Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

"Palin said war in Iraq, gas pipeline are God’s will." nm

Posted By: unbelievable! on 2008-09-03
In Reply to:


LOL




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Pipeline to 911....sm
By Rudo de Ruijter,
Independent Researcher
Netherlands
August 18th, 2006


Our politicians have shaped the idea many people have of our world. They have divided our world into good and bad. Of course, they are the good guys and the ones they accuse are the bad guys. Simple, isn't it?

However, if we stick to the facts, and throw out all the information that comes from unverifiable sources, our world looks very different. This research article is intended to reveal the facts that lead to the US invasion of Afghanistan and to reveal the logical place of the 9/11events in that context. It is not meant to offend anyone. Don't read it if you are pleased with the official version of our history.

Immediately after 9/11 president Bush declared war to Afghanistan. This article shows the role of Afghanistan in pipeline projects which determine US' control over oil and gas in Afghanistan's neighbouring countries.

Bush said the attacks of 9/11 were the reason to invade Afghanistan. [1] This article shows that preparations for this war took place well before. In 2000 the neoconservatives said they needed some catastrophic and catalysing event. They said so at the time of the developments of unmanned aerial vehicles striking with pinpoint accuracy.


The 1993 attack


The attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 eclipse an earlier attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993. On January 20 1993, William (Bill) Clinton had become president. A month later, on February 26, an immense blast happened at 12:18 local time in the Secret Service's section of the car park underneath and between what are New York's tallest buildings. [2]

BBC published the words of an eyewitness: It felt like an airplane hit the building. Apparently the explosion was intended to bring both WTC towers down. The New York Times found out that the FBI was involved in the attacks. The FBI would have infiltrated a group of terrorists, would have known about their intentions and for some unknown reason let it happen. [3] Six people died and a hundred were injured. [2]


1: Why Afghanistan?


Immediately after the attacks of September 11, 2001, US officials accused Osama bin Laden. Since the man would stay in Afghanistan, it provided a pretext for George W. Bush to attack and invade Afghanistan.

Let's have a closer look at the situation prior to 9/11. As promised by Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev, the USSR had withdrawn its last soldiers from Afghanistan on February 15, 1989. It was the end of ten years of war. It was also the last war of the Soviet Union.

A few months later, on November 9, 1989, the Berlin wall fell. The Iron Curtain broke down. The people living on the other side of the curtain, of whom our leaders had always pretended they were dangerous and ferocious, turned out to be as friendly as us.

With the concept of the Cold War our leaders had divided our world and maintained fear in our minds for over forty years. This terror, fabricated by our own governments, was finally over.


Pipeline projects through Afghanistan


On December 25, 1991, the Soviet flag was lowered from the Kremlin for the last time. [4] The former Soviet republics become independent. Among them were the countries around the Caspian Sea, all rich in oil and gas. [MAP: http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/as.htm ]

Before, the oil and gas went through pipelines to their soviet neighbours, or were exported via Russia to Europe. Now each country could sell its own oil and gas and explore new markets. Buyers showed up from everywhere.

In the beginning, the new leaders still had no experience with the world oil business. One of the first deals of Turkmenistan was to auction an oil well for as little as $100,000. [5] US companies showed up, too.

The biggest challenge was to get the Caspian oil and gas to the world markets. The problem? The region is land-locked. If you trust neither Russia on the North side of the Caspian Sea, nor Iran on the South side, you need to build new pipelines. [MAP: http://www.treemedia.com/cfrlibrary/library/policy/ bremmermap.html ]

Today, from the West side of the Caspian Sea, oil is pumped through several pipelines towards the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea from where it can be shipped.

Big business on the East side of the Caspian Sea is still limited. To unlock oil and gas from this side, pipelines have to be built through Afghanistan. Here, since the early nineties, two pipelines - one for gas and one for oil - have been in project. [MAP: http://www.treemedia.com/cfrlibrary/library/ energy/greatgamemaps.html#map2 ]

The oil pipe should go South to the Indian Ocean, ending at the port of Gwadar in Pakistan. The gas pipe would turn East to Multan in the middle of Pakistan. From Pakistan an extension is planned to Bombay (Mumbai, India), where a US company with close ties to father and son Bush, Enron, has built a power plant. [6]

Contracts for pipelines are not just multi-billion dollar projects to build them. The main contractor generally also buys and sells the oil or gas going through them. With contracts he disposes of it, determines how much the supplier gets for it, and how much fee is paid to crossed countries. He determines who gets it, how much, when, to which price and in which currency it has to be paid.

In fact, he determines a lot in the economical developments of both the selling and the buying countries. With Turkmenistan eager to sell its gas, Pakistan eager to buy it and Enron in India hoping to see it arrive as soon as possible, the pipelines through Afghanistan are of high interest.

However, in 2001, work in Afghanistan had not started yet. Since the withdrawal of the Soviets in 1989 there was still unrest in the country.


The Taliban: From ally to terrorist


The unrest in Afghanistan that blocked the business is worth mentioning. In 1992, the pro-Russian president Mohammad Najibullah was ousted. In 1993, Burhanuddin Rabbani became president, supported by the Tajik minority of the population.

In 1994, the Pashtun, forming half of the population, challenged Rabbani. Because the pipelines have to cross mainly Pashtun territory, their movement, the Taliban, had support from the US and Pakistan.

In March 1995, two companies, BRIDAS from Argentina and UNOCAL from the US, both claimed to have obtained the contracts from the seller of the gas (Turkmenistan) and the buyer (Pakistan). At that moment no deal had yet been signed with the Afghan authorities.

In October 1995, President Niyazov of Turkmenistan signed an official agreement with UNOCAL, but in February 1996, president Rabbani of Afghanistan signed an agreement with BRIDAS for the main section of 875 miles through Afghanistan. [7]

UNOCAL's chances seemed compromised. Fortunately for UNOCAL, the Taliban wanted to oust president Rabbani. In September 1996, they took Jalabad, Kandahar, and then Kabul. President Rabbani fleed to join the Northern Alliance.

UNOCAL sighed with relief. It expressed support for the Taliban takeover, saying it makes the pipeline project easier. Unocal later said it was misquoted.

Would BRIDAS now have lost the game? No. In November 1996, BRIDAS signed an agreement with the Taliban and Gen. Dostum to build the pipeline. Unfortunately, except from Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia, the Taliban government didn't get international recognition.

In April 1997, as work on the pipeline had still not started, the Taliban announced it would award the contract to whomever starts first. UNOCAL claimed there must be peace first.

In July 1997, Turkmenistan and Pakistan accepted a new delay and signed a new contract with UNOCAL, saying it had to start the work within a year and a half.

In December 1997, UNOCAL tried to become good friends with the Taliban and invited a delegation to their head office in Sugarland, Texas, where they received a VIP treatment and stayed in the best hotels. [8]

In Afghanistan, civil war went on. With no internationally recognized legal representative of Afghanistan, the pipeline project seemed to be deadlocked. [9]


US-bombs on Afghanistan after US embassies are attacked in Africa


On February 4, 1998 and May 30, 1998, very heavy earthquakes shook the North East of Afghanistan. They attracted a lot of international attention and many groups of relief workers came into the North-East of Afghanistan to help. According to US accusations, this was the moment that somewhere in this same region of Afghanistan a certain Osama bin Laden would have been planning the bombings of two US embassies in Africa, one in Nairobi (Kenya), and one in Dar es Salaam (Tanzania).

The bombings had a high impact in the press. 258 people were killed and some 5,000 injured. The bombings occurred on August 7, 1998, apparently for no specific reason. [10]

Apparently only president Clinton benefited from it. In the US, the Monica Lewinsky affair had come to a height. The press and the public were excited and angry. Clinton had stated on oath he had had no sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky and now proof had come out he had. Clinton was close to the point of being convicted of perjury.

The bombings of the embassies drew people's attention to the drama in Africa. Finally, on August 17, Clinton came away with the perjury by arguing that oral sex was not a sexual relation. [11]

A few days later, August 21, 1998, the US military threw bombs on Kandahar and other targets in Afghanistan. Only afterwards Clinton explained to the journalists this was because of Osama bin Laden, supposed to be behind the bombings of the US' embassies in Africa. [12]

Unlike George W. Bush in 2001, Clinton did not invade Afghanistan. An invasion would have given hope to UNOCAL to see the Afghan deadlock broken, but with the Lewinsky affair still being discussed, Clinton did not have enough credit for such a war.

On August 28, 1998, UNSC resolution 1193 blamed the Taliban for the problems in Afghanistan. [13]

On November 5, 1998, a US Grand Jury indicted Osama Bin Laden. (Not for the bombings of the embassies in Africa, but essentially for considering the US as his enemy.) [14] & [15]


UNOCAL withdraws


In December 1998 UNOCAL withdrew from the pipeline consortium and, at least for the outside world, the pipeline project seemed halted. [8]

However, in January, 1999, Turkmenistan's foreign minister visited Pakistan, saying the pipeline project was still alive. In February, BRIDAS had talks with leaders in Turkmenistan, Pakistan and Russia.

In March, Turkmenistan's Foreign Minister Sheikh Muradov met with Taliban leader Mullah Omar in Kandahar to discuss the pipeline. In April, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and the Taliban signed an agreement to revive the pipeline project. In May, a Taliban delegation signed an agreement with Turkmenistan to buy gas and electricity. [8]


Terror warning


On June 25, 1999, the US State Department announced: As some of our embassies in Africa have been under surveillance by suspicious individuals, we are taking the precaution of temporarily closing our embassies in Gambia, Togo, Madagascar, Liberia, Namibia and Senegal from June 24 through the 27th of June - that is Sunday. [16]

The speaker seemed to have no idea where these countries are, considering the strange order of announcing them. Besides, the only African countries, where incidents like attacks and hostage taking have been reported that year, are Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Burundi and Ethiopia. None of these countries is on the list. [17]

On July 4, 1999, President Clinton issued an executive order prohibiting commercial transactions with the Taliban. [18]


Back to Cold War budgets


On September 23, 1999, presidential candidate George W. Bush exposed his views on the US military. He complained that since the end of the Cold War the Defence budget had fallen 40 percent and that the army had never been in such a bad shape since Pearl Harbor.

As president, I will order an immediate review of our overseas deployments - in dozens of countries. ... My second goal is to build America's defences on the troubled frontiers of technology and terror.

Among his views of arms: In the air, we must be able to strike from across the world with pinpoint accuracy - with long-range aircraft and perhaps with unmanned systems. [19]

On October 15, 1999, things were getting more serious for the Taliban. UN resolution 1267 against the Taliban threatened an aircraft ban and funded freezing, if Osama Bin Laden was not handed over before 14 November 1999. [20] & [2]

On November 11, 1999, in a press conference, the Taliban minister of Foreign Affairs said Osama bin Laden and the Taliban were unable to organize attacks like those on the embassies in Africa. He condemned these actions.

In 2000 the US had presidential elections. It was time to postpone delicate decisions. On April 2, 2000, Richard Clarke, who had been appointed counter-terrorist coordinator a few months before the attacks against the embassies in Africa (on May 22), predicted: They will come after our weakness, our Achilles heel, which is largely here in the United States. [21]


Curious No-Fly list


On April 21, 2000, something remarkable happened. As an antiterrorist measure, the US Congress announced a single unified terrorist watch list, the TID (or Terrorist Identities Database), into which all international terrorist related data available to the US government - mainly the TIPOFF no-fly list - would be stored in a single repository. In airports, this list is used to prevent suspected people from going on board and from entering the US. [22]

However, the same day that Congress announces the unified TID list, the FAA created a new and separate domestic no-fly list and put only six names on it. Two weeks before 9/11, the list was expanded with six other names, making it a total list of 12 names.

Thanks to this separate list the hijackers of 9/11, using domestic flights, and not listed among the 12 names, could board the planes without difficulties. On August 23, 2001, two names, later published as being two of the hijackers, had been added to the official TID-list, which counted 60,000 suspects, but was discarded for domestic flights. [23]


2: Frustrations and solutions


In September, 2000, the neoconservative think tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published their imperialistic views for the US. [24] In the document, they warned that the process of transforming the US into tomorrow's dominant force would likely be a long one in the absence of some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. [25]

A few months later, many PNAC members would become members of the Bush administration. Those members include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, I. Lewis Scooter Libby, and Richard Perle. [26]

Three month after 9/11, to those who would not yet have understood the benefits of the catastrophic and catalysing event of US military debacle in Pearl Harbor in 1941, Bush would explain: The four years that followed transformed the American way of war and even more importantly, an American President and his successors shaped a world beyond a war.

And, linking 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, he said, September 11th, 2001 - three months and a long time ago - set another dividing line in our lives and in the life of our nation. [27]

On October 12, 2000, three weeks before the presidential elections, the US population was shortly reminded of the terrorist threat in the world. US Navy destroyer USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden was rammed with an inflatable raft with explosives and was damaged. Published detail: it looked as if the raft was coming to help the warship to moor to a buoy. [28] Message: you can trust nobody.

