SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dan B. who wrote (74794)3/25/2006 11:12:19 AM
From: American SpiritRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
Delta Force Commander's Opinion of Bush-Cheney and Iraq

A founding member of the elite counter-terrorist unit, Delta Force, suggested that President Bush's invasion of Iraq may have started World War III, according to the Los Angeles Daily News, RAW STORY has learned. The article, acquired by RAW STORY Friday night, is expected in Sunday editions of the paper.

Retired Command Sergeant Major Eric Haney's book "Inside Delta Force" became the basis for the CBS drama "The Unit," where he now assumes technical adviser and executive producer duties.

Excerpts from the forthcoming article written by David Kronke:

#
Q: What's your assessment of the war in Iraq?

A: Utter debacle. But it had to be from the very first. The reasons were wrong. The reasons of this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated. (Army Gen.) Tommy Franks was brow-beaten and ... pursued warfare that he knew strategically was wrong in the long term. That's why he retired immediately afterward. His own staff could tell him what was going to happen afterward.

We have fomented civil war in Iraq. We have probably fomented internecine war in the Muslim world between the Shias and the Sunnis, and I think Bush may well have started the third world war, all for their own personal policies.

....

Q: What do you make of the torture debate? Cheney ...

A: (Interrupting) That's Cheney's pursuit. The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it. It's about vengeance, it's about revenge, or it's about cover-up. You don't gain intelligence that way. Everyone in the world knows that. It's worse than small-minded, and look what it does

* So obviously you are lying. Civil war and World War III are not signs things are "going well". Nor is the fact Bush-Cheney gave false reasons for going in in the first place and haven't confessed their lies yet.



To: Dan B. who wrote (74794)3/25/2006 11:14:45 AM
From: RichnorthRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
"Iraq is a remarkable success story." --- Cheney
"In point of fact things are getting better in Iraq." --- Dan

Bush Proves His
Harshest Critics Right

By Paul Craig Roberts
3-21-6

On March 17, William Rivers Pitt wrote that Bush is "deranged, disconnected, and dangerous." In his March 20 Cleveland speech, Bush proved Pitt right.

Bush gave a delusional speech that shows he is detached from reality. "We're going to help the Iraqis build a strong democracy that will be an inspiration throughout the Middle East, a democracy that'll be a partner in the global war against the terrorists."

Has no one told Bush that the Iraqis cannot even agree to form a government?

The day before Bush's delusional Cleveland speech, Iyad Allawi, the former prime minister of one of our make-believe Iraqi governments, said that in Iraq the casualty rate from the sectarian strife is so high that "if this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

The day of Bush's delusional speech, Patrick Cockburn, present on the scene in Irbil, Iraq, gave a much more truthful account of the situation. Writing in CounterPunch, he reported:

"Iraq is a country convulsed by fear. It is at its worst in Baghdad. Sectarian killings are commonplace. The scale of the violence is such that most of it is unreported. Unseen by the outside world, silent populations are on the move, frightened people fleeing neighborhoods where their community is in a minority for safer districts. There is also a growing reliance on militias because of fears that police patrols or checkpoints are in reality death squads hunting for victims."

Not a word of this reality from our delusional president.

The fantasy Iraq that Bush painted was only his warm-up. He went on to tell his Cleveland audience that America could not be safe unless Iraq was a democracy. What a weak, pitiful, vulnerable place Bush's America must be. Unless a small, devastated Middle Eastern country is a democracy, America cannot be safe. Who in the Cleveland audience could possibly have believed this utter nonsense?

Bush told his audience that "the security of our country is directly linked to the liberty of the Iraqi people, and we will settle for nothing less than victory." What victory is he talking about? Despite the huge sums of dollars paid by the Bush regime to all the leaders of all the factions, Iraq cannot form a government.

Without victory, Iraq will be "a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation." Alas, there were no terrorists in Iraq until Bush invaded the country and drew them in. The problem our troops face in Iraq is not terrorists, but resistance fighters, "insurgents" in the Bush regime's parlance. Democracies lack the dictatorial, extralegal powers to suppress terrorists. That is why Bush is destroying civil liberties in the U.S. Under Saddam Hussein, there were no terrorists and no insurgents. Bush is modeling his no habeas corpus, torture-prone, all-intrusive government on Saddam Hussein's.

The security of Americans has nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq. Iraq cannot overthrow the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers, and American civil liberties. Iraq cannot illegally spy on American citizens, declare them to be "suspects," and detain them forever without warrant or charges. Iraq cannot put American critics of the Bush regime on "no-fly" lists.

