I wasn't the one who said panties in a wad READ YOUR POSTS duh nm
Posted By: Mrs. M on 2009-01-21
In Reply to: like "panties in a wad" - is classy
it was a rabid republican
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
I wasn't talking about your posts tonight, gt, and you know it. sm
Your old posts are still on this board. Like the poster who asked if you were strapped to the White House gate, I found your posts out of control and over the line. Laugh all you want.
I didn't say I wasn't going to read it, gt. sm
Try and get some rest, honey. Obviously you are just not thinking clearly right now. Come back when you are thinking right. Buh-bye
I wasn't going to even read this tripe, but I did.....
So, it was okay for the uber-liberal left-wing media to elect Obama? No matter what the conservatives said, they were just shot down. They were called idiots and that Obama's plan was just too complicated for them to understand, blah, blah, blah....Every time the non-kool-aid drinkers tried to bring up something, the liberal, main stream media talking heads shot them down. I don't consider Matt Lauer, Katie Couric, or anybody from the View a reputable source for my information.
And don't even get me started on the plants in the audience, yes, including Joe the plumber as well as that well-fed and well dressed homeless lady and her son living in their truck. She just "happened" to be in the front row?
Ok, flame away as I have broad shoulders. I know, I know, I should not have read this tripe, but I did. So give it your best shots.
always read the posts
I assure you, I read every post and the ones that I respond to, I have read at least two or three times. I will restate, I would love for my tax dollars to go for stem cell research but not for unnecessary immoral illegal wars.
Would you PLEASE read my posts BEFORE...
you start sermonizing?
You said:
I think that you have made a crucial error in believing that WWII and Vietnam are at all similar. WWII and the US Civil War were also very different wars. There are even major differences between Iraq and Vietnam and the Korean War although some historians would also find greater similarities in these three wars. You may rewrite the history of wars as well as US history to fit your agenda of political hatred, but you will never be able to present a convincing argument if you have completely questionable sources and facts to back it up.
If you will please read my post, I was alluding to the differences in the mindset of 18-year-olds at the time of the draft in the 60's and at the time of the draft in the 40's. It was an opinion, one I believe is justified in looking at the correlation between mindset of young people then and of young people now. When morals decay, and the character weakens. That is my opinion and frankly I don't care whether you share it or not. I was NOT comparing the two wars. try reading it AGAIN before lecturing me.
You negate most historical records, which I admit often have some aspects of questionable validity, and you seem to re-create a fictionalized account to accommodate your rather far-out-there belief system based in hatred of the left.
Please explain what in my post led you to say that...that I fictionalized something for my rather far-out-there belief. And again, how many times do I have to say it...I have no hatred for the left. A lot of sympathy, but no hatred.
You rearrange and fictionalize facts and history to make your point. You provide spurious sources for your facts (I could probably find sources that prove that the earth is populated by aliens from Mars if I looked hard enough).
What the heck are you talking about? Spurious sources? Did I post any sources? I was answering a question and then giving an opinion. I rearrange facts and fictionalize? What did I fictionalize?
I also notice on the conservative board constant condemnation of liberals, leftists as a whole.
No, not leftists as a whole. I based my opinion of leftists who speak out and speak *for the left*, the poster children of the left, on these boards, blogs, in print, on TV, etc. I form my opinion of the left on what I hear coming out of their mouths, mostly, and here from their fingers as it were. That is plenty. The rest is icing.
We are characterized as stupid, immoral, crazy, unpatriotic, love the terrorists, cowards, angry, on and on.
Well, to me abortion IS immoral. To me cloning embryos just to kill them IS immoral. To me oppressing people with social programs instead of helping them grow into productive citizens is immoral. If that is you, then I think you are immoral.
I never called anyone crazy. So far you are the only one I have ever seen call anyone mentally ill....when you compared me to your mother.
I believe patriotism is supporting the military when they are engaged in a war. If you do not do that, then I believe you are unpatriotic. You will notice I said I believe. I did not say all Republicans believe, all conservatives believe....I, myself, believe.
I never said you or anyone else loves the terrorists. I said when you get out and protest against the war and carry nasty signs about the commander in chief when we are engaged in a war you are aiding the enemy. I, me, myself, speaking only for ME, believe that you are. I did not say you love them, and if you cannot figure out how they would use that video as propaganda....not my fault. I still have my opinion. You, if you are carrying those signs or support those who do carry those signs, are aiding the enemy. It should not be done in war time when we have soldiers fighting. Again, MY opinion.
