What it means when the US goes to war

[Truth-Bringer]

Excerpts from a MUST READ article. These are the facts that Neoconservative Republicans like to ignore. This will be the history that remains once the propaganda of the Bush administration has been swept out of office.

What it means when the US goes to war

By Chris Hedges

War as betrayal

"This unit sets up this traffic control point, and this 18-year-old kid is on top of an armored Humvee with a .50-caliber machine gun," remembered Sergeant Geoffrey Millard, who served in Tikrit with the 42nd Infantry Division. "And this car speeds at him pretty quick and he makes a split-second decision that that's a suicide bomber, and he presses the butterfly trigger and puts 200 rounds in less than a minute into this vehicle. It killed the mother, a father and two kids. The boy was aged four and the daughter was aged three.

"And they briefed this to the general," Millard said, "and they briefed it gruesome. I mean, they had pictures. They briefed it to him. And this colonel turns around to this full division staff and says, 'If these f---ing hajis learned to drive, this **** wouldn't happen'."

Punishing the local population

Sergeant Camilo Mejia, who eventually applied while still on active duty to become a conscientious objector, said the ugly side of American racism and chauvinism appeared the moment his unit arrived in the Middle East. Fellow soldiers instantly ridiculed Arab-style toilets because they would be "****ting like dogs". The troops around him treated Iraqis, whose language they did not speak and whose culture was alien, little better than animals.

The word "haji" swiftly became a slur to refer to Iraqis, in much the same way "gook" was used to debase the Vietnamese and "raghead" is used to belittle those in Afghanistan. Soon those around him ridiculed "haji food", "haji homes", and "haji music". Bewildered prisoners, who were rounded up in useless and indiscriminate raids, were stripped naked and left to stand terrified for hours in the baking sun. They were subjected to a steady torrent of verbal and physical abuse. "I experienced horrible confusion," Mejia remembered, "not knowing whether I was more afraid for the detainees or for what would happen to me if I did anything to help them."

These scenes of abuse, which began immediately after the American invasion, were little more than collective acts of sadism. Mejia watched, not daring to intervene yet increasingly disgusted at the treatment of Iraqi civilians. He saw how the callous and unchecked abuse of power first led to alienation among Iraqis and spawned a raw hatred of the occupation forces. When army units raided homes, the soldiers burst in on frightened families, forced them to huddle in the corners at gunpoint, and helped themselves to food and items in the house.

Rest of Article Here (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF07Ak01.html)

[Jeugenen]

BUSH IRAQ WAR FAUCETS

The Podhoretz Neo-Con Republican president, George Bush, got elected on his solemn promise that there would be “no nation building”; then, on the notorious pretense of a nuclear threat, he illegally turned on two faucets: out of one flows the American People’s precious wealth, and out of the other faucet flows their priceless blood, to the sole benefit of Israel: now approaching 4000 sons and 1 trillion dollars.

This heinous treasonous betrayal of the sacred trust of the American People is a black mark on his family name which can never be erased, and will damn him forever in American history.

Google: “Mearsheimer Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy”; “Evans Blacklisted by History: Untold Story of Joe McCarthy”; “Wall Street Journal McCain-Feingold”; Stricherz Why the Democrats are Blue; “Human Events Ron Paul Interview”; McClelland "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception."

[GenSeneca]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

ne·o·con·serv·a·tism

–noun moderate political conservatism espoused or advocated by former liberals or socialists.
----------------------------------

Carry on...

[Truth-Bringer]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

ne·o·con·serv·a·tism

–noun moderate political conservatism espoused or advocated by former liberals or socialists.
----------------------------------

Carry on...

Yes, your master Bush does appear to be quite liberal and socialist on economic matters, seeing as he's spent more than LBJ and 4 times more than Clinton domestically. The size of government has increased every single year under Bush. Government spending has gone up every single year under Bush. And the national debt has increased every single year under Bush.

But carry on, and keep your head buried in the sand.

