

C'mon people, our leaders in government won't start working together until we force them to. And working together doesn't mean "staying the course because I said so" or "Bush lied people died". Working together as Americans means recognizing that Plan A isn't working, let's work together to figure out what Plan B should be and get the ball rolling.
Very good letter, I respect your words, but I do not agree with them. As I stated we are not privy to what the President knows. How do we know plan A has failed. Just because the negative media voices that thought? I didn't vote them in office nor did 53% of the country. The soldiers I talk too give me a completely different view. They are not happy with the media either. I do read everything I can, but often in the papers from other counties. Basically, I do believe there are terrorists out there that want to kill us, they have publicly stated that. I do think the country is safer than it was in 2001. I will never understand why the CIA and the FBI were stopped from sharing any information about these things- I've always smelled a rat there.

more here on post-Operation Desert Storm attacks but pre-Operation Bush Monkey...

http://www.newleftreview.net/?page=article&view=2267

THROTTLING IRAQ
On May 23rd of this year the British Defence Minister Geoff Hoon was questioned in the House of Commons about the pattern of Anglo-American attacks on Iraq. He replied:

Between 1 August 1992 and 16 December 1998, UK aircraft released 2.5 tons of ordnance over the southern no-fly zone at an average of 0.025 tons per month. We do not have sufficiently detailed records of coalition activity in this period to estimate what percentage of the coalition total this represents. Between 20 December 1998 and 17 May 2000, UK aircraft released 78 tons of ordnance over the southern no-fly zone, at an average of 5 tons per month. This figure represents approximately 20 per cent of the coalition total for this period. [1]
In other words, over the past eighteen months the United States and United Kingdom have rained down some 400 tons of bombs and missiles on Iraq. Blair has been dropping deadly explosives on the country at a rate twenty times greater than Major. What explains this escalation? Its immediate origins are no mystery. On 16 December 1998 Clinton, on the eve of a vote indicting him for perjury and obstruction of justice in the House of Representatives, unleashed a round-the-clock aerial assault on Iraq, ostensibly to punish the regime in Baghdad for failure to cooperate with UN inspections, in fact to help deflect impeachment. Operation Desert Fox, fittingly named after a Nazi general, ran for seventy hours, blasting a hundred targets.

The fire-storm continued through the following year, unhindered by NATO’s Balkan War. In August 1999 the New York Times reported:

American warplanes have methodically and with virtually no public discussion been attacking Iraq. In the last eight months, American and British pilots have fired more than 1,100 missiles against 359 targets in Iraq. This is triple the number of targets attacked in four furious days of strikes in December . . . By another measure, pilots have flown about two-thirds as many missions as NATO pilots flew over Yugoslavia in seventy-eight days of around-the-clock war there. [2]
In October American officials were telling the Wall Street Journal they would soon be running out of targets—‘We’re down to the last outhouse’. By the end of the year, the Anglo-American airforces had flown more than 6,000 sorties, and dropped over 1,000 bombs on Iraq. By early 2001, the bombardment of Iraq will have lasted longer than the US invasion of Vietnam.

Yet a decade of assault from the air has been the lesser part of the rack on which Iraq has been put. Blockade by land and sea have inflicted still greater suffering. Economic sanctions have driven a population, whose levels of nutrition, schooling and public services were once well above regional standards, into fathomless misery. Before 1990 the country had a per capita GNP of over $3,000. Today it is under $500, making Iraq one of the poorest societies on earth. [3] A land that once had high levels of literacy and an advanced system of health-care has been devastated by the West. Its social structure is in ruins, its people are denied the basic necessities of existence, its soil is polluted by uranium-tipped warheads. According to UN figures of last year, some 60 per cent of the population have no regular access to clean water, and over 80 per cent of schools need substantial repairs. [4] In 1997 the FAO reckoned that 27 percent of Iraqis were suffering from chronic malnutrition. UNICEF reports that in the southern and central regions which contain 85 percent of the country’s population, infant mortality is twice that of the pre-Gulf War period.

The death-toll caused by deliberate strangulation of economic life cannot yet be estimated with full accuracy—that will be a task for historians. According to the most careful authority, Richard Garfield, ‘a conservative estimate of “excess deaths” among under five-year-olds since 1991 would be 300,000’, [5] while UNICEF—reporting in 1997 that ‘4,500 children under the age of five are dying each month from hunger and disease’—reckons the number of small children killed by the blockade at 500,000. [6] Other deaths are more difficult to quantify but, as Garfield points out, ‘UNICEF’s mortality rates represent only the tip of the iceberg as to the enormous damage done to the four out of five Iraqis who do survive beyond their fifth birthday’. [7] In late 1998 the UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, former Assistant Secretary General Dennis Halliday, an Irishman, resigned from his post in protest against the blockade, declaring that the total deaths it had caused could be upwards of a million. [8] When his successor Hans von Sponeck had the temerity to include civilian casualties from Anglo-American bombing raids in his brief, the Clinton and Blair regimes demanded his dismissal. In late 1999 he too resigned, explaining that his duty had been to the people of Iraq, and that ‘every month Iraq’s social fabric shows bigger holes’. The so-called Oil-For-Food sanctions, in place since 1996, allow Iraq only $4 billion of petroleum exports a year, when a minimum of $7 billion is needed even for greatly reduced national provision. [9] In a decade, the US and UK have achieved a result without parallel in modern history. Iraq is now, Garfield reports, the only instance in the last two hundred years of a sustained, large-scale increase in mortality in a country with a stable population of over two million. [10]


Continued...

http://www.newleftreview.net/?page=article&view=2267

deleted

Sorry, I have to point out that WE, and I am not Belgian, excused Saddams invasion of Kuwait. Our ambassador at the time was told about the plan to invade and told Saddam that we did not have a position on the issue.


I fear the information you have been given is incorrect. If you're claiming that the US excused the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, that's not factual. A US ambassador was not told about the plan to invade Iraq and did not tell Saddam Hussein that the US had no position on the issue.

Just a slight misquote of watch actually transpired. I believe the quotes were that the US wouldnt interfere with the border dispute which would be quite different than allowing a full invasion of Kuwait. But sounds like you need to couch the comments to fit your mold.

I believe that this statement is accurate. The confusion is attributed to a minor US State Department official attached to the United Nations.

Damn I almost made it through the entire day without seeing/hearing a pissing match about who to blame for 9/11 on 9/11.

Same here but I guess that's really expecting way too much from our very dysfunctional 2 party system and its even more dysfunctional parties.

What I'd like to see more than anything else right now is a leader that is willing to put aside this insane feud and put forth a thourough proactive plan that addresses the whole spectrum of carrot and stick to deal with this problem. Instead every time I scan around what I see:

Democrats: Spend somewhere around 95% of their airtime criticizing Bush - a point I consider to be completely moot. (Bush is a failure - I don't need any more reminding - however he's in office and the balance of congressional power isn't going to shift enough to impeach and convict him so basically we're stuck with him until 2008). They are so obsessed with combatting him that they threw away a minimum wage increase - supposedly one of their platform planks. Meanwhile they are silently complicit with the Republicans on a variety of issues that are systematically warping the economy. The other 5% is basically vague - considering Clinton's lousy terrorist response track record after WTC '93 and the Cole (which was misrepresented by the miniseries yet the 9/11 commission report clearly documents missed opportunities) I need a lot more convincing that they offer any sort of viable alternative.