On November 7, 2000 the elections took place. It would be George W. Bush or Al Gore. The counting gave an extremely close result. The results of Florida became decisive, but these results are far from clear.

The opponents fought in many different courts until December 13. It turned out that in Florida, 180,000 votes had been thrown out of the counting. Bush led by less than 600 votes. Partial recounts resulted in much lower estimates. Finally, all recounts could not be executed within the time limit set by the Supreme Court. This is how Bush won the elections. [29]


Dictator


A few days later, on December 18, speaking at the Capitol, Bush joked about his starting relationship with the four congressional leaders: If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier....just so long as I'm the dictator. [30]

Just a slip of the tongue? Not really. In July 1998, about governing Texas, he said already: A dictatorship would be a lot easier. [31] And on July 26, 2001, speaking once again about his struggles with Congress he repeated: a dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier. [32]

Well, for the ambitious plans of the neoconservatives, the US Congress was a major hurdle to take. The budget of the military had shrunk by 40 percent after the Cold War and with the wars they had in mind they would need substantially more budget.

How would they get the budget they wanted? If the US would be attacked, there would be no problem. They would receive all the budget and support they needed. But, as written in their document, without a new Pearl Harbor things would go slowly. [25]

When Bush started his presidency, many neoconservatives considered Iraq as the first target to hit. In their document of September 2000 they had named Iraq as a potential rival of the US. [24]


First Target Iraq?


Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserves. The country was exhausted. It had tried to conquer Iran from 1980 to 1988, had invaded Kuwait in 1990, had been defeated by Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and since then a UN embargo had brought the Iraqi economy to a standstill and the population at the edge of starvation.

Since 1996, the Oil For Food program of the UN had brought some relief for the Iraqi people. The country had been disarmed. Extensive weapon inspections had concluded the country formed no threat anymore. Well, at least, not military. In 2000, Saddam had still found a trick to hit the main pillar of US hegemony, the dollar. He started to sell his oil in euros, instead of dollars. [ http://www.raisethehammer.org/index.asp?id=252 , see: Dollar Hegemony]


Afghanistan back on the agenda


However, not even a week after George W. Bush had been declared winner of the elections, Afghanistan was back on the international agenda. UN SC resolution 1333 of December 19, 2000, imposed the sanctions the UN had promised more than a year before, in October 1999, if the Taliban would not hand over Osama bin Laden before November 14, 1999 (aircraft ban and funds freezing). [33]

Geopolitically, Afghanistan had become a more urgent target. Since 1996, the US had experienced severe setbacks in their ambition to control gas and oil on the East side of the Caspian Sea and was loosing influence.

The problems had started in February 1996, when Afghan president Rabbani signed a contract with UNOCAL's competitor BRIDAS for the construction of the gas pipeline through Afghanistan, between Turkmenistan and Pakistan. [8] In March, the US tried to block this deal, putting pressure on Pakistan and telling them they should grant exclusive rights to UNOCAL. This resulted in a diplomatic clash with the Pakistani government. [8]

Still, in the same month, Pakistan officially agreed to allow a proposed Iranian pipeline to run over Pakistani territory on its way to India, thus enabling Iranian gas sale to India. The gas would come from Iran's giant South Pars Field in the Persian Gulf and cross the South of Iran from West to East through a pipeline still to be constructed. [34]

Meanwhile, in February 1996, Turkmenistan had showed it did not want to depend exclusively on the delayed Afghan pipeline project and had signed a contract with Turkey to supply Turkmen gas via a pipeline to be constructed along the North coast of Iran. If necessary, Turkey would be able to absorb all the Turkmen gas. [34]


Iranian-Libyan Sanctions act


With these two Iranian pipelines the Afghan pipelines would become more or less useless. To prevent the construction of the Iranian pipelines the US Congress passed the Iranian-Libyan Sanctions act, [35] threatening anyone who would help Iran constructing them, and forbidding transactions with Iran of $ 4 million or higher. That was on June 18, 1996. Nevertheless on August 30, 1996 Turkey signed a 20-year deal to buy gas from Iran. [34] & [36] The Turkish president would be punished for his Islamic solidarity by a military coup forcing him to resign. That was on June 18, 1997. [37]

With the Iranian-Libyan Sanctions act in place, another US company, Enron, expanded its activities in the region. In Uzbekistan, Enron had obtained a contract for 11 gas fields. In April 1997, George W. Bush himself had intervened to help Enron obtain Uzbeki contracts. [38] Enron counted on a US controlled pipeline through Afghanistan to export a part of the Uzbek gas to its power plant in India. [39]

The US threatened sanctions and blocked the completion of the Turkish pipeline connexion to Iran, so the gas deliveries from Iran to Turkey were delayed several years. In August 2000, Iran and Turkey agreed the gas deliveries would start on July 30, 2001, which would be a few days before the expiration date of the Iranian-Libyan Sanctions act. [40]

Despite the Iranian-Libyan Sanctions act, the construction of the northern pipeline had started on the East side of Iran. Funded by Iran itself, Iran and Turkmenistan opened an international pipeline connexion of 200 km by the end of 1997. [36]

To frustrate further development of the Iranian pipeline to Turkey, the US came up with an idea for an alternative route from Turkmenistan, crossing the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan and from there to Turkey. Enron did the study for this project. [39]

By that time it looked as if the Afghan pipeline project would be abandoned. In June 1998, Enron withdrew from its Uzbek gas projects [41] and in December UNOCAL withdrew from its consortium for the Afghan pipeline. [8]

The US threats did not prevent big companies like Shell and Total from signing deals with Iran for exploration of oil and gas. [42] Nevertheless, Shell withdrew from its pipeline project in Northern Iran. [43]

The undersea pipeline crossing the Caspian Sea now existed on the drawing table, but in the waters the five surrounding countries (Azerbaijan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Iran) had not yet come to an agreement about each other's borders, and thus about the ownership of oil fields. As long as this would last, according to an existing agreement of 1940, Russia and Iran would have to agree with the pipeline under the sea. And they did not. [44]

In 2000, the Turkmen president had blamed the US for the delay in the trans-Caspian pipeline and had resumed gas deliveries to Russia. [45] That May, president Putin had even come to Turkmenistan to offer extended deals for several years. [9] Meanwhile, in Kazakhstan, the oil from the Tengiz field (world's sixth largest oil field) was going to be pumped via Russia to the Black Sea. [46]

George W. Bush sworn in On January 20, 2001, George W. Bush was sworn in as president of the US. He is the son of ex- president George H.W. Bush. The family is from Texas and has close ties with the oil and energy related companies there. These companies have contributed a lot to Bush's election campaign.

Companies contributing to election campaigns is a common phenomenon in the US. The financial support for candidates' campaigns determines how much marketing they can afford and, ultimately, their chances to win the elections. Of course, when these companies invest a lot of money, they expect something in return when their candidate wins, like nominations in the administration, influence for big business orders or favourable laws and amendments. [47]


Enron


Enron had been the biggest contributor of the Bush 2000 election campaign. [48] In fact, the company had generously contributed to father and son's election campaigns since 1985. Enron's chairman, Kenneth Lay, had close personal contacts with the Bushes. He had even been a sleeping guest at the White House. [49] During these years, Enron had expanded from a regional energy supplier to a giant multinational and the seventh biggest company in the US. Although loaded with debts caused by its giant investments abroad, Enron always showed splendid results. How? In 1997 the Securities and Exchange Commission had exempted Enron from the Investment Company Act of 1940 that prohibits US companies from leaving debt from overseas projects off the books. [47] At the same time Andy Fastow, Enron's senior vice president of finance, had started his creative financing. [50]

Since 1993, in India, Enron had invested $ 2.9 billion for a power plant near Bombay. Originally it had counted on cheap supply of gas from Turkmenistan via the planned pipeline through Afghanistan. The power plant project had turned into a nightmare.

Enron had faced severe criticism over their contemptuous way of doing business. They had experienced severe opposition from the local population after hiring police officers to beat down protests of opponents. Charges had been filed against the company for human right violations. [39]

Last but not least, the price of the produced electricity averaged more than double the price of power from other suppliers. [51] Taking into account the real cost supported by the regional electricity company, Enron's price was even 700 percent higher. [52] The regional electricity company could not pay Enron's bills anymore. As retaliation, in January 2001, Enron had cut the power for 200 million people in Northern India, demanding three times the normal price. [53] (Around the same time, Enron provoked power cuts in California too, also in order to obtain higher prices. [54])

In 1997 Enron had started gas projects in Uzbekistan, for which George W. Bush had had personal contacts with the Uzbek ambassador.

As soon as the Bush administration was in place, vice president Cheney would reward Enron for their support during the elections. Enron's chairman, Kenneth Lay, had a wish list that was almost entirely included in Cheney's proposals for the new US energy policy. [55] Cheney also intervened to help Enron collect a $64 million debt for its power plant near Bombay, during a meeting with Indian opposition leader Sonia Ghandi in Washington on June 27 2001. [56]


BinLaden Group


Enron had also connexions with the construction firm BinLadin from Saudi Arabia, with which it constructed a power plant in the Gaza strip. (The power plant would not be finished before Enron's bankruptcy in December 2001.) [57]

The wealthy bin Laden family is well known to the Bush family. Salem bin Laden supplied part of the money for George W. Bush first oil company, Arbusto, in 1978. [58] The father of George W. Bush, after being US' president, joined the Carlyle group [59] and developed relations with the BinLadin company. [60] He met the family in November 1998 and in January 2000. [61]

Bin Laden also invested in the Carlyle group. H.W. Bush still met with Shafig bin Laden, Osama's brother, on September 10, 2001 at the annual investor conference of the Carlyle Group. [62] Like Enron, Carlyle had made a tremendous development. In the early 1990s son Bush had been member of the board of a catering service for airliners. [60] Carlyle had bought the catering company.

Although the catering service crashed, Carlyle has grown into an important defence contractor in the US. [61] A bunch of well-known former politicians, including George W. Bush father, former UK Prime Minister John Major and former president of the Philippines Mister Ramos, are making a lot of money from the war on terror. [59]


Osama


There is a terrible lot of information available about bin Laden's son, Osama. However, almost all of it comes from sources that cannot be verified, like comments by unknown people who would have known him or met him. Other stories are based on allegations by people who have big business interests in the war on terrorism, like the Bush. One step further, you find the comments by officials convinced that everything that has been said about Osama is true.

On the other extremity, there is the image Osama draws of himself in an interview by CNN reporter Peter Arnett in 1997. According to this interview he is, first of all, a faithful, who understands people who fight against the US soldiers who came to steal the oil and who attacked the Islamic religion. He denies having organized any attacks against the US himself. [63] (Many people will remember a videotape with ?Osama's confession?, that he knew about the attacks of 9/11 in advance, which turned out to be a fake. [64])

Osama would become Bush's key excuse to invade Afghanistan. On September 17, 2001 Bush would declare Osama bin Laden was wanted dead or alive. [65]

Why did Osama bin Laden stay in Afghanistan? Here too, different sources give different stories. He had already been in Afghanistan during the eighties, helping the mudjahedeen fight against the Soviet occupation (as did the US). Back in Saudi Arabia in 1989, he had opposed the king's alliance with the US.

When his passport was confiscated, he at first fled back to Afghanistan, and then settled in Sudan in 1992, where all Muslims were welcome since a regime change the year before. In 1994, because of his support to fundamentalist Muslim movements, Saudi Arabia revoked his citizenship and froze his funds. [66]

After the assassination attempt against Egyptian president Mubarak in Ethiopia on June 26, 1995, Sudan was accused of being behind it. The relations between Egypt and Sudan deteriorate in the current of 1995.

At this point, let us jump to Afghanistan. In February 1996 things went wrong for the US pipeline project in Afghanistan. President Rabbani of Afghanistan contracted the Argentinean BRIDAS instead of UNOCAL for the construction and exploitation of the gas pipeline. For the US, to get the pipeline project back in the hands of UNOCAL, Rabbani would have to disappear. But who could be accused if Rabbani were killed?

Back to Sudan. March 8, 1996, the US suddenly asked Sudan to extradite Osama. It did not specify to which country. Since the Saudis took his passport and nationality away, Osama had few options. On May 18, 1996, he left Sudan and returned to Afghanistan. [67]

Years afterward, many people were still wondering why he had not been arrested at that occasion.

In Afghanistan, events would take a different turn. From March 20 to April 4, 1996, Taliban leaders had held a shura (meeting) and concluded with a jihad against Rabbani. [68] Osama arrived on May 18, but would not get involved. On September 27, the Taliban conquered Kabul and president Rabbani fled and joined the Northern alliance. At that moment things must have looked hopeful for the UNOCAL pipeline project. Unfortunately for them, in November 1996 BRIDAS signed a new contract with the Taliban.