Cowards....well, to me it is cowardly to call yourself a *peace* movement and be unwilling to take that movement to the real enemies of peace....you know, the ones who have been attacking us for years now, with the big hit on 9-11. The people who are really interested in snuffing you, and I mean literally. The people who are really interested in making this a Muslim nation. Those people. Talk to THEM about peace. Because if you change THEIR minds, your problem is over, sis.
Angry...yes, I believe you as an individual are angry. The left as a whole...sure, I believe they are angry. They act angry. They talk angry. They can't even get along among themselves (kind of like radical Muslims seem to be) ---and before you go there, I am not comparing the left to radical Muslims...just the fact that they cannot get along in their own ranks. The Republicans seem to be having the same problem, though not to as large a degree....yet.
You are condemning at least 50 percent of the citizens of this country with those adjectives.
I am not *condemning* anyone. You escalate each post with needless inflammatory rhetoric. I am merely stating an opinion. And yes, when I see that some 41% of Democrats are not sure they want the surge of troops to succeed, 51% say right up front they DONT want the surge of troops to succeed, and the rest are undecided, my opinion of those folks is not very high, and yes I think they are unpatriotic. If you can say bold faced that you do not want your troops to succeed in battle .... yep, that is about as UNpatriotic as you can get...my opinion, my own, me, myself.
Doesn't seem at all patriotic to me.
Of course not. I would not expect that it would.
Your group also points out nuts (like those who would spit on veterans) as representing the liberal mindset.
*Your group.* There you go, doing the same thing you accuse me of...demonizing an entire group.
I realize I am not going to be able to convince you of the great disservice you do to yourself with a narrow and naive mindset like that.
Oh here comes the compassionate I know so much more than you do let me lead you along speech. I swear it must be in some leftist handout because I have heard those same words from others. And I mean the EXACT same words. Your mindset is not only narrow, it consists of the opinions of others. Leftists seem to be incapable of forming an individual opinion and instead repeat what I have read in a million articles, full of buzz words, yada yada. Do you know what you yourself honestly believe as an individual? In your own words?
I know many Republicans and with the exception of possibly one, none are as condemning and narrow-minded as the posts I see on your board.
You are paranoid. I do not see any condemning. All I see is rebuttal with opinions that differ from yours. Thank Heavens for that!
While I have participated in bashing and see bashing on the liberal board, it rarely occurs in a generalized fashion toward all right-wingers.
That is true. You have participated in bashing. You are, in my opinion, the worst offender. But again...MY opinion. Oh come onnnnn.....*your group,* *you guys*...gimme a break. You are into the group bashing as much as anyone. The reason I refer to *the left* as a group is because you all say the same things. Nearly the exact same things. If I could find any individuals, it would be different. I can't.
As I said, that would be a very naive assumption and the root of bigotry and prejudice and ultimately hatred is in the grouping of all peoples as being of one mindset.....
I would not group you all together if you were not all saying exactly the same things? And I am so glad that you are so all-knowing that you have laid down the edict that the root of all bigotry and prejudice and ultimately hatred is the grouping of all peoples as being of one mindset....geez, which article did THAT come from? But, you know, you might try flying that one at Bin Laden. See if it will bring HIM around, because he has kinda put the West into one big group he HATES.
Lurker is the only one that I can honestly say does not fall into direct lockstep.
think of Muslims, blacks in the south pre-Civil Rights, Native Americans in the 1800s (and even now).
So easy to ridicule and oppress when we don't see folks as individuals. Actually the comments I see made about the liberal mindset are so far removed from the reality of most liberals in the United States it verges on the ridiculous, well no, it doesn't verge on the ridiculous, it IS ridiculous.
Okay....let me see. You said so easy to ridicule and oppress when we don't see folks as individuals. Well, if you were all saying something different perhaps that would be easier to find those individuals. Then you say *the comments I see about the liberal mindset*....hmmm...that does not sound individual to me at all. How, dear Teddy, do you expect us to know the *reality of most liberals* when all we hear, see, read, are saying almost exactly the same thing?
Well, I feel so privileged that you took my simple little post as a stepping stone to rant. Please do not get me started on which board is the worst on bashing. I have seen comments on both sides, but the liberal board has been far more virulent and tasteless (I feel like I have been defecated upon, sit your butt in your chair). I have seen far worse than that. The reason we do not see that now is that they probably have been banned. And so should they be. On EITHER board. There is no need for belitting and name calling, and you are a master at it. Your lecturing, condescending, holier-than-thou attitude wears real thin. We all read it, we all recognize it, including other liberal posters who do not want to join in on your name-calling, condescending manner. If you are so smart, and you have it all right, why don't you take it somewhere it will do some good? Take the antiwar rhetoric, all the noble ideas about we are all the same, and it is wrong to group everybody together because that is where hate comes from, yada yada. Why not take that message to the real enemy? Quit preaching and sermonizing to conservatives and talk to your real enemies, the terrorists. Except...oh...how silly of me. You don't view them as a threat. Or, more truthfully I am sure...you like your head where it is on your shoulders.