Republicans: Have failed to call Bush out on what I will generously describe as an unfocused and undisciplined response to the terror problem. Meanwhile he silently betrays his own party's basic priciples as he drives up deficit spending and refuses to to put up coherent border protection - save the carnival that we flyers see at the airports. They do have a willingness to actually use the 'stick' but its completely unbalanced to say the least.

The result - we have near complete polarization where most of the conversation is about hating the other side - resulting in the 50/50 contests we've seen since 2000. Of course if its going to remain a hate match then eventually the conservatives will win albeit with large collateral damage - after all who's going to win in a hate match - a progressive or a fire and brimstone type that tends to keep at least one gun in the house.

In the meantime I'm going to pray for a voice of reason expressed in that voice's own views before it gets any uglier than it already is. I sincerely hope that there are others out there that fully see the flaws in both sides and are looking for the same thing.

I think you are confused on the amount of civilian deaths. It was predominately Iraqi conscripts and the 1st Armored Division of the Iraqi Republican Guard. What images of mass killings of civilians are out there? Since it was mostly military I question the use of the words "mass killings of civilians" and "a lot"

I'm certainly not confused on the amount of civilian deaths, for I recognize that there were only estimates and photos and that many fleeing or "useless" Iraqi military and paramilitary personnel were killed.

In any event, I'd count 400+ civilians killed at two intersections to be a "mass killing of civilians" when most all those deaths occurred within a few minutes and the number of women, children and elderly outnumbered "military-age" males in the photos by 7x.

"What's part of the reason for why our-sponsored shia insurrection in Iraq failed after Iraq was out of Kuwait? A large number of non-combattant shias fleeing our bombing of the area died on those roads,

Another perfect opportunity blown by the most bumbling, inept military power on earth. The Shia insurrection was actually an excellent way for the U.S. to achieve it's goal of ousting Saddam without getting it's hands too dirty.

Actually, Allah is on the Muslim's side didn't you know that? :rolleyes:

Anyone who has a problem with Christians and Jews, but not with Muslims, is either a Muslim or a leftist.

And let's see, when were those bombs found on German trains? AFTER they pulled out of Iraq, that's right. Those silly terrorists...
Typical right wing name calling. No real dialogue possible with this person, just reactionary doublespeak........ or anyone else under shrub's kool aid delusion...:rolleyes:

Typical right wing name calling.

We normally don't see that on the Newsstand forum.

Typical right wing name calling. No real dialogue possible with this person, just reactionary doublespeak........ or anyone else under shrub's kool aid delusion...:rolleyes:

(Emphasis added).

Does that contribute to real dialogue?

I'm certainly not confused on the amount of civilian deaths, for I recognize that there were only estimates and photos and that many fleeing or "useless" Iraqi military and paramilitary personnel were killed.

In any event, I'd count 400+ civilians killed at two intersections to be a "mass killing of civilians" when most all those deaths occurred within a few minutes and the number of women, children and elderly outnumbered "military-age" males in the photos by 7x.

I guess our discussion ends there. Without any clear evidence that the US purposely attacked civilians or documentation of the actual number of military deaths v. civilians dead on that highway we can go around in a circle. Everything I read showed military usage of that road to escape Kuwait. How or why civilians would intermingled with a fleeing army in a convoy during a war seems implausible and/or baffling.

Dont mean to triviliaze the seriousness of this discussion.

Bush is the most powerful man on the planet- AND America RE-ELECTED him after his actions / or lack there-of in his first term!... On a lighter note, drop a few bucks, buy any one of the books at this link, and have some BIG laughs... (the guy's good primetime entertainment for sure!!)

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=br_ss_hs/102-4526319-1584150?platform=gurupa&url=index%3Dblended&keywords=Bushisms&Go.x=0&Go.y=0

:p
Anyways, sorry for digressing, back to the topic... very interesting to see the different (polarized) views...

How or why civilians would intermingled with a fleeing army in a convoy during a war seems implausible and/or baffling.

There may have been civilians in that convoy, but they would have been Iraqi civilians who were in Kuwait as part of the occupation. (Much like there were Gestapo offices in Paris in WWII.)

A trafic jam with fleeing people several miles long indiscriminatly bombed is a normal act of war now?

Let's reword that a bit more accurately: "Is a retreating Army column several miles long being bombed a normal act of war now?"

The answer is a definite yes. A retreat is a military maneuver which allows the army to regroup and to fight another day. An army which wishes to take itself out of the fighting does not retreat, it surrenders.

Sorry to get in the way of your diatribe (tirade?) Mr. Olberman, but the facts are really simple.

Just prior to the bombing, the ENTIRE World Trade Center site was leased by the Port Authority, owner of the site (via a 99 year ground lease) to developer Larry Silverstein. Silverstein has been engaged in litigation with his insurers over 1) whether the terrorist acts constituted two insured occurrences, or only one occurrence; and 2) whether the insurers are obligated to pay replacement value or actual cash value of the property. The judgments were mixed, and the cases are on appeal.

Without the MONEY, Silverstein has not been in a position to redevelop the site, which he has the exclusive rights to redevelop. Sure, the Port Authority, City and State have been negotiating with him over what they would like to see there (with the implicit threat of taking the site through eminent domain--but of course they would have to pay him FMV), but ultimately, they do not want to come up with the money to buy the site back off of him.

Without knowing which portions of the site were going to be redeveloped into the new buildings (i.e., into the footprints of the old buildings, or other parts of the site), they could hardly decide where the permanent memorial would go on the site.

But please, don't let the actual facts get in the way of your diatribe Olberman. You should have stuck with sports.

We normally don't see that on the Newsstand forum.
You are joking, right? That's just about all I've seen on this particular thread.

You are joking, right? That's just about all I've seen on this particular thread.

It's not the typical thread for Newsstand. Look at all the other news stories here about air travel, frequent flyer programs, and aircraft manufacturers. Hard to spin those.

Hard to spin those.
Agreed, this link is all about spin & should probably be moved to Omni.

Originally Posted by Kagehitokiri
Actually, Allah is on the Muslim's side didn't you know that?

Anyone who has a problem with Christians and Jews, but not with Muslims, is either a Muslim or a leftist.

And let's see, when were those bombs found on German trains? AFTER they pulled out of Iraq, that's right. Those silly terrorists...


My oh my, what simplistic views you have.
They say ignorance is bliss so surely you must be in seventh heaven right now.


you goddit spot on - fishie !!! :cool: ;) :D :-:

Dovster, Your civility & ability to bring a balanced understanding of what is happening is greatly appreciated.

Thank you

We will get Bin Ladin dead or alive became I am not concerned with Bin Ladin, we have no secret jails became yeah we have secret jails, the war will pay for itself with all the oil reserves in iraq became a 400 billion US tax payer paid war with Cheney's old buddies making a killing, we dont torture became we changed the definitions of the word torture, direkt link between al Quade and Iraq became no links at all, Stockpiles of WMD became they didnt exist after all etcetera etcetera.

Gee I wonder what happened to make people weary of what this President and his administration have said and done the last few years.


fishie ....you are not the only one wondering.....believe me.....it hard to even follow what this administration said a day ago let alone what was said 5 years ago....i suppose thats part of their wartime tactic .... :confused: :cool:

Very good letter, I respect your words, but I do not agree with them. As I stated we are not privy to what the President knows. How do we know plan A has failed. Just because the negative media voices that thought? I didn't vote them in office nor did 53% of the country. The soldiers I talk too give me a completely different view. They are not happy with the media either. I do read everything I can, but often in the papers from other counties. Basically, I do believe there are terrorists out there that want to kill us, they have publicly stated that. I do think the country is safer than it was in 2001.