Ultimately this would lead to the eviction from power of the Taliban. Clinton would not attack Afghanistan after the US embassy bombings in Africa in 1998, maybe thanks to Monica Lewinsky. Bush did, after the catastrophic and catalysing events of 9/11.

After having used the presence of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan as his key excuse to invade the country, Bush would state, on March 13, 2002, he wasn't truly that concerned about Osama bin Laden. [69]


Karzai


After the US conquest of Afghanistan (or at least of its capital), UNOCAL's advisor Hamid Karzai would be appointed Chairman of the interim administration of Afghanistan. On June 16, 2002, still before there was an elected president, Karzai would sign an official agreement with Turkmenistan and Pakistan for a gas pipeline through Afghanistan. [70]

But even if the gas pipeline would come too late to transport Turkmen gas to Pakistan, Afghanistan remains an interesting booty. It has its own gigantic gas field south of the Turkmen field, near Mazar e Sharif. It has also several oil fields and coal. Furthermore, in the 1970s British geologists had already found 1600 places with minerals.


3: Preparations for 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan


Timing of the attacks


As noticed above, the timing for the attacks on the US embassies in Africa helped Clinton, as it drew away the attention from his threatening conviction of perjury in the Monica Lewinsky affair, and focused on the common enemies: the terrorists.

The invasion of Afghanistan would have to wait for the next US president. Between 1998 and 2001 there was enough time to plan everything carefully. Below we will notice, that the attacks of 9/11 occurred at the very moment everything was in place. The only thing missing was a pretext to get support from Congress, from the US population and the rest of the world?


Military preparations


For the US to invade Afghanistan at the other side of the world was a delicate operation. Step by step the US had pushed its influence and control in the former soviet republics. US oil and gas related companies had started up activities in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and US' military had gained influence in the region, challenging Russia and China in their backyards.

Already in 1997, north of Afghanistan, the US had considerably expanded its military cooperation with Kazakhstan, which forms the buffer with Russia. [71] In 1999, closer to Afghanistan, the US expanded its presence in Kyrgyzstan [72], and in Uzbekistan, one of Afghanistan's direct neighbours. [73] April 14-15, 2000, Uzbek and US troops conducted joint military exercises. [74]

East of Afghanistan the US administration has strong ties with the Pakistani intelligence service. Its director, Lieutenant-General Mahmoud Ahmad, was with US' officials the week before and during the attacks of 9/11. [75] On the west side F-15 were based in Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey and the Fifth fleet was permanently based in the Persian Gulf. [76]

For the war in Afghanistan, huge transports of troops and material had to be organized well before the invasion. On November 7, 2000, the day all US-citizens were occupied with the election of their president, the UK announced its biggest military exercise since the Gulf War, operation Swift Sword (Saif Sareea in Arabic), involving 24,000 troops and a lot of heavy material. [77]

The exercise took place in Oman, a strategic location, since all oil tankers from the Persian Gulf region (Saudi-Arabia, the United Arabic Emirates, Qatar, Quait, Iraq and Iran) have to cross the Gulf of Oman. Here the UK detains a War Material Storage. [78] They exercised on the coast of Oman from September 15 until the end of October 2001, [79] and started moving their material in August 2001. [80] The UK participated in the invasion. [81]

From October 8 until the end of October, 2001 another military operation was planned in Egypt: NATO Operation Bright Star. It was the world's largest exercise with more than 11 Nations, and over 70,000 troops (among which 23,000 from the US) participating. [82]

Among several other coincidental military moves towards Afghanistan, we notice that on July 23 2001 aircraft carrier Carl Vinson was sent out from Bremerton (on US West coast) to the Arabian Sea. It arrived just in time to launch the first air strikes on Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. [83]


Diplomatic preparations


On the diplomatic front, to lower the risk of upsetting China, on June 19 2001, Bush had proposed to attend the APEC summit in Shang Hai and was expected to meet president Zemir between October 15 and October 21 2001. [84] & [85] (Bush's meeting with presidents Zemir and Putin took place on October 20, 2001) [86]

Besides, in 2001 China was completing its bilateral agreements with all 37 WTO members to become a full WTO-member. China wanted to become member since many years. China's bilateral agreement with Mexico would be the last and this would complete China's membership. [87] In July 2001 Bush would polish his relations with Mexico, lobbying against US unfair import restrictions on Mexican trucks. [88]

This was probably not only to get the Mexicans in the right mood to sign with China, but also because Mexico would be member of the UN Security Council in 2002 and 2003. China reached its bilateral agreement with Mexico and became WTO member on September 13, 2001. [89]


Bush's unmanned systems


In the summer of 1999, a number of US embassies on the African continent were closed for the weekend because of suspicious people hanging around. [16] A few days later Clinton had issued its order prohibiting commercial transactions with the Taliban. [18] A few months later George W. Bush presented his ideas of defences on the troubled frontiers of technology and terror.

He said, In the air, we must be able to strike from across the world with pinpoint accuracy - with long-range aircraft and perhaps with unmanned systems. [19]

In September 1999 Bush still said perhaps. He was still considering. This was at a time the market for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's) for both military as well as civil aviation was rapidly developing. [90] By 2001 there were more than 60 types of UAV world wide, from small models to big planes. [91]

At the time of Bush's speech in 1999, the US was developing Global Hawk [92], a military UAV with a wing span comparable to a Boeing 737, which had made its first flight from Edwards Air Force Base, CA on 28 February 1998. [93] After Bush became president, on April 23, 2001 the Global Hawk made a historical first unmanned test flight to Australia. [94]


9/11


Not all material about 9/11 has been released to the public. Some of the reliable evidence has been confiscated by the CIA. [95] Statements of officials often turned out to be contradictory. And, in particular about possible advanced knowledge, the White House has confiscated dozens of documents of the 9/11 Commission. [96] It doesn't make truth finding easier.

The official version of the events on 9/11 involves a very high number of coincidences that facilitated the success of the attacks.


  • A nationwide military exercise, Global Guardian, originally planned for November 2001, is in full swing, creating confusion between exercises and real-world events. [97]
  • A large-scale military exercise, Vigilant Guardian, is taking place and involves all of NORAD, the defence department, which normally sends fighter jets after civil airplanes several times a week, when flight control operators report incidences. [97]
  • The Vigilant Guardian exercise simulates an air attack on the United States. [97]
  • NORAD is also running a planned real-world operation named Operation Northern Vigilance, for which many NORAD fighters are located in Alaska and Canada. [98]
  • Operation Northern Vigilance also creates false blips on radar screens at least until the second plane crashes into the World Trade Centre. [99]
  • In Washington a planned National Reconnaissance Office exercise involves a scenario of an airplane as a flying weapon. [97]
  • The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is flying across the Atlantic on the way to Europe. [97]
  • The Federal Emergency Management Agency Director is at a conference in Montana. [97]
  • FAA hijack coordinator, who has to contact the National Military Command Centre in case of hijacks, is in Puerto Rico and cannot be reached. [97]
  • All of FBI's anti-terrorist and top special operations agents are, together with the members of the CIA's anti-terrorist task force, on a training exercise in Monterey, California. [97]
  • For the day of 9/11, the commander of the National Military Command Centre had requested to be replaced by someone without experience. [97]
  • For FAA's new National Operations Manager it is the first day on the job. [98]
  • The hijackers can board without trouble, since the official no-fly list is only used for international flights and, curiously, not for domestic flights. [22] & [23]
  • Informed a few minutes after the start of the first hijack (Flight 11), American Airlines top management decide to keep it quiet. [97]
  • Boston flight controllers do not follow normal procedures and loose time by contacting various military bases, instead of NORAD. [97]
  • After NORAD is finally informed, two F-15 will remain on the ground and only take off when flight 11 already crashes into the WTC. [97]
  • For various reasons F-16 will only arrive on scene after the last plane has crashed. [97] & [99]
  • A decision is taken to ground not only civil airplanes, but also all military planes. [99]
  • The presumed hijacker pilot of flight 77 was not able to fly a Cessna without difficulty in August, but succeeded to spiral down a Boeing 757 and hit the Pentagon a few meters above the ground on September 11. [100]
  • The President doesn't give any orders responding to the attack until just before the last plane crashes. [97]
Above I only mentioned those coincidences that facilitated the success of the attacks. If I were to build a story on such series of coincidences, nobody would believe me. Well, I would not either. Keeping the things in their context, it makes more sense to look at them as facts, and not as coincidences.

All released details show that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out with military precision. However, the hijackers on the planes would have been improvised pilots without the extraordinary skills needed to fly like has been reported. [101] & [102]

Besides, they would not have been intelligent enough to foresee the reactions triggered by their actions. Apparently they had so little political awareness, they had not heard about the neoconservatives waiting for such a catastrophic and catalysing event to speed up US' conquests.

The success of the plan relied on a lot of advanced knowledge of the situation that day, like the confusion offered by planned military exercises and the scenarios played by them, like the confusion offered by fake radar blibs, like traffic controllers lacking of primary radar images in specific areas, like the absence of several experienced officers in the command chains responding to the hijacks, like the absence of armed jet fighters to frustrate their plans.

All this seems more the work of a more influential and well trained organization, an organization willing to provide the justification for the neoconservatives' conquest plans, with Afghanistan as first target.

It does not seem likely to me that such an organization would let the success of its operation depend on the improvised skills of the hijackers. It makes more sense to suppose the hijackers were not in control. (In spite of an overheard phrase in the cockpit of the fourth plane, having been translated as Pull it down and by officials interpreted as Crash the plane [102]) It seems more likely the operation was conducted on the troubled frontier of technology and terror, and that technology had taken over the controls.

The two types of planes used, Boeing 757 and 767, can be controlled remotely. Robert Ayling, a former boss of British Airways, suggested in the Financial Times a few days after 9/11 that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack. [13] On 9/11 the remote control would have been in the hands of the wrong people.

If we look closer to the remote control scenario, we notice that if the published details about the transponders are right:



  1. the transponder of the second 767 is turned off shortly after the first 767 crashes.
  2. the transponder of the second 757 is turned off shortly after the first 757 crashes.

So, it looks as if one remote pilot handled the two 767 one after the other, and another remote pilot handled the two 757 one after the other. ([104] 9/11 Commission Report, P.32, 8:47 & 9:41)

It has also been reported that a C-130 military cargo plane was tailing flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon. The same C-130 was behind flight 93 when it crashed. Did the plane play a role? Or was it just a coincidental tourist, flying around while all other planes had been ordered to land? [101], [105], [106]


The hijackers hijacked?


Although the official story asks us to believe the hijackers wanted to fly into the WTC and the Pentagon, the released pieces of cockpit conversations offer no indications to support this theory. Although mountains of stories and counter-stories have been published about the hijackers, I did not find a single verifiable element.

If the hijackers were to support some Arabic or Islamic cause, they would probably be in a stronger position if they had returned to airports with four planes and hundreds of US citizens in their might. They could have negotiated the release of political prisoners. They could have demanded a retreat of US forces from Saudi Arabia. They could have pleaded any cause they were after.

Did the hijackers really have in mind to strike the WTC and the Pentagon or were they overruled by the organization that had contracted them? Will we find out? According to the official story, all radio contact and overhearing of cockpit conversations stopped before the planes made their final approach of the WTC and the Pentagon. If the hijackers were to create the biggest possible spectacle, wouldn't they have shouted a last accusation against the US or a last glorious prayer to Allah? Or were they surprised and in panic when they flew into the buildings?


Conclusion


The Afghan pipelines are only one step in US political moves to take over the influence in the oil and gas rich former Soviet republics. Consuming 25 percent of the world oil consumption, their imperialism is first of all about energy. Today the US already relies for over 60 percent on foreign oil, a percentage that is quickly increasing. The neoconservative ideas to transform the US into a dominant force do not come out of nowhere.

The thought that they needed a catastrophic and catalysing event was not just motivated by the personal financial benefits several of them get from the war industries. It was also a sign of panic of a nation facing drying up oil wells and preparing itself to conquer foreign oil wells until the last drip is gone.