As far as your further condemnation of Democrats as far as blacks and their allegiances, I believe most informed political science folks would be the first to admit that the party doctrines have evolved over time. What probably counts most is the current party belief system. Just some common sense.
*Party doctrine evolve over time.* Now that is funny. The only reason it evolved is because Republicans forced it to evolve. Check the votes on civil rights legislation as close as the 60's, Teddy. Democrats voted AGAINST, in great numbers. Had it not been for the Republicans outvoting them, no civil rights legislation would have passed. The filibustered it for days. All that has evolved is now Democrats choose to enslave in a different way....through social programs that do not encourage people to do any better and stay tethered to the government for their existence. Whenever you have 3 generations of a family on welfare, something is VERY wrong with that system. Again, Teddy....pay attention now...that is my OPINION.
Rebuttal to sermon ended.
Have you read your own posts?
Not a very highly evolved sense of tolerance...OR justice.
If you have read any of my other posts
you will see that I think the blame should go all around. This isn't just dems versus reps. They are both to blame for this. I am just sick and tired of turning on the news and hearing nothing but ridicule of McCain when Obama had his whole hand in the cookie jar.
Even if McCain was for deregulation....he still stood up and said something about this before it got to this point. That should account for something.
you can read the posts below
on my belief about that. I cannot speak for others.
I read all the posts
Do not call me foolish. That's just rude.
If you would have read my other posts
you would know that I included pubs in my criticism as well. I personally think both parties should be spending their own money and not relying on lobbyists money for the spa retreat, as the pubs did, and not using taxpayer money, like the dems did. I couldn't care less if this was planned since last years retreat. Doesn't mean they couldn't foot the bill themselves or cancel it.
Here I am sitting at home hoping and praying that my job as an MT isn't shipped over to India leaving me jobless. I'm hoping and praying that my husband's dealership can survive this even though sales keep dropping. My husband and I have paid our bills. We have an incredibly high credit score. We have worked for what we have. We don't live off of the government. Yet we are scared sh!tless and hurting because banks were made to give risky loans to people who couldn't pay for them. We are being forced to pay for irresponsible people and you know when it is all said and done....you know who will benefit from this......the same scum that couldn't afford those loans and ran up credit cards. They will benefit because the government will bail THEM OUT. You think they are going to help me and my husband........HECK NO! They will take everything we have worked for.
So I guess you can say I'm a tad bit bitter about government as a whole. I think both parties need to be scrutinized but since the dems are currently running the show wouldn't it just make sense that criticism would be more focused on them because they hold the power right now. I don't agree with the far left and I don't agree with the far right either. I think there are nut cases on both sides.
I am just sick and tired of lazy people who were irresponsible keep getting help while the harding working people who are suffering get absolutely nothing. Giving assistance and money to these lazy people is like giving alcohol to an alcoholic going through withdrawal. Yes, it will stop the tremors and the alcoholic will be content but he will need more alcohol or he will start to shake again. Once you keep giving these scum money....you have to keep giving it. This is what I don't understand about government. Sometimes helping people isn't helping.....it is enabling them to mooch and continue to be lazy.
We are all suffering because of irresponsible people and government enabling them to get risky loans, BTW, thank ole Billy boy for that one.
Just don't read these posts if you don't want to
Her mother wasn't an entertainer...she is a politician! Hence, Politics Board topic.
One just has to read a few of his posts to see
You are right!
Having read your posts, if you were near me
bus, it would probably be on purpose just to get away from you.
I'm sure you think you **know** for a fact everything that your religion has taught you. My opinion is that religion is based on faith, though, not fact. That's why it's called faith. Just because my religious beliefs may not exactly match yours doesn't mean that mine are right or yours are wrong. They're just different.
My faith is very personal to me, and I would never try to force my beliefs on someone else by claiming I **know** the truth when what I believe is based on faith and not fact. On the other hand, I resent people who tell me I'm going to hell unless I convert and adhere to their specific religion because they hold the exclusive keys to heaven. I find that kind of behavior to be obnoxious, intrusive and insulting.