Fair enough. While we disagree, the important thing to remember is that neither conservatives nor liberals exclusively own a surefire way to combat terrorism. Each side will have its successes, and each side will mess up now and again. Its probably not as simple as just leaving Iraq, and its certainly not as simple as blowing off legitimate criticism as simply "hatred" of George Bush or an inability to grasp the nature of terror. Maybe there's not much we can do as average citizens, but at the very least we can encourage a debate that isn't dumbed down to non-substantive catchphrases like "Bush lied people died" or "moral confusion". And we should come down hard on "leaders" (cough) who don't respect the American people enough to have that higher level of debate. Lamont, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Reid, and their celebrity flunkies Sheehan, Coulter, Moore, Hannity, et al. - America is better than that. We may not always get it right. But good lord people, aren't we better than that? I believe so. But we have to do our best not to forget that in the heat of the moment.

Sorry you dont know what the U.S. military did during the first war. You won't find much reporting in the western press on the scale of the bombing that took place and the casualties it caused. You won't see too many pictures in the western press showing U.S. soldiers, Sailors and Fly Boys writing messages such as "prepare to meet Allah" or "Good night Rag Head" either. Fortunately (but unfortunatley for the U.S.), people in the rest of the world remember this quite vividly and if you pay attention to what OBL says, this is one of the reasons he commissioned 9/11 and other attrocities.

Another quick point here while I'm thinking about it...US military personnel do not have the exclusive patent on doing this, either. The video footage of the Al Qaeda terrorist training showed them doing similar things. Their 'targets' during their room clearing scenarios were almost exclusively painted or drawn Christian crosses. It is all part of the process of demonizing and dehumanizing your enemy. By portraying all Christians as the enemies and 'Crusaders', AQ was using a similar motivation technique for their fighters. And while I don't have any proof to substantiate this, I have no doubt that most armies and terrorist groups use similar methods as ammunition marking or similar mischief to raise the morale of their troops.

Lamont, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Reid, and their celebrity flunkies Sheehan, Coulter, Moore, Hannity, et al. - America is better than that. We may not always get it right. But good lord people, aren't we better than that?Judging by the last 230 years, probably not.

Another quick point here while I'm thinking about it...US military personnel do not have the exclusive patent on doing this, either. The video footage of the Al Qaeda terrorist training showed them doing similar things. Their 'targets' during their room clearing scenarios were almost exclusively painted or drawn Christian crosses. It is all part of the process of demonizing and dehumanizing your enemy. By portraying all Christians as the enemies and 'Crusaders', AQ was using a similar motivation technique for their fighters. And while I don't have any proof to substantiate this, I have no doubt that most armies and terrorist groups use similar methods as ammunition marking or similar mischief to raise the morale of their troops.

You are right. However, you are comparing a legitimate nation, nay a superpower that has responsibilities and should act responsibly and ethically with a group of ideological fighters that have very little legitimacy outside of their own circle of supporters.

Legitimate or not, if Al Qaida were the pious muslims they claim to be, they would not be doing the kind of things they are doing or what you describe above. SImilarly, if the U.S. government and military were as ethical as they claim to be, we would not see hundreds of thousands killed, prisoners being tortured, etc.

hundreds of thousands killed.


Where do you make this stuff up at? Any documentation of hundreds of thousands killed here by the US military? Or was that in the movie jarhead as well?

Thats the thing, the Taliban is NOT destroyed.
Sadly they are growing and do control large parts of Afghanistan so for most of the country its back to the horror they have lived in for 30 years.

Your are 100%, the Taliban wasn't destroyed, OBL wasn't caught, because W started a fictious war, with fictious reasons... well other then that he's allowed to be pissed that Saddam tried to kill his daddy.

My two cents: what "war?" We invaded a soveriegn nation under false pretenses, locked up its (albeit not a good guy) leader, disbanded its army, so who are we at war with? Bush says terrorists, some would say freedom fighters!, but certainly insurgents. It's not a war, it's an invasion and occupation.
RE: the "war on terra" as Bush keeps calling it. Forget Afghanistan, where most of them were training, and Bin Laden hides--it's all Irag now. Take off your shoes, give up your toothpaste, frisk grandma in the wheelchair, bend over and spread 'em if you want to go from Seattle to St. Louis: but meanwhile the ports and borders are wide open to the world.

My two cents: what "war?" We invaded a soveriegn nation under false pretenses, locked up its (albeit not a good guy) leader, disbanded its army, so who are we at war with? Bush says terrorists, some would say freedom fighters!, but certainly insurgents. It's not a war, it's an invasion and occupation.
.

......invasion and occupation .........obviously two words , amongst many , that do not exist in this administration's vocab....also lets just say this invasion is probably not about freedom and democracy more like a BIG [and immoral ] disguise to bump up the order books and profits of defence and oil companies. ... [ note BAE's 30%increase in profits ] and most probably also hidden in the deep recesses ....the revenge for the Big W.

If what you say is true, WE changed our minds pretty quickly and ended up over there taking care of the Iraqi problem. Were we merely acting on a Saudi request?

I know that there are a lot of dirty politics involved in this whole deal. I feel (without drifting off into OMNI land) that we would be better off without the electoral college or political parties.

On the other hand, (without defending the current administration), was Saddam best left alone in his despotic regime?

Isn't it funny that N. Korea has nuclear capabilities and missiles that can reach the West Coast and a leader who is even crazier than Saddam, not to mention the fact that he rather spend money on building his army then food for the people who are starving in hios country, and we choose not do anything but talk? Yet we invade Iraq for lies about WMDs and that he was oppressing his own people..... oh wait N. Korea doesn't sit on Billions of gallons of Oil... I get it....

Operation
Iraqi
Liberation

My two cents: what "war?" We invaded a soveriegn nation under false pretenses, locked up its (albeit not a good guy) leader, disbanded its army, so who are we at war with? Bush says terrorists, some would say freedom fighters!, but certainly insurgents. It's not a war, it's an invasion and occupation.
RE: the "war on terra" as Bush keeps calling it. Forget Afghanistan, where most of them were training, and Bin Laden hides--it's all Irag now. Take off your shoes, give up your toothpaste, frisk grandma in the wheelchair, bend over and spread 'em if you want to go from Seattle to St. Louis: but meanwhile the ports and borders are wide open to the world.

Other than your comment here - who is forgetting about Afganistan?

I think history has shown that depending on what side of the war you are on the "labels" hae different definitions good guys/bad guys, terrorist/freedom fighters, war/invasion-occupation.

Dont you usually invade a sovereign nation when you go to war? False pretenses are usually reserved for the winnner/loser. I am sure that the South in the Civil War saw themselves as a self governing nation that was invaded under false pretenses. I guess thats a matter of perspective and opinion.

Isn't it funny that N. Korea has nuclear capabilities and missiles that can reach the West Coast and a leader who is even crazier than Saddam, not to mention the fact that he rather spend money on building his army then food for the people who are starving in hios country, and we choose not do anything but talk? Yet we invade Iraq for lies about WMDs and that he was oppressing his own people..... oh wait N. Korea doesn't sit on Billions of gallons of Oil... I get it....