Miss Wasilla please chill, a 30-billion pipeline is not God's Will! nm
1
And that statement is ridiculous, Iran and Iraq enemies, remember the Iran-Iraq war? Iraq would jus
nm
Bush didn't destroy Iraq. He helped to liberate Iraq.
m
why are we in iraq?
I think the reasons we are in Iraq were said best at the Downing Street Memo hearing held by Representative Conyers and attended by Joe Wilson, Cindy Sheehan (mother of a son killed in Iraq), Ray McGovern, an ex-CIA analyst and Mr. Bonifaz, attorney.  We are there because of *OIL* - Oil, Israel and Location.  We need to get out of Iraq NOW.  Bush lied to America and the world.  There were no WMD, which most of us enlightened people knew, there was no threat from a country broken down by sanctions we placed on it after the Gulf War.  Bush needs to be impeached..Just my 2 cents, folks..
why are we in Iraq?
BUSH---Bring our boys back home...they don't need to be there to get killed...and every day there are more and
more....lucky Bush had daughters...or maybe he would ha ve the boys home by now..but he got away doing things so, his daughters if they were sons...would too....
LETS START A WAR WITH BUSH
BRING OUR BOYS BACK HOME!!!!
Iraq
Gee, wasnt one of the many reasons Bush and Blair told America and England for invading a soverign country was that it would make us safer??  Doesnt the warmonger in the White House still say that??  Lying once again..It has made us less safe and has caused a few terrorists to grow to thousands around the world that hate us totally and want to destroy us.  Thanks, Bush, you screwed up again. 
Why we're really in Iraq.



Two years before 9/11, candidate Bush was already talking privately about attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer


Houston: Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.


“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”


Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father’s shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. “Suddenly, he’s at 91 percent in the polls, and he’d barely crawled out of the bunker.”


That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work – and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war – has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill. However, Herskowitz was in a unique position to hear Bush’s unguarded and unfiltered views on Iraq, war and other matters – well before he became president.


In 1999, Herskowitz struck a deal with the campaign of George W. Bush about a ghost-written autobiography, which was ultimately titled A Charge to Keep : My Journey to the White House, and he and Bush signed a contract in which the two would split the proceeds. The publisher was William Morrow. Herskowitz was given unimpeded access to Bush, and the two met approximately 20 times so Bush could share his thoughts. Herskowitz began working on the book in May, 1999, and says that within two months he had completed and submitted some 10 chapters, with a remaining 4-6 chapters still on his computer. Herskowitz was replaced as Bush’s ghostwriter after Bush’s handlers concluded that the candidate’s views and life experiences were not being cast in a sufficiently positive light.


According to Herskowitz, who has authored more than 30 books, many of them jointly written autobiographies of famous Americans in politics, sports and media (including that of Reagan adviser Michael Deaver), Bush and his advisers were sold on the idea that it was difficult for a president to accomplish an electoral agenda without the record-high approval numbers that accompany successful if modest wars.


The revelations on Bush’s attitude toward Iraq emerged recently during two taped interviews of Herskowitz, which included a discussion of a variety of matters, including his continued closeness with the Bush family, indicated by his subsequent selection to pen an authorized biography of Bush’s grandfather, written and published last year with the assistance and blessing of the Bush family.


Herskowitz also revealed the following:


-In 2003, Bush’s father indicated to him that he disagreed with his son’s invasion of Iraq.


-Bush admitted that he failed to fulfill his Vietnam-era domestic National Guard service obligation, but claimed that he had been “excused.”


-Bush revealed that after he left his Texas National Guard unit in 1972 under murky circumstances, he never piloted a plane again. That casts doubt on the carefully-choreographed moment of Bush emerging in pilot’s garb from a jet on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003 to celebrate “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq. The image, instantly telegraphed around the globe, and subsequent hazy White House statements about his capacity in the cockpit, created the impression that a heroic Bush had played a role in landing the craft.


-Bush described his own business ventures as “floundering” before campaign officials insisted on recasting them in a positive light.


Throughout the interviews for this article and in subsequent conversations, Herskowitz indicated he was conflicted over revealing information provided by a family with which he has longtime connections, and by how his candor could comport with the undefined operating principles of the as-told-to genre. Well after the interviews—in which he expressed consternation that Bush’s true views, experience and basic essence had eluded the American people —Herskowitz communicated growing concern about the consequences for himself of the publication of his remarks, and said that he had been under the impression he would not be quoted by name. However, when conversations began, it was made clear to him that the material was intended for publication and attribution. A tape recorder was present and visible at all times.


Several people who know Herskowitz well addressed his character and the veracity of his recollections. “I don’t know anybody that’s ever said a bad word about Mickey,” said Barry Silverman, a well-known Houston executive and civic figure who worked with him on another book project. An informal survey of Texas journalists turned up uniform confidence that Herskowitz’s account as contained in this article could be considered accurate.


One noted Texas journalist who spoke with Herskowitz about the book in 1999 recalls how the author mentioned to him at the time that Bush had revealed things the campaign found embarrassing and did not want in print. He requested anonymity because of the political climate in the state. “I can’t go near this,” he said.


According to Herskowitz, George W. Bush’s beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House – ascribed in part to now-vice president Dick Cheney, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee under Reagan. “Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade.”


Bush’s circle of pre-election advisers had a fixation on the political capital that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher collected from the Falklands War. Said Herskowitz: “They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at [Thatcher] and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches.”


Republicans, Herskowitz said, felt that Jimmy Carter’s political downfall could be attributed largely to his failure to wage a war. He noted that President Reagan and President Bush’s father himself had (besides the narrowly-focused Gulf War I) successfully waged limited wars against tiny opponents – Grenada and Panama – and gained politically. But there were successful small wars, and then there were quagmires, and apparently George H.W. Bush and his son did not see eye to eye.


“I know [Bush senior] would not admit this now, but he was opposed to it. I asked him if he had talked to W about invading Iraq. “He said, ‘No I haven’t, and I won’t, but Brent [Scowcroft] has.’ Brent would not have talked to him without the old man’s okaying it.” Scowcroft, national security adviser in the elder Bush’s administration, penned a highly publicized warning to George W. Bush about the perils of an invasion.


Herskowitz’s revelations are not the sole indicator of Bush’s pre-election thinking on Iraq. In December 1999, some six months after his talks with Herskowitz, Bush surprised veteran political chroniclers, including the Boston Globe’s David Nyhan, with his blunt pronouncements about Saddam at a six-way New Hampshire primary event that got little notice: “It was a gaffe-free evening for the rookie front-runner, till he was asked about Saddam’s weapons stash,” wrote Nyhan. ‘I’d take ‘em out,’ [Bush] grinned cavalierly, ‘take out the weapons of mass destruction…I’m surprised he’s still there,” said Bush of the despot who remains in power after losing the Gulf War to Bush Jr.’s father…It remains to be seen if that offhand declaration of war was just Texas talk, a sort of locker room braggadocio, or whether it was Bush’s first big clinker. ”


The notion that President Bush held unrealistic or naïve views about the consequences of war was further advanced recently by a Bush supporter, the evangelist Pat Robertson, who revealed that Bush had told him the Iraq invasion would yield no casualties. In addition, in recent days, high-ranking US military officials have complained that the White House did not provide them with adequate resources for the task at hand.


Herskowitz considers himself a friend of the Bush family, and has been a guest at the family vacation home in Kennebunkport. In the late 1960s, Herskowitz, a longtime Houston Chronicle sports columnist designated President Bush’s father, then-Congressman George HW Bush, to replace him as a guest columnist, and the two have remained close since then. (Herskowitz was suspended briefly in April without pay for reusing material from one of his own columns, about legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden.)


In 1999, when Herskowitz turned in his chapters for Charge to Keep, Bush’s staff expressed displeasure —often over Herskowitz’s use of language provided by Bush himself. In a chapter on the oil business, Herskowitz included Bush’s own words to describe the Texan’s unprofitable business ventures, writing: “the companies were floundering”. “I got a call from one of the campaign lawyers, he was kind of angry, and he said, ‘You’ve got some wrong information.’ I didn’t bother to say, ‘Well you know where it came from.’ [The lawyer] said, ‘We do not consider that the governor struggled or floundered in the oil business. We consider him a successful oilman who started up at least two new businesses.’ ”


In the end, campaign officials decided not to go with Herskowitz’s account, and, moreover, demanded everything back. “The lawyer called me and said, ‘Delete it. Shred it. Just do it.’ ”


“They took it and [communications director] Karen [Hughes] rewrote it,” he said. A campaign official arrived at his home at seven a.m. on a Monday morning and took his notes and computer files. However, Herskowitz, who is known for his memory of anecdotes from his long history in journalism and book publishing, says he is confident about his recollections.


According to Herskowitz, Bush was reluctant to discuss his time in the Texas Air National Guard – and inconsistent when he did so. Bush, he said, provided conflicting explanations of how he came to bypass a waiting list and obtain a coveted Guard slot as a domestic alternative to being sent to Vietnam. Herskowitz also said that Bush told him that after transferring from his Texas Guard unit two-thirds through his six-year military obligation to work on an Alabama political campaign, he did not attend any Alabama National Guard drills at all, because he was “excused.” This directly contradicts his public statements that he participated in obligatory training with the Alabama National Guard. Bush’s claim to have fulfilled his military duty has been subject to intense scrutiny; he has insisted in the past that he did show up for monthly drills in Alabama – though commanding officers say they never saw him, and no Guardsmen have come forward to accept substantial “rewards” for anyone who can claim to have seen Bush on base.


Herskowitz said he asked Bush if he ever flew a plane again after leaving the Texas Air National Guard in 1972 – which was two years prior to his contractual obligation to fly jets was due to expire. He said Bush told him he never flew any plane – military or civilian – again. That would contradict published accounts in which Bush talks about his days in 1973 working with inner-city children, when he claimed to have taken some of the children up in a plane.


In 2002, three years after he had been pulled off the George W. Bush biography, Herskowitz was asked by Bush’s father to write a book about the current president’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, after getting a message that the senior Bush wanted to see him. “Former President Bush just handed it to me. We were sitting there one day, and I was visiting him there in his office…He said, ‘I wish somebody would do a book about my dad.’ ”


“He said to me, ‘I know this has been a disappointing time for you, but it’s amazing how many times something good will come out of it.’ I passed it on to my agent, he jumped all over it. I asked [Bush senior], ‘Would you support it and would you give me access to the rest of family?’ He said yes.”


That book, Duty, Honor, Country: The Life and Legacy of Prescott Bush, was published in 2003 by Routledge. If anything, the book has been criticized for its over-reliance on the Bush family’s perspective and rosy interpretation of events. Herskowitz himself is considered the ultimate “as-told-to” author, lending credibility to his account of what George W. Bush told him. Herskowitz’s other books run the gamut of public figures, and include the memoirs of Reagan aide Deaver, former Texas Governor and Nixon Treasury Secretary John Connally, newsman Dan Rather, astronaut Walter Cunningham, and baseball greats Mickey Mantle and Nolan Ryan.


After Herskowitz was pulled from the Bush book project, the biographer learned that a scenario was being prepared to explain his departure. “I got a phone call from someone in the Bush campaign, confidentially, saying ‘Watch your back.’ ”


Reporters covering Bush say that when they inquired as to why Herskowitz was no longer on the project, Hughes intimated that Herskowitz had personal habits that interfered with his writing – a claim Herskowitz said is unfounded. Later, the campaign put out the word that Herskowitz had been removed for missing a deadline. Hughes subsequently finished the book herself – it received largely critical reviews for its self-serving qualities and lack of spontaneity or introspection.


So, said Herskowitz, the best material was left on the cutting room floor, including Bush’s true feelings.


“He told me that as a leader, you can never admit to a mistake,” Herskowitz said. “That was one of the keys to being a leader.”