Read the posts below about the subject
President Bush has thrown more money at poverty than Clinton, and I do not dispute the fact that Clinton went a long way in reducing poverty. Workfare is one of the best programs to come along in a long time, and one thing Clinton did right, however, it needs to be to be expanded.
Poverty is not solely a lack of financial means for many people (not everyone), but poverty in this country seems to stem from moral poverty in many cases.
I read some of your posts last night.
Don't know if I read them all, but I did read the one where you asked the person to go to the conservative board if they had anything to say about you. Of course, we all know how that person would have been ganged up on by you and your friends if he/she would have done so.
I have also read posts by you and your friends on the conservative board that are dedicated to bashing liberal posters on this board, sometimes using their initials, sometimes referring to them by their posts and sometimes coming right out with their monikers. They are all usually cleverly hidden in the text of the message and not in the subject line.
You certainly do this and have done it long before the person posting here last night did.
Don't you find it hypocritical to post on this board, complaining because someone did the same thing you routinely do? Nobody came back on the conservative board to challenge you when you did it. Instead, they just ignored your posts, respected your freedom of speech and left you alone.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. :-(
Do you even read the posts you reply to?
If so, are you sure you comprehend them? You said, "I, personally, don't think it's the government's job to provide you a job you will love be it a manufacturing job or a higher level professional one." No one said anything about the government providing you with a job. She was talking about keeping a job you already have. A job that you may well love and want to do until the day you retire.
We worry about immigrants coming into our country and taking our jobs, and everyone in the government seems at least slightly concerned about this, yet the government has no problem off-shoring countless American jobs to other countries. Gee, what's wrong with that picture? It seems that our middle class is slipping into lower class, and the rich keep getting richer. Each man for himself seems to be the American way as of late, and some of us, many of us liberals, want to change that mentality. We need to look out for our working class.
Obviously you do not read my posts for content.
I said pull out the military. How does that translate to pulling out all together? Abandonment was never uttered.
Where is it written that the US military is the only one who can provide protection?
I bet that if it were proposed to the UN and some of our friends in the nether regions of the intention to pull the military out of Iraq to concentrate on the rebuild, we would probably get more protective support than we are getting now.
I don't believe it would be painful to the Iraqi people to have running water, clean food, and less bomb attacks do you?
Read all the posts here and then come back..
and say the left doesn't hate. If you are open-minded enough.
No, go back and read your posts to me. You did a lot more than...sm
post one little link to an article.
Please have some common decency to allow me my opinion, without calling me names, and thus squashing my opinion down like a bug.
If you had read my previous posts
you would know I have a problem with Wright. The others are just propaganda and I don't pay much attention to propaganda.
It's easy...all you have to do is read the posts.
The only difference between the hate crimes in Los Angeles and the posts on the Politics and Faith forums is a can of spray paint. Using a keyboard to spew hate and intolerance is just as disgusting.
I guess you did not read your own posts --
In this second posting, you will see that it sends you to the USA.gov website, which has a link to the office of hte president elect...
also, in your first link (in the first posting), it clearly states: "It is an office -- it's just a quasi-government office for planning the takeover of the government," said Stephen J. Wayne, a professor at Georgetown University's department of government."
It also states that President Bush had his transition team in place a whole month before the election was even over. Obama is doing nothing wrong trying to get ready to hit the ground running. With the way things are in our country right now, we don't need somebody waiting until the last minute to get ready to assume his role.
Ok, read my posts again and researched some more
You are correct, my first post did say this is a transition period. It also said there is no such thing as an "Office of President Elect", and technically he is not yet the president elect. That doesn't happen until the second Wednesday in December after the electoral college votes. So it is still not official that he will be president. We will find out the 2nd Wednesday in December. All this stuff Barack is putting up is props to make him look "official". This is all to feed his ego. Of course I understand that when people are elected they need to start choosing people for their cabinet, etc. Every president has done that, but that is not what is raising everyone's eyebrows. This "Office of President-Elect" was something that was created by the O. Bush did not have an "Office of President Elect" in 2000.
Upon further research I found that Obama created this and it is a new branch of government. Makes me wonder how someone who is not even president-elect yet can create a new branch of government. It states in the article, "the site has a .gov top-level domain (change.gov). That is reserved for "qualified government organizations and programs. The incoming administration technically has no status as a government organization or program until January 20." Here is the link for that.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/president_elect_obama_has_already_created_a_new_branch_of_government/
Here are some other people's comments about this...
Obama’s arrogance is exceeded only by his inexperience and naivete.