Its a little late in the game once a nation has nuclear capability to invade. Those things sort of act as a deterrent. Hence Iran's bustin' a move to get there.

Other than your comment here - who is forgetting about Afganistan?


I think history has shown that depending on what side of the war you are on the "labels" hae different definitions good guys/bad guys, terrorist/freedom fighters, war/invasion-occupation.

Dont you usually invade a sovereign nation when you go to war? False pretenses are usually reserved for the winnner/loser. I am sure that the South in the Civil War saw themselves as a self governing nation that was invaded under false pretenses. I guess thats a matter of perspective and opinion.


....not when it is unprovoked and un called for...based on your definations then we would be in serious trouble......oops ok ..we are already in deep S..T. :td: :td: :td:

....not when it is unprovoked and un called for...based on your definations then we would be in serious trouble......oops ok ..we are already in deep S..T. :td: :td: :td:

I dont think it has anything to do with provoked/unprovoked called for or uncalled for. It has more to do with winning or losing.

I dont think it has anyhting to do with provoked/unprovoked called for or uncalled for. It has more to do with winning or losing.

IC IC .....as in BIG BULLY ??? :td: :td: :td: ok ok .....i geddit

IC IC .....as in BIG BULLY ??? :td: :td: :td: ok ok .....i geddit

Without getting hyprocritical. Just remember that most things arent black and white, even if you believe them to be. Look at the US as was the rest of the world. Most needed to force others out to take over. I dont think anyone who lives here can say it didnt belong to someone else before we got here. We took it by force, so remember that its mostly a matter of perspective on who is right or just.

Without getting hyprocritical. Just remember that most things arent black and white, even if you believe them to be. Look at the US as was the rest of the world. Most needed to force others out to take over. I dont think anyone who lives here can say it didnt belong to someone else before we got here. We took it by force, so remember that its mostly a matter of perspective on who is right or just.


....and does that make it right ?.....should nt we learn and become less uncivilized ?......life is pretty black and white.......by and large......the bulk of us do lead a fairly black and white life......its the ego and kerosene fumes that clouds us.....as for differing perspectives.....well ....lets just say....let us practice mutual respect first for others ad not just act on impulse just cos of a differing perspective......PEACE ;)

life is pretty black and white.......by and large......the bulk of us do lead a fairly black and white life

I guess thats where I disagree with you. Life is not black and white. In your perspective it might be. Life is complicated and complex. In my opinion its not that easy to be just right or wrong.

You are right. However, you are comparing a legitimate nation, nay a superpower that has responsibilities and should act responsibly and ethically with a group of ideological fighters that have very little legitimacy outside of their own circle of supporters.

Legitimate or not, if Al Qaida were the pious muslims they claim to be, they would not be doing the kind of things they are doing or what you describe above. SImilarly, if the U.S. government and military were as ethical as they claim to be, we would not see hundreds of thousands killed, prisoners being tortured, etc.

Agreed. The US does have an obligation to try to take the moral high ground here. The ammo marking you refer too were considerably more widespread during the first Gulf war than the current Iraqi conflict. Now there is quite a bit more emphasis on cultural awareness prior to going over. Does it always sink in? No, sadly, it doesn't, and you get incidents such as Abu Ghraib and Haditha to name a few. What can be said about this, however, is that when the US military discovers a crime, they do prosecute the people involved.

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that Muslim extremists (from outside Iraq) have probably killed significantly more Iraqis through shootings and indiscriminate bombings than the US ever has or will. And, again for what it is worth, the Americans have consistantly tried to assist with civil projects, such as road repair, school building, etc. in order to try to help rebuild the infrastructure. This does not always make the news because it is not a big 'gee-whiz' news story, but it has been going on since the start of the war.

I agree with you that we are doing thing wrong and making bad mistakes sometimes, but we are also trying to do some good as well.

Where do you make this stuff up at? Any documentation of hundreds of thousands killed here by the US military? Or was that in the movie jarhead as well?

First, you did not believe me when I said that the U.S. military was responsible for the deaths of Iraqi civilians in the first Iraq war. I was nice enough to provide you with links confirming the killing of many hundreds of innocent civilians by your country's military forces.

Now you do not believe that over 100,000 innocents were killed as a result of actions taken by the U.S. military. Maybe I should not have used the words "hundreds of thousands" but if you add up civilian deaths from American action in Afghanistan, Iraq, the few hundred odd Pakistanis and Kuwaitis, etc., you will have a figure ranging from 40,000 at the low end too well over 100,000 at the high end. I don't know what your threshold for an acceptable number of deaths is, but you will recall 2-4 thousand people were killed in 9/11.

Anyway, if you want to verify anything, please bear in mind that I am not your mummy. I am also not responsible for ensuring you get a well rounded education or a fair and balanced (get it ;) ) supply of news. A search for Lancet Iraq War dead, Iraq body count, etc should provide some interesting reading. Good luck with that. :)

BTW, if this does get booted over to OMNI, I won't be able to read or respond as I'm not eligible yet.

I do appreciate the civil dialogue, though.

Agreed. The US does have an obligation to try to take the moral high ground here. The ammo marking you refer too were considerably more widespread during the first Gulf war than the current Iraqi conflict. Now there is quite a bit more emphasis on cultural awareness prior to going over. Does it always sink in? No, sadly, it doesn't, and you get incidents such as Abu Ghraib and Haditha to name a few. What can be said about this, however, is that when the US military discovers a crime, they do prosecute the people involved.

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that Muslim extremists (from outside Iraq) have probably killed significantly more Iraqis through shootings and indiscriminate bombings than the US ever has or will. And, again for what it is worth, the Americans have consistantly tried to assist with civil projects, such as road repair, school building, etc. in order to try to help rebuild the infrastructure. This does not always make the news because it is not a big 'gee-whiz' news story, but it has been going on since the start of the war.

I agree with you that we are doing thing wrong and making bad mistakes sometimes, but we are also trying to do some good as well.

Yes, the U.S. military has done some good in Iraq and you are absolutely correct, those resisting American occupation have started going down a path that only deserves to be condemned. The big picture for everyone involved, Iraqi's, the resistance and the U.S. is not rosy.

A lot of the soul searching and action taken by the U.S. military against the rogues within it's ranks is very recent. Many of us have been railing about their actions for years now and have been called liars and worse. Now that the realization of what is happening is apparent to the American people, corrective action is being taken and that is an excellent sign but too late to help the U.S. win any credibility without massive changes to it's foreign policy.

Other than your comment here - who is forgetting about Afganistan?

I think history has shown that depending on what side of the war you are on the "labels" hae different definitions good guys/bad guys, terrorist/freedom fighters, war/invasion-occupation.

Dont you usually invade a sovereign nation when you go to war? False pretenses are usually reserved for the winnner/loser. I am sure that the South in the Civil War saw themselves as a self governing nation that was invaded under false pretenses. I guess thats a matter of perspective and opinion.

Well based on the statistics, the Bush administration my not be forgetting about Afghanistan but they sure have dropped the ball or diverted valuable resources to Iraq.

The one bone I have to pick with our congress is that they lack the back bone to actually declare war but can authorize the "use of force", however ambiguously defined that force is. The GOP sees it as a blank check to do whatever is necessary to defeat terrorism. Even if that includes stepping on the Constitution of the United States of America. It is not a matter of opinion or perspective. One does not go to "war" as a matter of perspective or opinion. But this president did. And our congress gave him the keys to that war. Shame on them.