URL: http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761


Iraq.
I wonder if any conservatives have noticed that this adminstration is not allowing "live combat" on TV, like they did when President Bush, Sr. was president and we were whipping butt.  I received horrible, horrible pictures this week, how they have to dig big holes in the sand, to protect their eyes from sand damage, not to mention being shot upon at the same time.  How could anyone come on here and flame J. Carter, a man, not the smartest, but who has built thousands of homes for needy people AT HOME and not worried about foreign policy, which his failed, but my goodness, the current president is doing no better. I have actual war pictures from my nephew, infantry in Iraq, this adminstration does not want the American people to know how brutal this war is - if they did CNN would be permitted to be in there with their cameras, and yet right wingers wave the flag and don't have a clue of the bloodshed - until it is their own and it WILL come to that.  I guarantee you, there will be a drastic change of heart when one of their's dies over there.
Iraq war
I agree, no war. But, look, has anyone really done research on the Muslims and their plan for all of us infidels? Even if we hadn't gone to war, they would still be doing their terrorist thing. Yes, there are some Muslims who are peaceful, but Muhammad was a piece of crap and so are most of the men who belong to that, ah, religion? Whatever, don't think that by not reacting they won't terrorize. That's the mistake some European countries are making. I've lived in Europe and I know what the Muslims are like firsthand. Having said that, we have plenty of our own sh*t right here in the U.S. I still kiss the ground when I return home from other countries! Believe this, there will be no more peace, only government take-over in the name of peace, and we, the people, will lose our freedom.
Iraq better off, LOL
and..we are any better in Iraq now?  We are allowing them to vote for a constitution which is controlled by religious fanatics, aligned with Iran, which takes away rights women had under Saddam..We have allowed the Taliban to come back into Afghanistan and they are now running for office..the opium trade in Afghanistan is thriving, Osama, our **real** enemy is still on the loose..sooo....what did we accomplish?  Nothing.  At least under Saddam, they had security, electricity, jobs, clean bacteria free water, knowing what the future held..the Iraqis have nothing now because of the USA..We are gonna invade and bring democracy to a foreign country..How naive..How stupid..You do not bring democracy into a country by invading it and forcing your beliefs upon it..OMG, idiotic and we are paying a severe price for it now..Frankly, I think the only ones who should be paying a price for this debacle are Bush and his administration..they ought to be tried as war criminals and tarred and feathered..then given to the relatives who lost loved ones in this immoral war and let them do what they want..
Iraq....
was stable?  I guess as long as you're not the one having your tongue ripped out, or you're not a 9-year-old boy languishing in a filthy prison, I guess it was stable.  Okay.  Saddam was  a known keg  of dynamite.   If you don't think he wouldn't  have liked to see us dead as much as any other terrorist would, you're delusional.  He did  pay money to every family who sent forth a suicide bomber in Israel.   Sounds like a terrorist to me.  Again, without using those wonderful 20/20 hindsight glasses, would you be willing to take a chance in a post 9/11 world, given the intelligence available AT THE TIME?  I wouldn't.  And, the administration never ever said that he was linked to 9/11.   That's something a huge chunk of the ingnorant in this country  think, but never heard. 
Iraq

Germany didn't attack us in World War II, either; Japan did.  Who did we go after first, though?  The evil was the same and had to be dealt with, regardless of which country attacked us.  It really boggles my mind as to why you think the people in Iraq are less deserving of being freed from the grips of a brutal tyrant than the people in Bosnia and Yugoslavia?  If you think Saddam and his epitomy-of-evil sons didn't commit atrocities, what news outlets have you been getting your information from?  You would have to be living in la-la land not to know these facts.  Our troops have uncovered thousands of dead bodies buried in mass graves since going to Iraq, victims of Saddam's cruel and outright savage regime.  As far as President Clinton and Bosnia, I supported his going to free those oppressed people from that brutal dictator they were under.  I'm a humanitarian and a patriot and don't believe in playing politics during war like you democrats do.  By the way, Clinton promised when he sent our troops to Bosnia that they would all be home by Christmas of that year, but guess what?  We still have troops there and he had several years to bring them back but didn't.  As far as our troops being deployed all over the world under Clinton, he had our troops spread so thin, and he did this himself and did not inherit the problem, that we didn't even have enough troops here at home to support us if we were attacked.  This is per the military themselves, not my report.


 The problem with you democrats is that you are being fed talking points from a group of news media outlets so biased they are about to fall over the cliff from leaning left.  You are being lied to by them, and I admonish you to get the facts, not their talking points.  Don't let them do your thinking for you.  Research and get the truth for yourself.  The media outlets you listen to have an agenda - to  make this country lose this war against terror, but mainly to make this country into a socialist nation.  This has been their agenda for years and years and you are being dumbed-down by them because of your gullibility.  For the sake of our children and grandchildren, wake up!!


By the way, there were over 100,000 terrorists prior to our going to war against them, so 17,000 is quite an achievement I would say. Do you want them living in your neighborhood, having access to the schools, shopping malls, and supermarkets in your neighborhood, because that's what you'll have if we don't win this war.


Iraq. sm
Now that the islamofascists see Iraq as their cause celebre' we can ill afford to lose there.  This is one fight we absolutely must win.  Our denizens of hatred have been here since the 60s. Their agenda has only gotten stronger and they keep it close to their hearts. Visit the campus of nearly every institution of higher learning and you will find them.  They are the ones who after 9/11 made statements, such as Ward Churchill, that the WTC was full of little Eichmanns' who deserved their death.  Or as Chomsky has said, with glee, that we are finally getting what we had coming. They will settle for no less than hopefully dozens of mushroom clouds in American cities. They have their dancing shoes on. 
Bad in Iraq...
The President has never said it was not bad in Iraq. He says it constantly. What he did say was that we had to stay the course, and by that he meant not abandon Iraq until they could handle their own security. He did not mean that nothing should change. He admits that things could have been done better....of course he does. Things could have been done better in every conflict this country has been involved in. Hindsight is always 20/20. Military advisors of both political bent had input into going into Iraq and the result of such is as much their responsibility as anyone's. And need I remind you that the President alone can't send soldiers to war...Congress has to do that, and Congress did, with the same information the President had, no matter how much the left wants to deny that. I still believe and will always believe that us being in Iraq is what has kept Al Qaeda from making worse and bigger attacks on our own soil. They are afraid that this country under this President's leadership might come into other Arab countries searching for them if they did, and what they DO NOT want is American boots on more of their soil. I believe strongly that we did the right thing. What I think that is happening now is that perhaps the President is losing some of his resolve because of political pressure. I hope that is not the case. We would be much better served if we tried to come up with a consensus as an answer....if the Democrats really cared about fixing the situation they would have put forth ideas in the years before the election other than cut and run. But that would not be politically expedient...it was to their political benefit for the situation to remain bad. And THAT, my friends, is SAD. And yes, I recognize that it has happened on both sides, and the fact that it has become more important to elect a party than to take care of this country as a whole is also SAD. That is what happens when moral decline permeates a society, when it becomes about me, me, me, or little groups of us, us, us, and power; and MUCH LESS to do with the wellbeing of the country as a whole. And that is exactly what has happened. ALL groups hold some responsibility. It used to be God, Family, Country. Now God is out, Family is out, and Country is on the way out. Heartbreaking.
We went to war with Iraq because the...
stated policy of this country was that if attacked we would go after the terrorists and the states who supported them. And Saddam was linked to 9-11, though the liberal media did manage to pretty much squash that by not reporting extensively on it. See below.

Saddam supported terrorists monetarily, he gave them refuge. He paid bounties to suicide bombers' families. Saddam provided diplomatic help to Islamic extremists, one being Abu Abbas, former secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Front. He masterminded the October 7-9, 1985 hijacking of an Italian cruise ship whose name, sadly, is now synonymous with terrorism. The Achille Lauro was on a voyage across the Mediterranean when four Palestinian terrorists seized it on the high seas. They held some 400 passengers hostage for 44 hours. At one point, they segregated the Jewish passengers on board. One of them was a 69-year-old New York retiree named Leon Klinghoffer. He happened to be confined to a wheelchair. Without mercy, Abu Abbas’ men shot Klinghoffer, then rolled him, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean. The hijackers surrendered to Egyptian authorities in exchange for safe passage to Tunisia. Abu Abbas then joined them on a flight to freedom aboard an Egypt Air jet. However, four U.S. fighter planes forced the airliner to land at a NATO base in Sicily. Italian officials took the hijackers into custody. But Abbas possessed the ultimate get-out-of-jail card: An Iraqi diplomatic passport.

How do we know this?


The source for this information is not Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. It is none other than Bettino Craxi. At that time, he was Italy’s prime minister. As Craxi explained in an October 14, 1985 UPI story: “Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport…The plane was on an official mission, considered covered by diplomatic immunity and extra-territorial status in the air and on the ground.” Seeing that this terrorist traveled as a credentialed Iraqi diplomat, the Italian authorities let Abbas flee to Yugoslavia. After political parties furiously withdrew from Craxi’s coalition, the Italian government collapsed. After escaping Italian police in October 1985 following the Achille Lauro hijacking (thanks to his Iraqi diplomatic passport), Abu Abbas finally ended up in Baghdad in 1994, where he lived comfortably as one of Saddam Hussein’s guests. U.S. soldiers caught Abbas in Iraq in April 2003.

Another is Hisham al Hussein, the former second secretary at Iraq’s embassy in Manila. The Philippine government expelled him on February 13, 2003, just five weeks before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Cell phone records indicate he had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, two leaders of Abu Sayyaf, al-Qaeda’s de facto franchise for the Philippines. The timing was particularly suspicious, as he had been in contact with the Abu Sayyaf terrorists just before and after they conducted an attack in Zamboanga City.
Abu Sayyaf’s nail-filled bomb exploded on October 2, 2002, injuring 23 individuals and killing two Filipinos and one American. That American was U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson, age 40. As Dan Murphy wrote in the February 26, 2003 Christian Science Monitor, those tell-tale cell phone records bolster the televised claim by Hamsiraji Sali, a top Abu Sayyaf terrorist, that the Iraqi diplomat had offered this group of Islamo-fascists Baghdad’s help with joint missions.

Beyond cash and diplomatic help, Saddam Hussein was the Conrad Hilton of the terrorist world. He provided a place for terrorists to kick back, relax, and reflect after killing people for a living.

Abu Nidal lived comfortably in Iraq between 1999 and August 2002. As the Associated Press reported on August 21, 2002, Nidal’s Beirut office said he entered Iraq “with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.” Prior to his relocation, he ran the eponymous Abu Nidal Organization — a Palestinian terror network behind attacks in 20 countries, at least 407 confirmed murders, and some 788 other terror-related injuries. Among other savage acts, Nidal’s group used guns and grenades to attack a ticket counter at Rome’s Leonardo da Vinci airport on December 27, 1985. Another cell in Austria simultaneously assaulted Vienna’s airport, killing 19 people. Among the five Americans that Abu Nidal murdered that day was John Buonocore III, a 20-year-old Fairleigh Dickinson College student who had studied in Rome that fall semester. Buonocore was shot in the back while checking in for his flight home. He had hoped to return to Wilmington, Delaware to help his father celebrate his 50th birthday.
The New York Times reports that Abu Nidal's Fatah Revolutionary Council murdered the following 17 Americans, at a minimum:

Americans killed in the Abu Nidal Organization's December 27, 1985 attack on Rome's airport:

*John Buonocore III, 20, of Wilmington, Delaware

*Frederick Gage of Madison, Wisconsin

*Natasha Simpson, 11, of New York

*Don Maland of New Port Richey, Florida

*Elena Tomarello, 67, of Naples, Florida

The New York Times, December 29, 1985

American executed during ANO's 1986 hijacking of a Pan Am jet at Karachi, Pakistan's airport:

*Rajesh Kumar of Huntington Beach, California

The New York Times, September 7, 1986

Americans slaughtered in ANO's September 8, 1974 bombing of a TWA jet over the Ionian Sea en route from Israel to Greece, killing all 88 aboard:

*Eitan Bard of Tuckahoe, New York

*Seldon Bard of Tuckahoe, New York

*Ralph H. Bosh of Madison, Connecticut

*Jon L. Cheshire of Old Lyme, Connecticut

*Jeremiah Hadley of Poughkeepsie, New York

*Katherine Hadley Michel of Poughkeepsie, New York

*Frederick Hare of Bernardsville, New Jersey

*Margaret Hare of Bernardsville, New Jersey

*Don H. Holliday of Mahwah, New Jersey

*Dr. Frederick Stohlman of Newton, Massachusetts

*Mrs. Frederick Stohlman of Newton, Massachusetts

The New York Times, September 10, 1974

If there is any justice here, perhaps it is the fact that Abu Nidal died in August 2002. Saddam Hussein’s government claimed that he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head — four times.

So far, we have documented that Saddam Hussein harbored terrorists (many with al-Qaeda links) responsible for international mayhem and even the incidental deaths of Americans. But is there any evidence that Iraq sheltered those responsible for attacks on America?

Enter Abdul Rahman Yasin. This Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared terrorist remains wanted by the FBI for his role in the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center attack. President Bill Clinton's Justice Department indicted Yasin for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded in the parking garage beneath the Twin Towers, killing six and injuring 1,042 people in New York. Soon after the smoke cleared, Yasin returned to Iraq. Coalition forces have discovered documents that show he enjoyed housing and a monthly government salary.
Former ABC News correspondent Sheila MacVicar looked for Yasin, and here is what she reported on July 27, 1994: “Last week, [television program] Day One confirmed [Yasin] is in Baghdad…Just a few days ago, he was seen at [his father’s] house by ABC News. Neighbors told us Yasin comes and goes freely.” Since Iraq was liberated, Yasin remains at large.


Medical Treatment for Terrorists

Saddam Hussein’s general store for terrorists included medical care, too.

Abu Musab al Zarqawi. After running an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, he found his way to Baathist Baghdad, where he reportedly checked into Olympic Hospital, an elite facility run by the late Uday Hussein, son of the captured tyrant. Zarqawi is believed to have received medical treatment for a leg injury sustained while dodging American GIs who toppled the Taliban. He convalesced in Baghdad for some two months. Once he was back on his foot, Zarqawi then opened an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi is thought to be behind the October 28, 2002 assassination of Lawrence Foley. Foley was a U.S. diplomat in Amman, Jordan who worked on international development projects. For that transgression, he was gunned down and killed in his driveway at home.

According to dissidents, journalists who have visited, and even United Nations weapons inspectors, Saddam Hussein appears to have offered training to terrorists, in addition to funding, diplomatic help, safe haven and medical care.