"With the economy falling faster than a meteor from space, I can’t wait until he falls flat on his face. Would serve him right."
"On the 4th-we were all given a feces sandwich-open your big mouths wide and take a big bite like everyone else will have to (assuming you’re even from this country).
"Maybe by the time you learn what made this country great you’ll make better choices on future election days. It wasn’t socialism and hand outs from the federal government that made this the country that people literally die trying to get into.
"The egomaniacs are the ones for whom BHO’s election was the highlight of your lives. How sad is that? Most of us won’t fall apart just because the candidate of our choice lost. But this guy is really weird, these aren’t easy times and McCain would have had the best interests of America at heart, not socialist ideology that never has worked anywhere without capitalism to prop it up"
Here's another interesting article. It states If the Constitution is flawed (Obama's words), then how could Obama take office and defend it. And also how could the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court offer the oath to a president elect Obama, knowing his view of the constitution.
http://theamericansentinel.com/2008/10/28/if-constitution-flawed-then-how-can-obama-take-office-and-defend-it/
And yet another commenter said...
"Perhaps the media needs to create a new acronym for President elect Obama. My suggestion is: PeOTUS! His signage should read: From the Office of His Oneness President elect Obama."
You better scroll and read the posts.....sm
nm
I read the above posts. I also watch
so I am used to alarmist posturing with no basis in fact. In case you didn't notice, the OP mentions numerous conservative talking, or should I say in this case, screaming points, and I simply wondered which one CNN reported on.
Frankly, I would hope the first responders would be on hand if I were anywhere that that the OP and people that share her hysterical paranoia congregate. Get a bunch of LIV-type, irrational people whipped into a frenzy of anger and fear and you have a whole passel of extremists just waiting to cause damage.
Actually, I am trying not to talk about politics at all if you read my posts. sm
I am trying to get away from the partisanship and discuss the history of what is happening in the Middle East.
Teddy...dear....please read your own posts...
You were bashing ME by saying that talking to me was like trying to talk to your mother who had a personality disorder...thereby also bashing your mother. Again...YOU said it, YOU brought it up. I did not say anything about mental illness or any disease...this is a politics board...why do you find it necessary to make personal attacks and use your mother's mental illness as a vehicle to do so? The post is there for all to see, and they can read. Let each reader decide who was bashing who and who used whose mother to do so. They can also see who among is the most miserable. Don't you have a pink hat and boa you could be wearing and a meeting you could be attending?
Have a good evening.
And have you read the Republican/right-wing posts?
save it - I do not read your posts anymore
I can tell you I have made a decision based on this board of who I will be voting for...
So don't read my "hateful" posts and you won't be so tired.
x
I read their posts with a little bit of humor and a whole lot of sympathy.
Humor because of the ridiculousness of it all, and sympathy because of the ridiculousness of it all!! 
Read older posts. If I'm confused, so are many others here who
know you change your moniker at will, Dutchess.
You have such a better-than-you attitude, I can't stand to read your posts anymore.
And you call yoruself a Christian, PREACHING to the rest of us how we should live our lives! You are the worst kind of Christian, SO judgmental.
Oh, I laughed at the first 10,000 "tin foil hat" posts I read.
Then it got to be sort of, what's the word I want - morose? No. Moose? No. Masonry? No. Oh yeah, now I got it - MORONIC.
Classy post, panties in a wad? That's all you have? sm
loser
Aww, boy wonder's sheeple get their panties in a wad when he is criticized...
&&
You, my dear are the worst offender, it is apparent from your posts all you read are the tabloids.
Nm
And I think you have to read all of my posts, I am responding to arrogant inflammatory remarks, whic
Substantiation, no real substance, and yet these people are CHOOSING to start devisive threads with divisive remarks on this board, even making statements that historically are 100% inaccurate. Yes, I pray for unity, compassion, wisdom, etc., but the rabid Republicans on this board (and I do not mean all Rep., just a few loud ones), want to harshy judge and condemnn the new administration without giving things a chance, what would you call that? What about the "hit and run" posts by right wingers who continue to stir the pot with incorrect, slanted, and inflammatory remarks here? Fair is fair, I try to back up each statement I make with historical facts, I try to see both points of view (wow, I have actually agreed with Republicans on certain subjects!), but this board is not about me, or you, it is about all of us trying to hash out all the many struggles this nation now has, and with restraint, intelligence, and care look at each problem and try to help fix it. America comes first. Period.