Now they want the keys back but Bush won't let them have the keys. It will be up to every voting citizen of this country to take those keys back and put them back where they belong. With the people of America. Too many among us would rather not have that responsibility or are afflicted with apathy.

Somewhere below a "Chimp's" to use a phrase from the Libbies. Boy that Chimp seems to outsmart the Libbies very frequently... :D

I never backed Bush in the '00 primary and have serious problems with his love for big government and lack of pushing for a bigger and harder push in Iraq. But I gotta love the guy for making the Libbies apoplectic. I'd vote for him one more time just to make the Libbies go ballistic! His big government is bad for Americans, but what the Libbies want to do is a hundred times worse.

Now you do not believe that over 100,000 innocents were killed as a result of actions taken by the U.S. military. Maybe I should not have used the words "hundreds of thousands"

Well, you make a hysterical comment, then retract it and then add "as a result of actions taken by the US". I can only imagine you somehow blame the US for Iraqi's dying during the restrictions placed by the UN on Iraq in the 90's. I guess you can couch a statistic to seem as if you are right.

BTW, if this does get booted over to OMNI, I won't be able to read or respond as I'm not eligible yet.
You should be close. It takes 180 days & 180 posts to gain access.

Related thread on OMNI:

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann comments on September 11 ... and President Bush (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=601183)

I guess our discussion ends there. Without any clear evidence that the US purposely attacked civilians or documentation of the actual number of military deaths v. civilians dead on that highway we can go around in a circle. Everything I read showed military usage of that road to escape Kuwait. How or why civilians would intermingled with a fleeing army in a convoy during a war seems implausible and/or baffling.

We purposely attacked those intersections and those on them. That civilians were there is documented.

Seems implausible and/or baffling to some defies that fact that the fleeing of civilians near military personnel was not implausible since it happened at those two major intersections.

There may have been civilians in that convoy, but they would have been Iraqi civilians who were in Kuwait as part of the occupation. (Much like there were Gestapo offices in Paris in WWII.)

There were Iraqi civilians who were bombed along with those fleeing/retreating military personnel; most all of those Iraqi civilians were certainly never in Kuwait since Saddam Hussein was not giving shias Kuwait. ;)

We purposely attacked those intersections and those on them. That civilians were there is documented.



Even more shocking: I just learned that civilians were present in Normandy when we bombed, strafed, and invaded it in June 1944.

Let's face it -- the good old days when armies met on empty battlefields are long gone.

Well, you make a hysterical comment, then retract it and then add "as a result of actions taken by the US". I can only imagine you somehow blame the US for Iraqi's dying during the restrictions placed by the UN on Iraq in the 90's. I guess you can couch a statistic to seem as if you are right.

US-sponsored & backed actions in and around Iraq have been seen by many as being amongst the immediate causes of large numbers of death, including that of well over 100,000 Iraqi civilians even before our second recent entry onto Iraqi territory. Fair or not, outside of the US and a few other places, the popular perception in the world was mostly that US actions toward Iraq resulted in large numbers of deaths. The latest Iraq War was a strategic blunder, a predictable blunder -- at least for those not ignorant, those not willing to let emotions or petty interests triumph over reason and knowledge. The end result is that we will be a lot less safer (including in the skies) for the next twenty years than we would have been in the absence of the military invasion of Iraq.

Somewhere below a "Chimp's" to use a phrase from the Libbies. Boy that Chimp seems to outsmart the Libbies very frequently... :D

I never backed Bush in the '00 primary and have serious problems with his love for big government and lack of pushing for a bigger and harder push in Iraq. But I gotta love the guy for making the Libbies apoplectic. I'd vote for him one more time just to make the Libbies go ballistic! His big government is bad for Americans, but what the Libbies want to do is a hundred times worse.

Sorry to break the news to you, but 1) your signature is quoting a former sports broadcastor and 2) Bush didnt outsmart anyone but unfortunately there are enough fundamentalists, homophobes and racists in the country to make it pretty easy for someone, even someone who has demonstrated complete incompetence as Bush has, to get elected by appealing to them.

Even more shocking: I just learned that civilians were present in Normandy when we bombed, strafed, and invaded it in June 1944.

Let's face it -- the good old days when armies met on empty battlefields are long gone.

Still doesn't justify civilian deaths; nor does this negate the fact that civilian deaths that are termed "collateral damage" (or something of the sort) by either state actors (e.g., government military forces) or non-state actors (e.g., Al-Qaeda & Co.) can undermine national and international security since the information/images are far harder to capture and disappear.

http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=9692
By Tom Engelhardt

You've heard the president and vice president say it over and over in various ways: There was a connection between the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and Iraq. Let's take this seriously and consider some of the links between the two.

Numbers and Comparisons


At least 3,438 Iraqis died by violent means during July (roughly similar numbers died in June and August), significantly more than the 2,973 people who died in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
1,536 Iraqis died in Baghdad alone in August, according to revised figures from the Baghdad morgue. That's over half the 9/11 casualties in one city in one increasingly typical month. According to the Washington Post, this figure does not include suicide-bombing victims and others taken to the city's hospitals, nor does it include deaths in towns near the capital.
By the beginning of September, 2,974 U.S. military service members had died in Iraq and in the Bush administration's Global War on Terror, more than died in the attacks of 9/11. (Twenty-two more American soldiers died in Iraq in the first nine days of September; at least three in Afghanistan.)
Five years later, according to Emily Gosden and David Randall of the British newspaper the Independent, the Bush administration's Global War on Terror has resulted in, at a minimum, 20 times the deaths of 9/11; at a maximum, 60 times. It has "directly killed a minimum of 62,006 people, created 4.5 million refugees, and cost the U.S. more than the sum needed to pay off the debts of every poor nation on earth. If estimates of other, unquantified, deaths – of insurgents, the Iraq military during the 2003 invasion, those not recorded individually by Western media, and those dying from wounds – are included, then the toll could reach as high as 180,000." According to Australian journalist Paul McGeough, Iraqi officials (and others) estimate that that country's death toll since 2003 "stands at 50,000 or more – the proportional equivalent of about 570,000 Americans."
Last week, the U.S. Senate agreed to appropriate another $63 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, where costs have been averaging $10 billion a month so far this year. This brings the (taxpayer) cost for Bush's wars so far to about $469 billion and climbing. That's the equivalent of 469 Ground Zero memorials at full cost-overrun estimates, double that if the memorial comes in at the recently revised budget of $500 million. (Keep in mind that the estimated cost of these two wars doesn't include various perfectly real future payouts like those for the care of veterans and could rise into the trillions.)
In 2003, with its invasion of Iraq over, the Bush administration had about 150,000 troops in Iraq. Just under three and a half years later, almost as long as it took to win World War II in the Pacific, and despite much media coverage about coming force "draw-downs," U.S. troop levels are actually rising – by 15,000 in the last month. They now stand at 145,000, just 5,000 short of the initial occupation figure. (Pre-invasion, top administration officials like Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz took it for granted that American troop levels would be drawn down to the 30,000 range within three months of the taking of Baghdad.)
Reconstruction

While Americans are planning to remember 9/11 with four vast towers and a huge, extremely costly memorial sunk into Manhattan's Ground Zero, Baghdadis have been thinking a bit more practically. They are putting scarce funds into constructing two new branch morgues (with refrigeration units) in the capital for what's now most plentiful in their country: dead bodies. They plan to raise the city's morgue capacity to 250 bodies a day. If fully used, that would be about 7,500 bodies a month. Think of it as a hedge against ever more probable futures.