The Associated Press reports that Coalition forces shut down at least three terrorist training camps in Iraq. The most notorious of these was the base at Salman Pak, about 15 miles southeast of Baghdad. Before the war, numerous Iraqi defectors said the camp featured a passenger jet on which terrorists sharpened their air piracy skills. This satellite photo shows an urban assault training site, a three-car train for railway-attack instruction, and a commercial airliner sitting all by itself in the middle of the desert.

Sabah Khodada, a former Iraqi army captain who once worked at Salman Pak. On October 14, 2001, Khodada granted an interview to PBS television program “Frontline,” stating, “This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world.”

He added: “Training includes hijacking and kidnapping of airplanes, trains, public buses, and planting explosives in cities ... how to prepare for suicidal operations.”

He continued: “We saw people getting trained to hijack airplanes...They are even trained how to use utensils for food, like forks and knives provided in the plane.”

Does that sound familiar?

A map of the camp that Khodada drew from memory for “Frontline” closely matches satellite photos of Salman Pak, further bolstering his credibility.

General Vincent Brooks, who briefed reporters throughout the initial phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom, had his own observations about Saddam Hussein's terrorist pedagogy. Speaking at an April 6, 2003 press conference, General Brooks said: “The nature of the work being done by some of those people that we captured, their inferences to the type of training that they received, all of these things give us the impression that there was terrorist training that was conducted at Salman Pak.”

An al-Qaeda Link?

So does all of this, or anything else, suggest a tie between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda? Some evidence is interesting but far from solid, such as this image that appeared on the front page of the March 27, 2003 New York Post showing U.S. troops at an Iraqi military base in Nasariyah. They encountered a mural that seems to celebrate the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Al-Qaeda link? Recall that Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the al-Qaeda bombers who hit the World Trade Center in 1993, fled to Iraq after that attack and lived there freely, reportedly with a government salary. That’s one clear link to al-Qaeda.


Then there is the interesting case of Ahmad Hikmat Shakir — an Iraqi VIP facilitator who worked at the international airport in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Citing a foreign government service, page 340 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on pre-Iraq-War intelligence indicates that, Shakir claimed he got this job through Ra'ad al-Mudaris, an Iraqi Embassy employee in Malaysia. On January 5, 2000, Shakir greeted Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi at Kuala Lampur’s airport. He then escorted them to a local hotel where these September 11 hijackers met with 9/11 conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash. Five days later, according to The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared.
Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi subsequently spent the morning of September 11, 2001 flying American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 184 people.

Shakir, the Iraqi airport greeter, was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001. On his person and in his apartment, authorities discovered documents connecting him to the 1993 WTC bomb plot and “Operation Bojinka,” al-Qaeda’s 1995 plan to blow up 12 jets simultaneously over the Pacific. Interestingly enough, as a May 27, 2004 Wall Street Journal editorial reported, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir's name appears on three different rosters of the late Uday Hussein's prestigious paramilitary group, the Saddam Fedayeen. A government source told the Journal that the papers identify Shakir as a lieutenant colonel in the Saddam Fedayeen.

Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani was Consul and Second Secretary at Iraq's Czech embassy between March 1999 and April 22, 2001. He long has been suspected of meeting with September 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta, most likely on April 8, 2001. Perhaps at other times, too. While skeptics dismiss this encounter, Czech intelligence found Al-Ani's appointment calendar in Iraq's Prague embassy, presumably after Saddam Hussein's defeat. Al-Ani's diary lists an April 8, 2001, meeting with Hamburg student. Maybe, in a massive coincidence, Al-Ani dined with a young scholar and chatted about Hegel and Nietzsche. Or perhaps Al-Ani saw a former student from Hamburg named Mohamed Atta to discuss more practical matters. The Czech government sticks to their contention that they did observe this Iraqi diplomat meeting with Mohamed Atta just five months before 9-11. As Czech U.N. Ambassador Hynek Kmonicek explained in a letter to Philadelphia attorney James Beasley, Jr.: “In this moment we can confirm, that during the next stay of Mr. Muhammad Atta in the Czech Republic, there was the contact with the official of the Iraqi intelligence, Mr. Al Ani, Ahmed Khalin Ibrahim Samir, who was on 22nd April 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities which were not compatible with the diplomatic status.” Al-Ani was kicked out of Prague for casing the headquarters of Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Iraq, presumably because he wanted to blow them up. Of course, we know what happened next. Mohamed Atta and his henchmen went to airports on the East Coast. Within just three hours, he and the other pilots were in the air, about to reshape history. He and his evil colleagues turned this lovely vista of America's premier city into a towering inferno. They stole 2,749 innocent souls from the American family and decapitated the most powerful skyline man ever built.

Would This Hold Up in Court?

So would any or all of these ties between Iraq and terrorism or Iraq and al-Qaeda, in particular, withstand judicial scrutiny? That’s the question the families of two of those murdered at the World Trade Center wondered. The survivors of George Eric Smith, a 38-year-old senior business analyst with SunGard Asset Management Systems and the family of Timothy Soulas, age 35, a foreign currency specialist with Cantor Fitzgerald, sued Baathist Iraq and the Taliban for damages connected to the murders of their loved ones.

The federal trial judge was Harold Baer, Jr. a Clinton appointee. He took testimony from Clinton-designated CIA director James Woolsey and American Enterprise Institute scholar Laurie Mylroie, an adviser to the 1992 Clinton campaign. Baer learned about the Salman Pak camp, and considered other evidence of Saddam Hussein’s ties to al-Qaeda. To be fair, Baer did not hear Hussein’s side, as the Iraqi dictator did not respond to the suit. Nevertheless, Baer issued his decision.

As the May 8, 2003 New York Post and other news outlets reported, Baer ruled that Saddam Hussein’s government was complicit in the September 11 attacks and that the Baathist government owed the plaintiffs a judgment of $104 million.

As Baer stated on May 7, 2003:

“I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, ‘by evidence satisfactory to the court’ that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda.” This lead to the following headline from the CBS: “Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked.” Thus, there is abundant and undeniable evidence that Saddam Hussein provided money, diplomatic services, shelter, medical care, and training to terrorists of every stripe, including those complicit in the 1993 WTC bombing and — according to a Clinton-appointed federal judge — the September 11 attacks. The Iraqi dictator aided al-Qaeda and other global terrorists who murdered Americans, both at home and abroad.

Saddam Hussein was a living threat to American national security and the safety of the civilized world.































well then I should say pro war in Iraq...sm
Excuse me for pointing out that some folks are pro - war, and let me rephrase that to pro - military action in Iraq (which happened to lead to war).

This is an old pic I have seen floating around, and I don't agree with it. Just become some liberals writers have come out on record hating the troops, doesn't mean a hill of beans to me. Matter of fact, conservative media, writers, etc who repost it ad nauseum are just as guilty of bringing down the morale of the troops IMHO.
9-11 and Iraq---
are related. When I see video footage of Mohamed Atta meeting with one of Hussein's generals in the weeks before the attack, I don't write that off as a coincidence. WHen they found that 747 in the desert in Iraq, fully equipped, I don't think it was there a a tourist attraction. I rather think it was there to train hijackers. But if some want to ignore that, let them. It is definitely their right. I just don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that Hussein definitely had ties, and most likely money, in the 9-11 attack. And I also believe that Bush believed that, his advisors believed that, and that Congress believed that (liberals and conservatives alike) because they voted to go to war. Bush did not do it by himself. Of course, now that elections are upon us, the liberals are backpedaling 100 mph just like they did before...I voted for it before I voted against it...oh I just authorized use of force, didn't mean he had to USE it, yada yada. Please. I am so tired of the buck passing.

My head is not in the sand...my posts have demonstrated that. I believe the reason to go in was a good one. I believe the response of the Iraqi people was overestimated. If they had held onto the feeling they had when they were dancing in the streets and pulling down Hussein's likenesses all over Baghdad, it would have been a different story. If Iran had not bankrolled terrorists and intervened...if, if, if. No one knows how a war is going to go. However, one thing I do know...we have not been attacked on our own soil since we went into Iraq. I do NOT think that would have been the case had we not gone in. I still stand by the idea that it set Al Qaeda back on its heels. They did not expect that. They expected a Bill Clinton-like response in Somalia. We would just whimper and lick our wounds and wait for the next hit. Perhaps you do not worry about buses, trains, malls being bombed. Perhaps you think we are isolated and that will never happen here. Perhaps you still think Iraq has nothing to do with all that.

And no, love won't cure terrorism. Fighting will not cure it, but it will certainly deter it. Would you rather terrorists kill our soldiers in the streets of New York? Los Angeles? Dubuque Iowa? Tulsa Oklahoma? Would it be easier for you to take if they were dying here at the hands of terrorists? Would you be willing to fight then? Just wondering.
Maybe he should go to Iraq and

get hit with shoes, too. That might wake him up. LOL


I agree that he is arrogant and I've never seen this in my lifetime. It sets a new precedence [sic] (I'm tired) for this to happen every election. What I really like about him is the way he "wiggles" when he takes questions and you can see him just trying to find the correct words to fit the question without answering it.


Only time will tell...and for you bashers, this is my opinion. I am going to "sort of" give him a try but the first itsy bitsy mistake he makes, I'll be all over it with glee.


The war in Iraq has nothing to do with
The Bush administration's disastrous foreign policy and national security decisions post-9/11 lost us more allies and more consitutional rights than we gained in retribution.
Iraq...(sm)
Over the last 5 days over 160 people in Iraq have been killed in bombings.  However, in 5 days (by the 30th) US troops are supposed to pull back and stay on US bases unless asked for help by the Iraqi forces.  This is in accordance with the legislation/agreement that Bush signed before he left office.  I just hope the Iraqis can handle it and we can go forward with the plan to get out of there.
Iraq And Bush

I would like to call him "The Hitler of the 21st Century". Any comments?


Of interest, Iraq and oil

"The invasion of Iraq plays a crucial role in the agenda of the neoconservatives. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world.  It could replace, in case of need, other producers such as Saudi Arabia, a fragile ally of the United States. The control of oil production and prices gives the United States potential power to pressure consumer states such as Russia, China, and many in Western Europe."


This is by the former French ambassador to Tunisia, now a journalist.  I guess I hadn't realized that Iraq was that oil-rich.


Iraq war..what did it accomplish
Im no Saddam lover, neither do I love Bush, however, seems to me under Saddam, the people had jobs, electricity to help with fans under the 125+ heat, food, a stable way of life, fresh water, security in the streets. It has been said under this new regimen women have less freedom and rights and under the regimen that will be voted in, they will have even less rights.  Who has killed more Saddam or Bush?  We should have NEVER invaded Iraq, I cannot believe the destruction and death we have caused over NOTHING.  Bush, Cheney, et al..need to be brought up on war criminal charges..As of today, only 38% of American people think the war in Iraq was justified..
Iraq Veterans Against The War

t r u t h o u t | Iraq Veterans Against the War
08.15.05
QuickTime
DSL | 56K
Windows Media
DSL | 56K
RealMedia
DSL | 56K

Some of them are in Iraq. And some of them have died. sm

The issue of illegal immigration has been around way long than Bush's term in office.  While I do agree it is an even bigger problem with terrorism looming, this was something that should have been addressed long long ago.


Thought you said you were going to Iraq.


 


iraq is a quagmire
There is no doubt Saddam was a tyrant and feared but the people had jobs, electricity, clean water, security and safety in the streets..Sure you had to adhere to Saddam's ideas and frame work for his country but if you did adhere to that, you were living an okay life..We have not given them what we said we would..They now with this new constitution will be worse off than before we invaded..It is linked to Iran, takes away womens rights, alienates parts of their society..and right now there is no security in the streets, electricity for a few hours a week, water they bathe and drink is water in the streets..We should never have invaded a country to try to impose our beliefs on them..you cant do that..changes have to come from within a country..and then once we invaded, we had no real idea how to establish everything our govt said it was going to..Iraq is a lost cause..My heart breaks, an ancient country that we have destroyed..If we stay, more lives, both ours and theirs, will be lost, if we leave a civil war will erupt..there is just no good decision on Iraq.
Well gee, let's see...do we believe there were WMDs in Iraq?
Do we believe Bush was actually elected by the American public in 2000 or 2004? Do we believe terrorists lurk in every street here in America? Do we believe our troops have been given the best equipment with which to do their jobs? Do we believe Repubs want to fix Social Security? Do we believe Jeff Gannon was an accredited reporter?

Well, looks like you're going to have to find another explanation for yourself - we're obviously not believing everything we hear and apparently aren't half as gullible as you.
She said she had been to Iraq and would re-enlist if necessary
She never said she was going back right now.  There's the distortion
Invading Iraq
I think we should have never invaded Iraq in the first place.  Nevermind boots on the ground or shock and awe.
In Iraq, what you do is best kept secret...sm
This is rather lengthy, but paints a picture of Iraq from an Iraqi point of view. This just goes to show there are two sides to every story. Listening to the government and Fox News reporters you would think the good guy was in control in Iraq. According to this article, it would appear the insurgents hold a greater power over the people :(

World News

In Iraq, what you do is best kept secret
Sunnis pose as Shiites, rich people pose as poor, and no one says where they work. Telling the truth could bring a death sentence.