Cute bra and bikini panties...we vote by mail! nm
//
McCain wasn't desperate and wasn't behind in the polls
In fact, they have been neck and and neck, and McCain has been gaining in the polls while Obama has been slipping. McCain could have taken the easy way and kept the stable course and picked safer, sure. Instead, he picked a maverick leader like himself, who isn't afraid to get in there and make changes even if it goes against their own party. I believe he wanted to say that the Republicans are the party for change, and wanted to make a bold statement. I've seen statements at "other sites" as well where people are absolutely joyous at this pick.
Posts were removed due to the nastiness. Play nice and posts won't get deleted.
I saw the posts for myself, no one "ran" to me. Note that all boards were reviewed for inappropriate posts.
She also posts regularly here. Who are you to say where she posts? nm
//
This looks interesting. A long read, so will read it when I get home from work. nm
nm
Obviously u didnt read, I said NONE of them are moral. Read the post before spouting off.
I read on CNN (yes, I do read liberal stuff too..hehe)...sm
...that Karl Rove was actually very disappointed in the McCain campaign for airing negative type ads against Obama.
So I would say that Rove is definitely not in the hip pocket of the McCain campaign.
Good research sam - but a lot to read right now so gotta read it later
I've been goofing off too much from work. I appreciate what you wrote and will read when I'm done with work here.
I know about this, it wasn't what I was asking for. SM
I was asking for a credible story that showed Laura Bush was drunk when the accident occurred, as gt stated above. I am aware of this story.
No, actually I wasn't. nm
That's wasn't me.
x
It wasn't a lie. sm
Saddam's son-in-law, who defected, said that the WMD were moved to Syria. Several of Saddam's officers said the same. This is an article I saved from some time ago. Some interesting information. I do not doubt for a moment that there were WMD. He used them on his own people. I am not sure how anyone can deny that he had them knowing that he killed thousands of Kurds with biological weapons.
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Ryan Mauro, who spoke at the recent 2006 International Intelligence Summit on Iraq. He is the 19-year old author of Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq and founder of WorldThreats.com. He was originally hired at age 16 as a geopolitical analyst for Tactical Defense Concepts. He is also a volunteer analyst and researcher for the Northeast Intelligence Network and the Reform Party of Syria and believed to be the youngest hired geopolitical analyst in the country.
Glazov: Mr. Mauro, nice to have you here again.
Mauro: Thank you. It's always great working with you.
Glazov: The recent Intelligence Summit released 12 hours of audiotapes of Saddam Hussein and his key officials discussing their WMD programs from the mid-1990s onwards. What do you make of the significance of these tapes? How do they square with your claim in your book that Russia helped move Iraqi WMD into Syria?
Mauro: The tapes are extremely significant in that they prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that as of the year 2000, Saddam Hussein had a secret plasma program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, or special bombs as he calls them. The Duelfer Report previously concluded that this type of enrichment program ended in the 1980s, but here we have Saddam and his top advisors discussing using a power plant in the area of Basra for the program. The scientists involved in the program are not known to the UN, leaving Western intelligence clueless.
On the tapes, you hear Saddam discussing the assistance of Russia and Brazil in dealing with the United Nations. He laughs off inspections, as his son-in-law who later defects, Hussein Kamil, reports how as late as 1995 their chemical and biological programs were being hidden from the world. They also discuss keeping the ingredients for these weapons separate, so that should they be found, they will be looked at as innocent dual-use items. They were not destroyed in 1991 as the Duelfer Report concludes. There are even indications on the tapes that Iraq may have had a role in the 2001 anthrax attacks.
My book was the first to make the claim that Russia was involved in moving Iraq's WMDs to Syria. After all the nay saying and criticizing I received for it, testimony at the Summit confirmed that this was true.
Glazov: What exactly is the evidence that Iraq moved its WMD into Syria?
Mauro: It has been confirmed across the board that 18-wheelers were seen going into Syria before the war, crossing the border soon after Iraqi intelligence replaced the border guards and cleared nearby areas for their passage. There are also eyewitness reports of the trucks going into Syria, and eyewitness reports of their burial in Lebanon.
The trucks with the weapons were tracked to three locations in Syria and Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, currently controlled by the Syrians, Iranians and Hezbollah. Sources I've spoken with that have seen satellite photos of the movements confirm that the WMD in Syria are at military bases, while the ones in Lebanon are buried. A fourth site in Syria, the al-Safir WMD and missile site, should also be looked at. From spring to summer 2002, there was a lot of construction here involving the expansion of underground complexes.