While the various New York memorial constructions can't get off (or into) the ground, due to disputes and cost estimate overruns, what could be thought of as the real American memorial to Ground Zero is going up in the very heart of Baghdad; and unlike the prospective structures in Manhattan or seemingly just about any other construction project in Iraq, it's on schedule. According to Paul McGeough, the $787 million "embassy," a 21-building, heavily fortified complex (not reliant on the capital's hopeless electricity or water systems) will pack significant bang for the bucks – its own built-in surface-to-air missile emplacements as well as Starbucks and Krispy Kreme outlets, a beauty parlor, a swimming pool, and a sports center. As essentially a "suburb of Washington," with a predicted modest staff of 3,500, it is a project that says, with all the hubris the Bush administration can muster: We're not leaving. Never.

Record-Breaking Months


Roadside bombs (or IEDs), "the leading killer of U.S. troops," rose to record numbers this summer – 1,200 in August, quadrupling the January 2004 figures according to the Washington Post, while bomb and attack tips from Iraqi citizens fell drastically. They plummeted from 5,900 in April to 3,700 in July. ("It will improve once it's not so darn lethal to go out on the street," was the optimistic observation of retired Army Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs, director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.)
According to a recently released quarterly assessment the Pentagon is mandated to do for Congress, Iraqi casualties have soared by a record 51 percent in recent months, quadrupling in just two years.
From the same report, monthly attacks on U.S. and allied Iraqi forces rose to about 800, doubling since early 2004. In Anbar province, the heartland of the Sunni insurgency (where a "very pessimistic" secret Marine Corps assessment indicates that "we haven't been defeated militarily but we have been defeated politically – and that's where wars are won and lost"), attacks averaged 30 a day.
A sideline record in the War on Terror: Afghanistan's already sizable opium crop is projected to increase by at least 50 percent this year and would then make up a startling 92 percent of the global supply. According to Antonio Maria Costa, the global executive director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, those supplies would exceed global consumption by 30 percent – so other records loom. (Meanwhile, according to the Washington Post, the investigation into the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden has hit a record low. His trail has gone "stone cold. … U.S. commandos whose job is to capture or kill Osama bin Laden have not received a credible lead in more than two years.")
The Iraqi Condition

Along with civil war, the ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods, the still-strengthening insurgency, and the security situation from hell, Iraqis are also experiencing soaring inflation, possibly reaching 70 percent this year (which would more than double last year's 32 percent rise); stagnant salaries (where they even exist); an "inert" banking system; gas and electricity prices up in a year by 270 percent; massive corruption ("An audit sponsored by the United Nations last week found hundreds of millions of dollars of Iraq's oil revenue had been wrongly tallied last year or had gone missing altogether"); lack of adequate electricity or potable water supplies; tenaciously high unemployment, ranging – depending upon the estimate – from 15-50/60 percent (the recent Pentagon report to Congress offers Iraqi government figures of 18 percent unemployment and 34 percent underemployment); acute shortages of gasoline, kerosene, and cooking gas in the country with the planet's third largest oil reserves, forcing the Iraqi government to devote $800 million in scarce funds to importing refined oil products from neighboring countries and making endless gas lines and overnight waits the essence of normal life ("Filling up now requires several days' pay, monastic patience or both…"); an oil industry, already ragged at the time of the invasion, which has since gone steadily downhill (its three main oil refineries are now functioning at half-capacity and processing only half the number of barrels of oil as before the invasion, while the biggest refinery in Baiji sometimes operates at as little as 7.5 percent of capacity); government gas subsidies severely cut (at the urging of the International Monetary Fund); malnutrition on the rise and, according to that Pentagon report to Congress, 25.9 percent of Iraqi children are stunted in their growth.

In other words, economically speaking, Iraq has essentially been deconstructed.

Diving Into Iraq

On Dec. 9, 2001, Vice President Cheney began publicly arguing on Meet the Press that there were Iraqi connections to the 9/11 attacks. It was "pretty well confirmed," he told Tim Russert, that Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, had met the previous April in Prague with a "senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service." On Sept. 8, 2002, he returned to the program and reaffirmed this supposed fact even more strongly. ("[Atta] did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center.") All of this – and there was much more of it from Cheney, the president, and other top officials, always leaving Iraq and 9/11, or Saddam and al-Qaeda, or Saddam and Zarqawi in the same rhetorical neighborhood with the final linking usually left to the listener – was quite literally so much Bushwa.

These were claims debunked within the intelligence community and elsewhere before, during, and after the invasion of Iraq. We learned only the other day from a belated partial report by the Senate Intelligence Committee that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq. We learned as well that our intelligence people knew Saddam Hussein had actually tried to capture Zarqawi and that the claim that Zarqawi and he were somehow in cahoots was utterly repudiated last fall by the CIA. None of this stopped the vice president or president – who as late as this Aug. 21 insisted that Saddam "had relations with Zarqawi" – from continuing to make such implicit or explicit linkages even as they also backtracked from the claims.

As is often the case, under such lies and manipulations lurks a deeper truth. In this case, let's call it the truth of wish fulfillment. The link between 9/11 and Iraq is unfortunately all too real. The Bush administration made it so in the heat of the post-9/11 shock.

Think of that link this way: In the immediate wake of 9/11, our president and vice president hijacked our country, using the low-tech rhetorical equivalents of box cutters and mace; then, with most passengers on board and not quite enough of the spirit of United Flight 93 to spare, after a brief Afghan overflight, they crashed the plane of state directly into Iraq, causing the equivalent of a Katrina that never ends and turning that country – from Basra in the south to the border of Kurdistan – into the global equivalent of Ground Zero.

Copyright 2006 Tom Engelhardt

US-sponsored & backed actions in and around Iraq have been seen by many as being amongst the immediate causes of large numbers of death, including that of well over 100,000 Iraqi civilians even before our second recent entry onto Iraqi territory. Fair or not, outside of the US and a few other places, the popular perception in the world was mostly that US actions toward Iraq resulted in large numbers of deaths. The latest Iraq War was a strategic blunder, a predictable blunder -- at least for those not ignorant, those not willing to let emotions or petty interests triumph over reason and knowledge. The end result is that we will be a lot less safer (including in the skies) for the next twenty years than we would have been in the absence of the military invasion of Iraq.

So perception of those who hate/jealous/dislike us is to blame us for every death? I guess my question to you is: Is this your belief? Do you lay blame of "100,000+" deaths on the US for UN and other sactions instead of on Hussein for non-complience?

Please dont think if we stay out of ME affairs that terrorists wont reach us. It was a matter of time. AQ first started with "you're in Saudi Arabia, now its you are in Iraq, soon it'll be "your still alive". Its a confrontation that wont go away until someone ends it.

Ken in Phx

fishie ....you are not the only one wondering.....believe me.....it hard to even follow what this administration said a day ago let alone what was said 5 years ago....i suppose thats part of their wartime tactic .... :confused: :cool:

I dont think its a tactic, its outright incompetence.
If I would .... up that badly at what I do my freelance games journalist days would be over faster then you could say supercalifragialisticexpialidocious.
And I can say that real fast.