The real dangers to Americans reside in the neocon Bush administration. This delusional warmonger administration believes it has the power and the right to dictate to Muslim countries their political and social institutions. This extraordinary arrogance and hubris breeds opposition where there was none. The world is not going to obey Bush and a handful of stupid neocons.

In his speech, Bush told Cleveland that "the decision to remove Saddam Hussein was a difficult decision." That is a lie. Bush's first treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, and a number of others have reported that Bush came into office intending to remove Hussein. The head of British intelligence told the British Cabinet that Bush first decided to go to war and then created the reasons to justify his aggression against Iraq.

"Before we acted," Bush told his audience, Hussein's "regime was defying UN resolutions calling for it to disarm. It was violating cease-fire agreements, was firing on American and British pilots which were enforcing no-fly zones." Gentle reader, think what Bush is saying. As Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, a fact that Bush has acknowledged, how could Iraq possibly have been violating UN resolutions calling on it to disarm?

What cease-fire agreements is Bush talking about? It was U.S. and UK planes that continued to fly over Iraqi territory and bomb Iraqis.

Do you know what Bush means by no-fly zones? He means that U.S. and UK jet fighters could fly all over Iraq, but if Iraqi planes flew over Iraqi territory, we would shoot them down.

Where did the U.S. get the right to tell countries that they dare not try to control their own air space?

Americans need to understand that terrorists are responding to America's behavior, or misbehavior. The only successful way to stop terrorism is to alter our behavior. America is not God. It has no right, and it certainly lacks the power, to impose its will on the world.

The Bush regime cannot lead the world to democracy by tearing democracy down at home. Not since Abraham Lincoln have American civil liberties been so threatened as by the Bush regime. America even has an attorney general, a vice president, and a secretary of defense who believe in torture. How do they differ from officials in the Third Reich or Stalin's KGB? Anyone who believes in torture is not an American. That person is outside our tradition. Yet people who believe in torture who occupy our highest offices.

When we get the mote out of our own eye, then we can instruct the Middle East.



To: Dan B. who wrote (74794)3/25/2006 11:35:23 AM
From: American SpiritRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
Iraq is a total disaster. Yes there are a few areas like Kurdistan where you might be able to walk the streets without a platoon of bodyguards, but most of the country is completely out of control, plus conditions are worse than they were under Saddam. Very little power, clean water, gasoline, jobs, etc. Plus everyone is paranoid and no one knows who's going to kill who next. In fact the US doesn't even know for sure who the enemy are. Bush calls them "terrorists", but for all we know we created most of them with our invasion.

Let me ask you this, would you pick up weapon and fight if Arabs occupied your hometown and killed some of your friends in a bombing run? Damn right you would. Which is why half the country in Iraq thinks it's OK to kill Americans.

This has put tremendous stress on our troops and military. Despite the trillion dollars we're going to blow over there, our military is exhausted and badly needs a break. This costly war has exposed us and we would be ill-equipped now to respond to any other major threat in the world.



To: Dan B. who wrote (74794)3/25/2006 12:08:33 PM
From: RichnorthRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
Iraqnam - Those
Who Got It Right

By Douglas Herman
3-23-6

Well, here we are in Year Three of American taxpayers and Iraqi citizens held hostage. God only knows how many more years of wasted men, money and materials before the helicopter gunships rise slowly off the Green Zone roof. The Prez said "years" and that might be the truest thing he has said in God-only-knows-how-long.

Out of curiosity I looked up the word "Iraqnam" on Google. I wondered who first uttered the word and when. Boy was I surprised when I discovered that a blogger named Sammy Standard used the word 24 hours after the Iraq War began!

In his riposte---ACC :: The Iraqnam Quagmire?---Sammy Standard sorta outflanked Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Wolf Blitzer, Bush, Powell, Perle, The Pentagon, Fox, Friedman, CNN, Coulter, Limbaugh, DeLay, Hannity, O'Reilly---well, you get the picture.

As for all those pundits at Townhall.com and WorldNetDaily.com, as the war progressed, or regressed, they spoke of it less and less. As if the war might just go away.

Man, were they ever wrong. You really have to wonder what sort of Zion-crack they were smoking. In the first weeks of the war, they were riding high and rattling sabers. "Cassandras here in the United States who were quick to predict that the evidence of any armed resistance meant that we were in for a long guerrilla war. But the Vietnam analogy was absurd," chortled syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. CK once won a Pulitzer Prize but you have to wonder how. Not a peep from Krauthammer now about the war.