Sunday, July 02, 2006
By Megan K. Stack, Los Angeles Times

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- You don't want to draw attention, so you keep a battered car even if you can afford a fancier model. You don't wash it; better to let dust smear the windows. Night falls, curfew clamps down, and all those dirty old cars wend their way back to the homes of the capital. The eyes of neighbors slide after them.

Where are the drivers coming from? Some work for the government. Some fight with insurgents or death squads. Some are employed by Americans. No one asks, and no one tells; nobody knows who's who.

Bloodshed has turned Iraq into a country defined by disguise and bluff. Violence in the streets has begun to defy logic, and this is part of the fallout: A lively city where people used to butt gleefully into one another's business has degenerated into a labyrinth of disguises, a place where neighbors brush silently past one another like dancers in a macabre costume ball.

Everything is hidden among Iraqis; people are very suspicious of one another, said 66-year-old Hayawi Mahdi Abaasi, a successful lawyer who says he won't repair his tumble-down house or replace his 1982 Toyota for fear the wrong people would notice.

Why should I call the attention of terrorists to me? I try to be very common like everyone else, he said.

Rich people hide their jewelry and dig frayed clothes from the back of their closets to evade ransom-seeking kidnappers. Muslims claim to be Sunni or Shiite, depending on circumstance. Christians pose as Muslims. Lying about employment is de rigueur. Street police wrap their faces in masks so nobody will recognize them.

Everybody, it seems, is pretending to be somebody else, adopting a fake identity in the terrified hope of staying safe. Baghdad residents reason that no matter who you are, you're probably on somebody's hit list.

It's not a matter of lying or not lying, said Ali Abdullah. It's a matter of life or death.

Mr. Abdullah is a 31-year-old Sunni with dark skin, a strapping build and a bushy strip of mustache. Like most people in Baghdad, he is a man of secrets.

He was trained as an engineer in Saddam Hussein's Iraq but now works for an American nonprofit organization. His life has been threatened and his wife begs him to quit, but he says he can't -- the money is too good, and they have a 3-year-old son to think about.

Abdullah takes a taxi to work so his car won't be recognized. He uses different streets each time and changes his telephone number every few months.

He splurged on a $100 Swatch watch in neighboring Jordan, but now he's afraid to wear it in public. When people ask about his job, he lies and says he owns a computer shop.

Rule No. 1, he says: Never, under any circumstance, intimate to the neighbors on his predominantly Sunni street that he's sold out to the foreigners.

This is a killer, if my neighbors find out where I work, he said. This is the first thing that must be maintained, that my neighbors can't know what I do.

For Mr. Abdullah and his family, that has meant isolation. He shrinks from possible conversations, taking care not to linger in his doorway, make eye contact or trade small talk. When he caught sight of an old college friend across a crowded restaurant recently, he turned on his heels and rushed away to avoid conversation.

When they talk about the loss of intimacy, many Iraqis are mournful. Like members of most Middle Eastern societies, Iraqis have traditionally prized warmth and valued social interchange over what Westerners might regard as personal privacy. In the old Iraq, it was better to err on the side of nosiness than to appear cold or distant. It was perfectly normal to grill strangers on their marital status and the price of their possessions.

Little by little, that warmth has been bled away by war. Tension pulls on the city now. The atmosphere is thick with intrigue; it feels film noir, cloak-and-dagger. Except it is real -- and deadly.

Behavior has changed from rational behavior into instinctive, animalistic behavior, said Ehsan Mohammed Hassan, one of Iraq's leading sociologists and a professor at Baghdad University. The individual is not safe from the others. He has to hide. He doesn't want people to see him because he thinks the people are evil.

Amid the fear and loathing, a long-standing tribal tradition has disappeared. Etiquette used to require men to ask one another about their jobs; it was a way of showing concern for a friend's livelihood and to demonstrate willingness to help a man if he had fallen on hard times.

These days, though, to ask about jobs is impolite -- perhaps even dangerous. Instead, men find themselves throwing out other questions: How are you? What are you doing here?

A lot of people are killed for no reason. So what do you think they'll do if you work for the Americans? Mr. Abdullah asked. That's it. You're a traitor.

Working for the Iraqi government is no better -- everybody from university professors to national athletes to traffic police has been slaughtered by insurgents determined to bludgeon civic and social life to a standstill.

Iraq may be the only country in the world where militia members and anti-government insurgents walk the streets with bare faces while government workers, soldiers and cops cower behind masks.

I wear a mask because I don't want people to know I'm working for the police, a 34-year-old officer named Ahmed Ali said on a recent afternoon. It was lunch hour, and he and some of his colleagues had driven across Baghdad through the 110-degree heat to gobble down lamb kebabs in a neighborhood where they knew fewer people.

The men are stationed in the volatile Dora area, south of downtown and one of Baghdad's bloodiest sectarian battlefields. Clad in matching blue button-downs and navy trousers, their pistols holstered on their waists, they admitted they didn't dare bring their badges or uniforms home, not even to launder them.

They described slipping from the house in civilian clothes, creeping into the station and changing hurriedly into their uniforms.

Amid the fear, some profit. The document forger, for one.

Assad Kheldoun, a 29-year-old who operates out of the religiously mixed neighborhood of Shaab, grinds out fake identity cards for about $30 apiece. Exactly like the original, he boasts. But with one difference: A false name.

He's not selling to hustlers or mischief makers. Most of his clients are bus drivers, highway workers or car repairmen -- people forced to make their livings in Iraq's mean streets.

Last names are sectarian giveaways in Iraq, often deriving from tribes commonly known to be either Sunni or Shiite. Jaabour or Dulaimi, for instance, mean Sunni to Iraqis; so does the first name Omar.

People are getting killed because of their names, Kheldoun said. In the past few months, everybody is asking for a false identity card. It's a phenomenon now. The people are scared.
Then I'm glad you know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

and that they had no WMDs. 


She most be talking about the *other* Iraq...nm
(wink)
Bush: It's bad in Iraq....sm (no you think?)
Is democratic house and senate control what Bush needed to wise up about Iraq. I'm glad to see he's considering other options in Iraq, than policing the country indefinitely.
-----------------------------------------
(AP) President Bush, admitting that it's bad in Iraq, acknowledged Thursday that the United States needs a new approach in the unpopular war and promised to unveil details in an upcoming speech.

Bush said he was disappointed in the progress in Iraq, but continued to oppose direct U.S. talks with Iran or Syria and remained steadfastly committed to spreading democracy across the Middle East.

see link for full article
Same thing in Iraq...sm
So why in the world are we over there, and who are we helping???

Our next enemy???
Question regarding Iraq

Does anyone know exactly why the US went to war with Iraq?


The initial reason given was because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but there was no proof nor even evidence to suggest that. The UN would not authorize war with Iraq due to lack of any evidence of WMD.


When no WMD were found, it seemed as if the reasoning for the war in Iraq kept changing, from to fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here to to plant the flag of democracy  Iraq was not involved in 9/11 and Iraq was not a country known to harbor terrorists under Hussain.  The bringing of democracy to Iraq part equally baffles me, because to the best of my knowledge Iraq never had a democracy nor desired/desires a democracy, as is the case with most countries in the Middle East.


Why exactly did the US go to war with Iraq? Does anyone know?


 


What are these people going to do for fun when the Iraq war is over....
I know. Sit on their porches and talk about how they were peace activists back in the day. Nevermind that soldiers throughout our history have died so that they have the right to be..I'm sorry...stupid, tactless, thoughtless, and mean. I guess my patience is worn out. I know it is their right, I just wish they used better judgment in the exercising. SIGH.
Also, do you acknowledge that the Iraq
Does that even matter to you?  Do you acknowledge that so many other goverment programs are wasting our tax dollars?  Maybe some of that money could be redirected to help with healthcare.  You just assume that I want you to be taxed to death, but obviously I don't want that.  You are putting words in my mouth.  The cigarette tax would fund the program, and if that doesn't cover the entire program, you know very well that we could get money to go to it.  Have you gone broke due to the US spending $333 million a day in Iraq?  No, then why do you assume that you will go broke if they spend $19 million a day in S-CHIP.  You're not thinking logically, and I cannot argue with a person without sound judgement.  It's pointless.  I'm sick of it, and I would like to get some opinions from fellow Democrats on an issue without you scaring them away and trying to take over the Liberal board.
Iraq's Catch 22

Came across this earlier ~ My sentiments from another's pen.  Found on the Independent's web site.


Catch 22 in Iraq
Why American Troops Can’t Go Home


by Michael Schwartz


Every week or so, the Department of Defense conducts a video-conference press briefing for reporters in Washington, featuring an on-the-ground officer in Iraq. On November 15th, that briefing was with Col. Jeffrey Bannister, commander of the Second Brigade of the Second Infantry Division. He was chosen because of his unit’s successful application of surge tactics in three mainly Shia districts in eastern Baghdad. He had, among other things, set up several outposts in these districts offering a 24-hour American military presence; he had also made generous use of transportable concrete walls meant to separate and partition neighborhoods, and had established numerous checkpoints to prevent unauthorized entry or exit from these communities.


As Col. Bannister summed up the situation:



“We have been effective, and we’ve seen violence significantly reduced as our Iraqi security forces have taken a larger role in all aspects of operations, and we are starting to see harmony between Sunni and Shi’a alike.”


The briefing seemed uneventful — very much a reflection of the ongoing mood of the moment among American commanders in Iraq — and received no significant media coverage. However, there was news lurking in an answer Col. Bannister gave to a question from AP reporter Pauline Jelinek (about arming volunteer local citizens to patrol their neighborhoods), even if it passed unnoticed. The colonel made a remarkable reference to an unexplained “five-year plan” that, he indicated, was guiding his actions. Here was his answer in full:



“I mean, right now we’re focused just on security augmentation [by the volunteers] and growing them to be Iraqi police because that is where the gap is that we’re trying to help fill capacity for in the Iraqi security forces. The army and the national police, I mean, they’re fine. The Iraqi police is — you know, the five-year plan has — you know, it’s doubling in size. … [We expect to have] 4,000 Iraqi police on our side over the five-year plan.


“So that’s kind of what we’re doing. We’re helping on security now, growing them into IP [Iraqi police]…. They’ll have 650 slots that I fill in March, and over the five-year period we’ll grow up to another 2,500 or 3,500.


Most astonishing in his comments is the least astonishing word in our language: “the.” Colonel Bannister refers repeatedly to “the five-year plan,” assuming his audience understands that there is indeed a master plan for his unit — and for the American occupation — mandating a slow, many-year buildup of neighborhood-protection forces into full fledged police units. This, in turn, is all part of an even larger plan for the conduct of the occupation.


Included in this implicit understanding is the further assumption that Col. Bannister’s unit, or some future replacement unit, will be occupying these areas of eastern Baghdad for that five-year period until that 4,000 man police force is finally fully developed.


Staying the Course, Any Course


A recent Washington Post political cartoon by Tom Toles captured the irony and tragedy of this “five-year plan.” A big sign on the White House lawn has the message “We can’t leave Iraq because it’s going…” and a workman is adjusting a dial from “Badly” to “Well.”


This cartoon raises the relevant question: If things are “going well” in Iraq, then why aren’t American troops being withdrawn? This is a point raised persuasively by Robert Dreyfuss in a recent Tomdispatch post in which he argues that the decline in three major forms of violence (car bombs, death-squad executions, and roadside IEDs) should be the occasion for a reduction, and then withdrawal, of the American military presence. But, as Dreyfuss notes, the Bush administration has no intention of organizing such a withdrawal; nor, it seems, does the Democratic Party leadership — as indicated by their refusal to withhold funding for the war, and by the promises of the leading presidential candidates to maintain significant levels of American troops in Iraq, at least through any first term in office.


The question that emerges is why stay this course? If violence has been reduced by more than 50%, why not begin to withdraw significant numbers of troops in preparation for a complete withdrawal? The answer can be stated simply: A reduction in the violence does not mean that things are “going well,” only that they are going “less badly.”


You can tell things can’t be going well if your best-case plan is for an armed occupation force to remain in a major Baghdad community for the next five years. It means that the underlying causes of disorder are not being addressed. You can tell things are not going well if five more years are needed to train and activate a local police force, when police training takes about six months. (Consider this an indication that the recruits exhibit loyalties and goals that run contrary to those of the American military.) You can tell things are not going well when communities have to be surrounded by cement walls and checkpoints that naturally disrupt normal life, including work, school, and daily shopping. These are all signs that escalating discontent and protest may require new suppressive actions in the not-so-distant future.