Other than your comment here - who is forgetting about Afganistan?

I think history has shown that depending on what side of the war you are on the "labels" hae different definitions good guys/bad guys, terrorist/freedom fighters, war/invasion-occupation.

Dont you usually invade a sovereign nation when you go to war? False pretenses are usually reserved for the winnner/loser. I am sure that the South in the Civil War saw themselves as a self governing nation that was invaded under false pretenses. I guess thats a matter of perspective and opinion.

The ENTIRE word has let Afghanistan down yet again.
Most of the country seems to be back in the hands of the Taliban.
Maybe we should send Rambo there again to fight alongside those brave Mujahedeen against their evil oppresors, oh wait those Mujahedeen became the Taliban.

Sigh.

Agreed. The US does have an obligation to try to take the moral high ground here. The ammo marking you refer too were considerably more widespread during the first Gulf war than the current Iraqi conflict. Now there is quite a bit more emphasis on cultural awareness prior to going over. Does it always sink in? No, sadly, it doesn't, and you get incidents such as Abu Ghraib and Haditha to name a few. What can be said about this, however, is that when the US military discovers a crime, they do prosecute the people involved.

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that Muslim extremists (from outside Iraq) have probably killed significantly more Iraqis through shootings and indiscriminate bombings than the US ever has or will. And, again for what it is worth, the Americans have consistantly tried to assist with civil projects, such as road repair, school building, etc. in order to try to help rebuild the infrastructure. This does not always make the news because it is not a big 'gee-whiz' news story, but it has been going on since the start of the war.

I agree with you that we are doing thing wrong and making bad mistakes sometimes, but we are also trying to do some good as well.

No the first thing that always happens is denial it happened and an attempt at coverup.

No the first thing that always happens is denial it happened and an attempt at coverup.

I think if the US gov't had really wanted to cover those incidents up, they could and would have. Don't believe everything you see or hear on the news or via conspiracy theories.

Again, I'm not excusing our wrongdoings, but our 'evil ones' are in jail or on trial. The numerous villains who have seen fit to conduct beheadings of US and Iraqi personnel are still running around free.

I think if the US gov't had really wanted to cover those incidents up, they could and would have. Don't believe everything you see or hear on the news or via conspiracy theories.

Again, I'm not excusing our wrongdoings, but our 'evil ones' are in jail or on trial. The numerous villains who have seen fit to conduct beheadings of US and Iraqi personnel are still running around free.

Rumsfeld was denying that looting was going on as the media was overwhelmed by footage of people looting.
The secret prisons did not exist according to the White House yet this week they admitted 14 prisoners were transferred from secret prisons to Guantanamo, same with Haddith, Abu Ghraib, Camp cropper, the dozens of healthy young men who died of NATURAL CAUSES during questioning by the millitary etcetera.

All of those things were denied at first, then they were downplayed(with people going as far as saying it was no worse then a simple hazing at a US college) then they were quietly admitted, sometimes years after the fact.

These are the ones that reached the press and considering how much effort had gone into discrediting the reports of secret detention centers, torture, murder etcetera at first and only admitting after the constant showings in the press and by huan rights organisations how many more of these exist that we have never heard about and will never hear about because of PR purposes?

Rumsfeld was denying that looting was going on as the media was overwhelmed by footage of people looting.
The secret prisons did not exist according to the White House yet this week they admitted 14 prisoners were transferred from secret prisons to Guantanamo, same with Haddith, Abu Ghraib, Camp cropper, the dozens of healthy young men who died of NATURAL CAUSES during questioning by the millitary etcetera.

All of those things were denied at first, then they were downplayed(with people going as far as saying it was no worse then a simple hazing at a US college) then they were quietly admitted, sometimes years after the fact.

These are the ones that reached the press and considering how much effort had gone into discrediting the reports of secret detention centers, torture, murder etcetera at first and only admitting after the constant showings in the press and by huan rights organisations how many more of these exist that we have never heard about and will never hear about because of PR purposes?

I never said that we have done no wrong. Not once. But the majority of US personnel over in the Gulf are not engaged in these activities. You want to go after Rumsfeld, be my guest.

My point is that the majority of us are not involved in these activities that you speak of. We can sit here and slam the US all night long, but in the end, what have we really accomplished? Do ordinary Americans condone these actions that you speak of? Absolutely not, yet we reelected this administration. Do I condone the actions you mentioned? Of course not. Does the American political machine have an inherent hatred for the Iraqi people? I sure hope not. Almost all of the Iraqis I've met were good, decent people. Does our government do bad things to good people? I'm afraid that the answer is probably yes.

So, now that we know this, and we know that most Americans and Iraqis are both inherently good people, as well as inherently naive, how do we get past this? Where is the magic button that you press to make politicians honest and people not treat each other like pond scum? We know that the US has committed some sick acts, and that the Muslim extremist foreign fighters in Iraq have committed just as many or more sick acts, and that neighboring governments are doing their best to ensure that the new government of Iraq fails. What is the answer? Is it time for the golden age of Islam or Christianity? Is the apocolypse upon us? (If certain people had their way, I would say they are attempting to make it so). What would happen in Iraq if the US packed their bags, said 'Sorry about that', and just left?

Throwing your hands up in the air, pointing fingers, and saying the US is the devil and needs to go away is both unrealistic and unlikely to provide any good in the region. Those same naysayers who are quick to find fault in US policy are too quick to forget who is most often the largest contributor of humanitarian assistance whenever strife or disaster hits the Muslim world. No, sir, we are not perfect, and we have done some bad things. But, considering all the good that we have done and continue to do, through our blood, sweat and tears, I'd still rather call myself an American any day of the week.

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry7230/4.0.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1)

It is possible I missed it because I was laughing pretty hard at some of the earlier posts but I'm surprised no one has praised Mr. Olberman for asking for Bush's forgivness. That is very Christian of Keith. The kind of thing that one would expect but seldom sees from Bush and his "Christian" supporters.

So perception of those who hate/jealous/dislike us is to blame us for every death? I guess my question to you is: Is this your belief? Do you lay blame of "100,000+" deaths on the US for UN and other sactions instead of on Hussein for non-complience?

My perceptions don't necessarily gel well with global opinion, but my apportionment of blame to various parties are far less relevant to the matter of national and international security when it comes to so-called "global terrorism".

Please dont think if we stay out of ME affairs that terrorists wont reach us. It was a matter of time. AQ first started with "you're in Saudi Arabia, now its you are in Iraq, soon it'll be "your still alive". Its a confrontation that wont go away until someone ends it.

Ken in Phx

Foreign entanglements are the fuel that feeds the terrorist fires. Grievances that fuel most all terrorists are local/regional grievances and that applies to most all Asian-based (i.e., including "Middle East") terrorism. That we are more deeply "messing around" in the Middle East -- including invading Iraq and providing cover for other military activities in the region -- fuels the fire and heightens the risk of terrorism. The invasion of Iraq was OBL & Co's dream come true. Stupid move on our part to invade Iraq. ;)

What's the solution for Iraq? To begin with admitting the truth. ;)

I never said that we have done no wrong. Not once. But the majority of US personnel over in the Gulf are not engaged in these activities. You want to go after Rumsfeld, be my guest.