A month before the war, George Will was lauding the boldness of George Bush. Two months after the attack, Will, another Pulitzer winner wrote: "Swift victory in Iraq may have whetted the appetite of some Americans for further military exercises in regime change(but) Until WMDs are found, or their absence accounted for, there is urgent explaining to be done." Too bad that caution didn't apply before the illegal act of war.

Like most of his fellow syndicated columnists in the mainstream media, Will hefted a war drum in Rumsfeld's band but adopted a cautionary tone soon after and has fallen silent in the years since.

Ann Coulter chortled with glee, a month into the war, bashing critics of pre-emptive foreign wars: "The war was so successful, they don't have any arguments left. They can't even sound busyJust two weeks ago, they claimed American troops were caught in another Vietnam quagmire. That didn't happen."

At least not right away it didn't, Ann.

Another Pulitzer Prize-winner (where do they get these losers?), Judith Miller, created an entire boogieman, crafting phrases worthy of any 2nd rate scriptwriter, for the New York Times.

"I think they found something more than a 'smoking gun.' What they've found is what is being called here by the members of MET Alpha -- that's Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha -- what they found is a silver bullet."

Despite all the Pulitzer Prizes, all those highly-paid pundits fucked up, pure and simple.

Meanwhile bloggers like Billmon and Standard got it right from day one. Of course none of those guys appeared on CNN, that once-reputable cable news station, then or now. Indeed, Will, Coulter and Krauthammer still pound out the pro-globalist prose, indifferent to the massive waste.

One month into the war, money guru, Lou Dobbs said: "Some journalists, in my judgment, just can't stand success, especially a few liberal columnists and newspapers and a few Arab reporters," He was talking about the predicted, low cost outcome of the war. Remember those heady days?

Would you really want this guy Dobbs advising you on your investments? I mean, I don't know diddly-squat about investments but months ago I advised folks to buy gold and dang if gold hasn't gone up over a hundred an ounce since then!

A bunch of low-ranking US veterans, like Charley Reese and Stewart Nussbaumer, didn't know shit about strategy and tactics---and we still don't know the difference-but we knew human nature. Folks just don't like being attacked and occupied and brutalized. Still don't.

Would you?

Only the well-fed, well-paid dildoes at Fox and WND and Townhall.com and those rent-a-generals with contracts to war toymakers ever got air time however.

And to a man (or woman) they were wrong.
And man, do they twist in their wrong-headedness, trying, trying to make it right.
And they still collect huge paychecks and still get airtime. Trying to make rose petals out of spilled guts and severed limbs.

Now I'm not sure Iraq is comparable to Vietnam, even though I did write an essay years ago recalling the Viet-era terminology: We Had to Destroy the Village to Save It.

Maybe what is happening in Iraq is closer to the insurrection in Algeria fifty years ago. Or Somalia. Maybe no parallel exists.

I do have a prediction however. When the occupying force (us) finally packs and leaves, and civil strife-I won't call it a war---breaks out for a year or more, the peace that results in Iraq will arrive sooner than the three or five or ten years we've had to wreck and mend the country. Probably years sooner.



To: Dan B. who wrote (74794)3/26/2006 2:29:28 AM
From: CogitoRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
>>In point of fact things are getting better in Iraq. EOM<<

Dan -

In point of fact? According to whom? In what way?

More than 200 Iraqi civilians died in the past week. The number of civilians being killed in sectarian violence has been increasing steadily.

On Friday's Washington Week in Review, there were some very interesting comments about the issue of how things are going in Iraq by Martha Raddatz, a reporter from ABC News who has been in Iraq ten times since the war began. She just came back from her tenth trip.

Ms. Raddatz said that on this trip she decided to talk to the Iraqi security forces themselves, rather than talking to the American military sources about the Iraqi forces. She went to Sadr City and spoke directly to them. They told her that they have no armor, they have no tanks, and that the insurgents are better armed than they are. They told her that there is no way they can defeat the insurgents.

She also discussed how each time she has returned to Iraq, the situation has been more complex, with more enemies, and more different kinds of enemies. She said that as far as she can see, the situation is worse than ever. She asked the Iraqis whether they were better off now, or when Saddam was in power. Most of them said they were better off with Saddam, because they had security.

Please be aware that I'm paraphrasing Ms. Raddatz's comments from memory. When the transcript becomes available, I'll post excerpts here.

Again, I ask you, in what way are things getting better in Iraq?

- Allen