We have tremendous testimony as well, by General Georges Sada, the former second-in-command of Saddam's Air Force that 56 flights took place on converted Iraqi Airways planes in the summer of 2002 to transport weapons, along with a ground shipment. He claims to know the pilots involved. A second Iraqi general, Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, in an interview I published, confirmed in detail the movement of WMD into Syria saying that discussion on such a move went back to the 1980s. He claims his sources for this include Iraqi scientists and others in the regime that were very close to him even after he defected. He confirmed to me that Russian vehicles, including ones equipped to handle hazardous materials, were used. Reports of WMD being moved out of Iraq to Syria go back to 1997, and it is believed by many that weapons were moved in and out of Iraq using Syria routinely since the mid-1990s.
The Italian media also reported that their intelligence services had information indicating that in January and February of 2003, Iraqi CDs full of formulas and research work along with tubes of anthrax and botulinum toxin were sent off to Syria. By the end of February, Iraqi WMD expertise was already in Syria including a top nuclear physicist.
An Iraqi scientist also led Coalition forces to hidden stockpiles of precursor chemicals that could be used to make chemical and biological weapons. The scientist said some facilities and weapons were destroyed, and the rest were sent to Syria. Syrian defectors are also claiming that Syria is where the weapons are, along with Representative Curt Weldon's source in his new book. The Prime Minister of Albania even stated that based on information he has which is not available to the media, he cannot rule out such a transfer.
There is also a report that an Iraqi medium-range al-Hussein missile on a truck moved into Syria, and in the early stages of the war, was spotted briefly coming into Iraq, operating its radar overnight, and returning to Syria. Most reports about the transfer indicate missiles were included in the transfers.
Glazov: Why do you think Russia was involved?
Mauro: In my book, “Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq,” I detail Russian involvement in Iraq’s WMD programs and intelligence services. Inspectors have described the Russians employed on UN inspection teams as being very paranoid, with some even suspecting the Russians helped the Iraqis thwart inspections. I believe that as more documents are translated we will find this to be true.
My immediate suspicions that the Russians were involved in cleansing operations began back in early 2003, after I learned about how two Soviet generals had arrived in Iraq and been awarded with medals. Igor Maltsev, known as a leading expert in air-defense, and Vladislav Achalov, an expert in rapid-reaction forces, were accompanied by Yevgeny Primakov, a long-time friend of Saddam Hussein from his days as the head of the Soviet foreign intelligence service and later, prime minister. This occurred as I simultaneously received the first reports of WMD going to Syria, leading me to speculate on such a connection. I became convinced when Ion Mihai Pacepa, the former chief of Communist Romania’s intelligence service, and highest ranking Communist intelligence officer to ever defect, wrote about a plan the Soviet Union had entitled “Sarindar,” or “Operation Emergency Exit.”
The plan was drawn up after the Soviet Union decided to use its rogue state allies, specifically Libya and Iraq, to sponsor terrorism. The Soviets would help them make WMD in return, believing that would prevent Western retaliation. The head of the KGB, Yuri Andropov, told Pacepa that Russian advisors ran these countries intelligence services. Primakov was the central figure in dealing with Iraq, Pacepa said, and pointed to his presence in Iraq in the months before the war.
“Sarindar” was drawn up first for Libya, and then expanded to include Iraq, with the aim of stripping the rogue state of evidence of WMD activity and especially Russian involvement in illegal programs. The operation also “would frustrate the West by not giving them anything they could make propaganda with,” said Pacepa. The plan went so far as to involve an offensive propaganda campaign aimed at discrediting politicians making the accusations against Russia’s allies.
From that, I became convinced. Then later on, John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for defense for international technology, reported to the media that Russian Spetsnaz units moved Iraqi WMD into Syria and Lebanon. He said that U.S. intelligence knew the names of the units involved. The Washington Times had other Pentagon officials report that Russian Special Forces helped Iraq perform counter-intelligence operations to thwart the West from knowing what was going on.
We must also consider the huge Russian involvement in the Oil-For-Food Scandal. So Russia’s relationship with Iraq was beneficial for them on multiple levels, including financially.
Glazov: Do we have the details of the Russian involvement?
Mauro: At the Intelligence Summit, Shaw revealed even more detail I was unaware of. Shaw discussed how two Russian ships left the Umm Qasr port in the months before the war and went to the Indian Ocean, carrying materials that he believes included WMD from southern Iraq. He also said his contacts told him of barrels containing hazardous materials being moved to a hospital basement in Beirut, Lebanon.
Shaw discussed that Achalov and Maltsev had visited Baghdad at least twenty times in the previous six years. The final planning meeting before their last trip to Baghdad took place in Baku and was chaired by the Russian Minister of Emergency Situations.