My point is that the majority of us are not involved in these activities that you speak of. We can sit here and slam the US all night long, but in the end, what have we really accomplished? Do ordinary Americans condone these actions that you speak of? Absolutely not, yet we reelected this administration. Do I condone the actions you mentioned? Of course not. Does the American political machine have an inherent hatred for the Iraqi people? I sure hope not. Almost all of the Iraqis I've met were good, decent people. Does our government do bad things to good people? I'm afraid that the answer is probably yes.

So, now that we know this, and we know that most Americans and Iraqis are both inherently good people, as well as inherently naive, how do we get past this? Where is the magic button that you press to make politicians honest and people not treat each other like pond scum? We know that the US has committed some sick acts, and that the Muslim extremist foreign fighters in Iraq have committed just as many or more sick acts, and that neighboring governments are doing their best to ensure that the new government of Iraq fails. What is the answer? Is it time for the golden age of Islam or Christianity? Is the apocolypse upon us? (If certain people had their way, I would say they are attempting to make it so). What would happen in Iraq if the US packed their bags, said 'Sorry about that', and just left?

Throwing your hands up in the air, pointing fingers, and saying the US is the devil and needs to go away is both unrealistic and unlikely to provide any good in the region. Those same naysayers who are quick to find fault in US policy are too quick to forget who is most often the largest contributor of humanitarian assistance whenever strife or disaster hits the Muslim world. No, sir, we are not perfect, and we have done some bad things. But, considering all the good that we have done and continue to do, through our blood, sweat and tears, I'd still rather call myself an American any day of the week.

You know, I actually love the US and most of its people.
I dont see the US or Americans as devils or whatever and I do believe that leaving Iraq at this point would be a really bad idea and would be a repeat of the mistakes made recently in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan for the most is as crappy a place to live in as it has ever been apart from some moderatly safe zones that are protected by international forces.
The US needs to sit Iraq out and the situation now is pretty much like Colin Powel warned bush about: You break it you buy it.

Please dont mistake my critiscism for wanting unrealistic achievements or unwarranted attacks on the US itself.
I DO believe the US needs to sit this one out, I also believe that those who are responsible for this mess need to be held accountable and that excceses in this operation need to be wiped out instead of covered up.

Foreign entanglements are the fuel that feeds the terrorist fires. Grievances that fuel most all terrorists are local/regional grievances and that applies to most all Asian-based (i.e., including "Middle East") terrorism. That we are more deeply "messing around" in the Middle East -- including invading Iraq and providing cover for other military activities in the region -- fuels the fire and heightens the risk of terrorism. The invasion of Iraq was OBL & Co's dream come true. Stupid move on our part to invade Iraq. ;)

What's the solution for Iraq? To begin with admitting the truth. ;)

Yes, it would be so much easier to stick our head in the sand and not get involved in any disputes in the ME. However, reality gets in the way of that.

Tell me again what the excuse was for attacking us on Sep 11? If we could just along with those terrorists maybe they might leave us alone.

Yes, it would be so much easier to stick our head in the sand and not get involved in any disputes in the ME. However, reality gets in the way of that.

Just say no to sticking one's head in someone else's sand. ;)

Sticking one's head even into one's own litterbox sands sounds nasty to me; then again I don't suggest doing so and it's not amongst my proclivities while it's seemingly amongst those of others' proclivities.

Tell me again what the excuse was for attacking us on Sep 11?

OBL & Aal-Z have repeatedly gone on record for why they attacked us on 9/11 and before but don't repeatedly attack Sweden as a primary target.

If we could just along with those terrorists maybe they might leave us alone

Is that really your suggestion? It's not mine at all.

You know, I actually love the US and most of its people.
I dont see the US or Americans as devils or whatever and I do believe that leaving Iraq at this point would be a really bad idea and would be a repeat of the mistakes made recently in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan for the most is as crappy a place to live in as it has ever been apart from some moderatly safe zones that are protected by international forces.
The US needs to sit Iraq out and the situation now is pretty much like Colin Powel warned bush about: You break it you buy it.

Please dont mistake my critiscism for wanting unrealistic achievements or unwarranted attacks on the US itself.
I DO believe the US needs to sit this one out, I also believe that those who are responsible for this mess need to be held accountable and that excceses in this operation need to be wiped out instead of covered up.

Agreed on all, particularly the last line. And, based on what people seem to be fed up with these days, I think the balance of power in US politics is due to shift for a while.

I don't know though...gas prices are coimng down again. We all know what that means.

Is that really your suggestion? It's not mine at all.

Sure sounds like your position. Maybe you can make it a little clearer if its not where you stand?

Sure sounds like your position.

Not at all, but if some want to make it sound like that, trying to twist a baguette into a pretzel will be done apparently. It was not my post's words that can be read that way .... unless one wants to imagine a dream and stuff words in other people's posts/mouths that don't exist in the post itself.

Maybe you can make it a little clearer if its not where you stand?

Why would I want to spend my time elaborating upon that which has been elaborated upon a lot already if the discussion already ended? Wasn't it said already that

I guess our discussion ends there.

? Yes.

For those not putting their heads in the sand, it's clear that the invasion of Iraq was a strategic mistake from the start. When the proponents of such invasion admit the truth that it was a strategic mistake and that they should have excercised better judgment from the beginning to more recently, then the strategic risk mitigation related to terrorism will get a big leap forward. Until then, our government is just digging us into a deeper and deeper mess. May this country forgive us all, some needing even more forgiveness than others.

Agreed on all, particularly the last line. And, based on what people seem to be fed up with these days, I think the balance of power in US politics is due to shift for a while.

I don't know though...gas prices are coimng down again. We all know what that means.

The terrorism-related paranoia is being re-seeded, from the top down. What that means may well be more of the same, sufficient or not a separate matter.

The terrorism-related paranoia is being re-seeded, from the top down. What that means may well be more of the same, sufficient or not a separate matter.

Well, I'm going to have a little blind optimism here and 'hope' that people can look beyond the smoke screen and see what is really going on. It would help if more Americans would travel outside our borders and looked in from the outside.

Agreed on all, particularly the last line. And, based on what people seem to be fed up with these days, I think the balance of power in US politics is due to shift for a while.

I hope you are right.

However, I am not optimistic that the alternative will be any better at resolving the issues that make the U.S. a target of terrorism. Like it or not, if the U.S. wants to live in peace, it's foreign policy must undergo drastic changes. However, even after all that has happened, I don't think the U.S. is ready to make any sort of changes and it will be largely business as usual with a few fundamental rights of Americans restored.

I don't know why petrol prices are coming down, unless Bush is planning to make an as yet unannounced exit this November.

I hope you are right.

However, I am not optimistic that the alternative will be any better at resolving the issues that make the U.S. a target of terrorism. Like it or not, if the U.S. wants to live in peace, it's foreign policy must undergo drastic changes. However, even after all that has happened, I don't think the U.S. is ready to make any sort of changes and it will be largely business as usual with a few fundamental rights of Americans restored.

I don't know why petrol prices are coming down, unless Bush is planning to make an as yet unannounced exit this November.

Ah, mon frere, don't forget that we have Congressional elections this October, and the balance of power in Congress could very well switch sides.

I think one of our key steps to reducing terrorism is to create an atmosphere hospitible for moderate Muslims to calm their more extreme Muslim friends down. I think we are alienating the Muslims who could be a strong ally now. Too bad most Americans don't know any Muslims, so are forced to develop their stereotypes by what they see on TV and in the media. Go to npr.org and look at the 'Muslims in America' spot if you want to see more.