The American military is well aware of this. They keep reminding us that the present decline in violence may be temporary, nothing more than a brief window of opportunity that could be used to resolve some of the “political problems” facing Iraq before the violence can be reinvigorated. The current surge — even “the five year plan” — is not designed to solve Iraq’s problems, just to hold down the violence while others, in theory, act.


What Does the Bush Administration Want in Iraq?


What are the political problems that require resolution? The typical mainstream media version of these problems makes them out to be uniquely Iraqi in nature. They stem — so the story goes — from deeply engrained friction among Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, frustrating all efforts to resolve matters like the distribution of political power and oil revenues. In this version, the Americans are (usually inept) mediators in Iraqi disputes and are fated to remain in Iraq only because the Bush administration has little choice but to establish relatively peaceful and equitable solutions to these disputes before seriously considering leaving.


By now, however, most of us realize that there is much more to the American purpose in Iraq than a commitment to an elected government in Baghdad that could peacefully resolve sectarian tensions. The rhetoric of the Bush administration and its chief democratic opponents (most notably Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama) is increasingly laced with references — to quote Clinton — to “vital national security interests” in the Middle East that will require a continuing “military as well as political mission.” In Iraq, leading Washington politicians of both parties agree on the necessity of establishing a friendly government that will welcome the presence of a “residual” American military force, oppose Iran’s regional aspirations, and prevent the country from becoming “a petri dish for insurgents.”


Let’s be clear about those “vital national security interests.” America’s vital interests in the Middle East derive from the region’s status as the world’s principle source of oil. President Jimmy Carter enunciated exactly this principle back in 1980 when he promulgated the Carter Doctrine, stating that the U.S. was willing to use “any means necessary, including military force,” to maintain access to supplies of Middle Eastern oil sufficient to keep the global economy running smoothly. All subsequent presidents have reiterated, amplified, and acted on this principle.


The Bush administration, in applying the Carter Doctrine, was faced with the need to access increasing amounts of Middle Eastern oil in light of constantly escalating world energy consumption. In 2001, Vice-President Cheney’s Energy Task Force responded to this challenge by designating Iraq as the linchpin in a general plan to double Middle Eastern oil production in the following years. It was reasonable, task force members decided, to hope for a genuine spurt in production in Iraq, whose oil industry had remained essentially stagnant (or worse) from 1980 to that moment. By ousting the backward-looking regime of Saddam Hussein and transferring the further development, production, and distribution of Iraq’s bounteous oil reserves to multinational oil companies, they would assure the introduction of modern methods of production, ample investment capital, and an aggressive urge to increase output. Indeed, after removing Saddam via invasion in 2003, the Bush administration has made repeated (if so far unsuccessful) efforts to implement this plan.


The desire for such an endpoint has hardly disappeared. It became increasingly clear, however, that successful implementation of such plans would, at best, take many years, and that the maintenance of a powerful American political and military presence within Iraq was a necessary prerequisite to everything else. Since sustaining such a presence was itself a major problem, however, it also became clear that America’s plans depended on dislodging powerful forces entrenched in all levels of Iraqi society — from public opinion to elected leaders to the insurgency itself.


American ambitions — far more than sectarian tensions — constitute the irresolvable core of Iraq’s political problems. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis oppose the occupation. They wish the Americans gone and a regime in place in Baghdad that is not an American ally. (This is true whether you are considering the Shiite majority or the Sunni minority.) As for a “residual” American military presence, the Iraqi Parliament recently passed a resolution demanding that the UN mandate for a U.S. occupation be rescinded.


Even the issue of terrorism is controversial. The American propensity to label as “terrorist” all violent opposition to the occupation means that most Iraqis (57% in August 2007), when asked, support terrorism as defined by the occupiers, since majorities in both the Sunni and Shia communities endorse using violent means to expel the Americans. Hillary Clinton’s ambition that the U.S. must prevent Iraq from becoming a “petri dish for insurgency” (like the President’s stated fear that the country could become the center of an al-Qaedan “caliphate”) will require the forcible suppression of most resistance to the American presence.


As for opposition to Iran, 60% of Iraqi citizens are Shiites, who have strong historic, religious, and economic ties to Iran, and who favor friendly relations with their neighbor. Even Prime Minister Maliki — the Bush administration’s staunchest ally — has repeatedly strengthened political, economic, and even military ties with Iran, causing numerous confrontations with American diplomats and military officials. As long as the Shia dominate national politics, they will oppose the American demand that Iraq support the United States campaign to isolate and control Iran. If the U.S. insists on an ally in its anti-Iran campaign, it must find a way in the next few years to alter these loyalties, as well as Sunni loyalties to the insurgency.


Finally there is that unresolved question of developing Iraqi oil reserves. For four years, Iraqis of all sectarian and political persuasions have (successfully) resisted American attempts to activate the plan first developed by Cheney’s Energy Task Force. They have wielded sabotage of pipelines, strikes by oil workers, and parliamentary maneuvering, among other acts. The vast majority of the population — including a large minority of Kurds and both the Sunni and Shia insurgencies — believes that Iraqi oil should be tightly controlled by the government and therefore support every effort — including in many cases violent resistance — to prevent the activation of any American plan to transfer control of significant aspects of the Iraqi energy industry to foreign companies. Implementation of the U.S. oil proposal therefore will require the long-term suppression of violent and non-violent local resistance, as well as strenuous maneuvering at all levels of government.


Foreigners (Americans Excepted) Not Welcome


This multidimensional opposition to American goals cannot be defeated simply by diplomatic maneuvering or negotiations between Washington and the still largely powerless government inside Baghdad’s Green Zone. The Bush administration has repeatedly gained the support of Prime Minister Maliki and his cabinet for one or another of its crucial goals — most recently for the public announcement that the two governments had agreed that the U.S. would maintain a “long-term troop presence” inside Iraq. Such an embrace is never enough, since the opposition operates at so many levels, and ultimately reaches deep into local communities, where violent and nonviolent resistance results in the sabotage of oil production, attacks on the government for its support of the U.S. presence, and direct attacks on American troops.


Nor can the pursuit of these goals be transferred — any time soon — to an American-trained Iraqi army and police force. All previous attempts at such a transfer have yielded Iraqi units that were reluctant to fight for U.S. goals and could not be trusted unsupervised in the field. The “five year plan” Colonel Bannister mentioned is an acknowledgement that training an Iraqi force that truly supports an American presence and would actively enforce American inspired policies is a distant hope. It would depend on the transformation of Iraqi political attitudes as well as of civic and government institutions that currently resist U.S. demands. It would involve a genuine, successful pacification of the country. In this context, a decline in the fighting and violence in Iraq, both against the Americans and between embittered Iraqi communities, is indeed only a first step.


So surge “success” doesn’t mean withdrawal — yes, some troops will come home slowly — but the rest will have to embed themselves in Iraqi communities for the long haul. This situation was summarized well by Captain Jon Brooks, the commander of Joint Security Station Thrasher in Western Baghdad, one of the small outposts that represent the front lines of the surge strategy. When asked by New Yorker reporter Jon Lee Anderson how long he thought the U.S. would remain in Iraq, he replied, “I’m not just blowing smoke up your ass, but it really depends on what the U.S. civilian-controlled government decides its goals are and what it tells the military to do.”


As long as that government is determined to install a friendly, anti-Iranian regime in Baghdad, one that is hostile to “foreigners,” including all jihadists, but welcomes an ongoing American military presence as well as multinational development of Iraqi oil, the American armed forces aren’t going anywhere, not for a long, long time; and no relative lull in the fighting — temporary or not — will change that reality. This is the Catch-22 of Bush administration policy in Iraq. The worse things go, the more our military is needed; the better they go, the more our military is needed.


Iraq war fund

Iraq War Funding Imminent, Timeline Absent



After months of ranting and raving, congressional Democrats have backed down and approved funding for the war in Iraq without a troop withdrawal provision.



2nd Democratic lawmakers and staffers privately say they’re closing in on a broad budget deal that would give President Bush as much as $70 billion in new war funding.


The deal would lack a key provision Democrats had attached to previous funding bills calling for most U.S. troops to come home from Iraq by the end of 2008, which would be a significant legislative victory for Bush.


Democrats admit such a move would be highly controversial within their own party. Coming just weeks after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, vowed the White House would not get another dollar in war money this year, it would further antagonize the liberal base of the party, which has become frustrated with the congressional leadership’s failure to push back on Bush’s Iraq policy.


“The base will not be happy,” said one senior Democratic aide, who requested anonymity to candidly discuss budget negotiations that have not been completed.


The Democratic aide acknowledged the president is likely to get new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before Congress adjourns for the year. “Yes, in the end, that’s where we will be,” the aide said.


The bizarre thing is that everybody knew that months ago. Of course the president was going to “win” on this issue. No Congress is going to pull funds from an army currently in harm’s way. That Pelosi and company allowed this to be framed as a partisan issue was amazingly incompetent.




Who is profiting from the Iraq War
http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/world/10228597.html
I was referring to the war in Iraq being
a waste. The man who was behind our 09/11 massacre is still at large. We should have put more time, resources in money going after him. Not going after Iraq, but then they had all that great oil. Again, Afghanistan is one thing, Iraq another. Bush and his admin. mislead and lied to everybody saying that Iraq had anything to do with 09/11. So, now we have pumped billions of dollars into an Iraq war when it should have put into getting the man/people would attacked us. So yes, the fact that it is Afghanistan does make the difference IMO.

I shudder to think of all the things the Republicans have done in the 6 years that they had majority that we don't even know about yet. It does not excuse this current fiasco though and as I stated earlier, no I do not overlook what hand the Dems had it in either.
My husband is in Iraq right now.
He says that there are many in Iraq who do want us there. They have been an opressed people and we have fought for their rights. The media does not air such things, but keep in mind that the people we are fighting are insurgents--not the majority. While I am sure that they do not like living in a war torn country, we are doing good things over there. We have built schools and given food to the needy--a cause I would expect the democrats to support. While you might not agree with the reasons we are there, lets not deny that good things are coming from it. I, too, want my husband home safe, but am a little offended that someone would call what he is risking his life for "pointless." I respectfully disagree.
Has everyone forgotten what went on in Iraq
Ethnic cleansing and the mass murders. While not on the same scale as Hitler, Hussein was a mass murderer. What we are doing over there is good.
Where did you see him say they would be in Iraq for 5 more years? nm
x
My husband is in Iraq and...
he e-mails me every day on---wait for it---guess what? The INTERNET. My first-hand knowledge is that he does have access to mainstream media and the internet and really doesn't have a lot to do otherwise, so he has remained very informed. Perhaps it is not this way for everyone, but you assume a lot when you assume that you know more about the war than all of the people participating in it.
I was screaming when W. went into Iraq.
Wasteful was what it was, along with many other things W. did - so much so that I didn't vote for him the second time around. But it doesn't excuse what the O is doing - I get we need to invest in the future, but end the pork already! If you're going to spend money to make things better, make sure it actually makes things better instead of just waste more money!
i always thought going into iraq was wrong!
from the get go.  no surprise to me at all what is happening.  we were hit, but the big question is still why?  why not get bin laden, why go into iraq?  made no sense to me then, and really makes no sense now.  all we did was put our boys in harm way and murdered innocent people.  for what?!  there has got to be more to this story than just oil, money, power, and i suspect we will never know the truth. 
Soldier's voicemail from Iraq
Hey all, just have a second today but I've been listening to the voicemails and reading the letters from a NG soldier in Iraq and I thought anyone who's interested might like to do the same - this is from a website a friend of the soldier has set up. For some reason it's just really grabbed me. I pray every day for this guy and his unit.

If you like you can listen to his voicemails (one of which was in response to Rove's speech the other day):
**************************
Two more voicemails from Leonard
Bloged in Voicemail by leonard Saturday June 25, 2005

Today, 6/26/05, at 3:30am PST, Leonard left these two recordings. Note his comments on Karl Rove’s latest comments regarding “liberals” aiding “terrorists.” This is a “liberal” that is proud to be one, and he is strapping on armor every day to defend an occupation that was based off a lie. This is one “liberal” taking bullets for this administration.

Click here for the first voicemail today.

Click here for the second voicemail today.
***************************
I'm sure the links won't work here but I post the particular date and note so you can find the messages directly on the website:

http://leonardclark.com/blog/

If you have some time give a listen to what he has to say! I have other friends and family in Iraq myself, but they are not allowed to say much in letters and E-mails and assume that all of it is being read and censored (they don't really mind this, in some cases it is understandable) - but Leonard calls directly and doesn't know how much longer they'll let him do so before they hush him up. IMHO, worth listening to him.

Again happy 4th to all.
One of the reasons shrub said we are in Iraq..
is to fight the terrorists on "their turf so we don't have to fight them here."  Hmmmmmm.....