Shaw said that much of the information came from a source close to the head of Ukraine’s intelligence service, who was thankful to the United States for securing the country’s independence from the Soviet Union.
Glazov: What has been the intelligence community's reaction to the allegation of Russian involvement?
Mauro: Shaw said that often this information was dismissed as Israeli disinformation. Although I’m sure it happened to him on a much larger scale, I can confirm this happened. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve brought this up with experts in the field who dismissed it as Israeli garbage, or a fantasy of “Russophobes” and conspiracy theorists. “The Cold War is over” was said to me on several occasions, bringing the debate to a close. I can only hope that deep inside the community they know about all this and are acting upon it in a secretive way.
Glazov: So if all this evidence is credible, why wouldn't the Bush Administration take advantage of this information?
Mauro: There are multiple ideas out there. I tend to believe that the foreign policy implications of these revelations explain the Administration’s silence. The politicians don’t want to feel obliged to take strong action against Syria, and certainly don’t want to offend Russia. On several issues, Russian cooperation is a great asset if it can be achieved. There’s a debate as to whether Russia ever really helps us. Every country we seem to have problems with has close ties to Russia. It’s likely part of their strategic plan to counter American dominance. Yes, they’re pressuring Iran through negotiations, but Russia is closely tied to the Iranian regime, so one must ask in light of these revelations, is Russia simply “cooperating” as part of a game to buy time for her allies? Or does Russia genuinely want Iran to end its nuclear program?
Glazov: Why do you think Duelfer missed all this?
Mauro: In my speech, I said that Duelfer’s conclusion that Iraq disarmed in 1991 as based on:
A) The failure to find WMD stockpiles. This is easily explained by their movement to Syria. I should also mention that there are Pentagon reports and testimony of several people that point to numerous problems in how the ISG operated and was put together, thus hampering the search.
B) The lack of documentation on the programs after 1991. Yet, in the same report, Duelfer says that much of the widespread looting was a cover for Iraqi intelligence to destroy documentation and loot weapons sites. Even the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission told the Security Council in the summer of 2004 that satellite imagery showed the Iraqis dismantling suspected weapons sites before, during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom began. Destroyed material and metal was then shipped throughout Europe and the Middle East at a rate of 1,000 tons of metal per month. Dismantled missiles and related components, they said, had already been discovered in several countries—some with UN inspection tags still on them.
It is also likely documents were moved outside of Iraq. The Russian ambassador to Baghdad, Vladimir Titorenko, got together a convoy carrying Russian staff from the embassy and headed to Syria, and suddenly got fired upon by American forces. Titorenko and his three closest intelligence officers flew directly to Moscow after escaping, and used the same flight to return immediately to Damascus. There are widespread reports, even in the Russian press, that sensitive intelligence documents were in the convoy.
C) The lack of testimony from detainees. Duelfer relies upon the interviewing process—the same process he harshly criticizes as deeply flawed—to reach his conclusion. The detainees are afraid to talk out of fear for retribution, their testimony being used against them in war crimes trials, and simply because there’s no incentive. I could go into deeper detail as to some of the criticisms of the process. We also know many, many regime figures and scientists are in Syria and to a lesser degree, Iran.
It was easy for Iraq to move people around. Most of the regime figures were in Syria, including Saddam’s sons, until American pressure hit a breaking point and they were expelled in the later part of spring 2003. As the war commenced, 23 of Iraq’s 60 diplomatic posts were still operating, including in Amman, Moscow, Damascus, Beirut, Minsk and Tehran. It is possible that personnel are in Belarus as well. Many Iraqi regime figures that were captured [had] Syrian and Belarusian (and often, Libyan) passports. There were reports that people escaped from Syria to Belarus and Libya. Limousines usually used by the Baath Party were seen entering Syria, and then flew aboard a military transport to Libya.
Regarding Belarus, another very close ally of Russia, there was an incident on March 29, 2003. A chartered cargo flight took off from Saddam International Airport when the air space was closed and flew to Minsk. Originally, some suspected it [was] Saddam or his sons were aboard as only the highest officials could get clearance.
Glazov: Mr. Mauro thank you for joining us again.
Mauro: Thank you for having me.
It wasn't really a war. sm
It was ethnic cleansing. And it should disturb Clinton. Despite pleas, he didn't do anything. Neither did the UN. 100 days is probably not that short a time when you and your family are being hacked to death. I bet it felt like forever to them. Hard to imagine that the greater part of the world has forgotten 800,000 people that quickly. It's amazing the people I have talked to that never heard of what happened there.
|