[GenSeneca]

TB,

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source -

Former–adjective

1. preceding in time; prior or earlier: during a former stage in the proceedings.
2. past, long past, or ancient: in former times.
3. preceding in order; being the first of two: Our former manufacturing process was too costly.
4. being the first mentioned of two (distinguished from latter): The former suggestion was preferred to the latter.
5. having once, or previously, been; erstwhile: a former president.
------------------------------------------------
Bush has been an ACTIVE Liberal Republican. Your examples of spending reinforce my assertion that he is not a Neo-Con and backed by the fact that he hasn't abandoned his Liberal leanings...

So thank you for agreeing with me. :)

[PLC1]

The term "neoconservative" refers to those who believe in the conclusions of the Project for a New American Century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century) (PNAC), which called for a strengthening of the American hegemony around the world by force of arms. NeoConservatives are the most likely supporters of the invasion of Iraq and the continuation of American presence there.

NeoConservatives are not conservatives, new or otherwise, any more than neoliberals are new liberals. The one is a philosophy quite independent of classic conservatism (fiscal responsibility, limited government) while the other is not really related to liberalism (strong central government, social programs, income redistribution).

Bush is not a neoconservative, but many of his top advisers at the time of the invasion of Iraq are: Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney are among them.

[Truth-Bringer]

TB,

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source -


Your definitions aren't complete. You're lying by omission.

[Truth-Bringer]

Bush is not a neoconservative,

Bush is a neoconservative. The vast majority of his positions fall under neoconservatism.

[Libsmasher]

Excerpts from a MUST READ article. These are the facts that Neoconservative Republicans like to ignore. This will be the history that remains once the propaganda of the Bush administration has been swept out of office.

What it means when the US goes to war

By Chris Hedges

War as betrayal

"This unit sets up this traffic control point, and this 18-year-old kid is on top of an armored Humvee with a .50-caliber machine gun," remembered Sergeant Geoffrey Millard, who served in Tikrit with the 42nd Infantry Division. "And this car speeds at him pretty quick and he makes a split-second decision that that's a suicide bomber, and he presses the butterfly trigger and puts 200 rounds in less than a minute into this vehicle. It killed the mother, a father and two kids. The boy was aged four and the daughter was aged three.

"And they briefed this to the general," Millard said, "and they briefed it gruesome. I mean, they had pictures. They briefed it to him. And this colonel turns around to this full division staff and says, 'If these f---ing hajis learned to drive, this **** wouldn't happen'."

Punishing the local population

Sergeant Camilo Mejia, who eventually applied while still on active duty to become a conscientious objector, said the ugly side of American racism and chauvinism appeared the moment his unit arrived in the Middle East. Fellow soldiers instantly ridiculed Arab-style toilets because they would be "****ting like dogs". The troops around him treated Iraqis, whose language they did not speak and whose culture was alien, little better than animals.

The word "haji" swiftly became a slur to refer to Iraqis, in much the same way "gook" was used to debase the Vietnamese and "raghead" is used to belittle those in Afghanistan. Soon those around him ridiculed "haji food", "haji homes", and "haji music". Bewildered prisoners, who were rounded up in useless and indiscriminate raids, were stripped naked and left to stand terrified for hours in the baking sun. They were subjected to a steady torrent of verbal and physical abuse. "I experienced horrible confusion," Mejia remembered, "not knowing whether I was more afraid for the detainees or for what would happen to me if I did anything to help them."

These scenes of abuse, which began immediately after the American invasion, were little more than collective acts of sadism. Mejia watched, not daring to intervene yet increasingly disgusted at the treatment of Iraqi civilians. He saw how the callous and unchecked abuse of power first led to alienation among Iraqis and spawned a raw hatred of the occupation forces. When army units raided homes, the soldiers burst in on frightened families, forced them to huddle in the corners at gunpoint, and helped themselves to food and items in the house.

Rest of Article Here (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF07Ak01.html)

A cartoonish, agitprop version of current events, that would probably embarass even some appeasers.

[PLC1]

Bush is a neoconservative. The vast majority of his positions fall under neoconservatism.

He was not and is not a part of the PNAC. His senior advisers, the ones really pulling the strings are neoconservatives.

Not that it really matters, as the second part of your post is correct: His positions fall under neoconservatism.

[Truth-Bringer]

He was not and is not a part of the PNAC.

Well I certainly reject that as the only standard under which allegiance to the philosophy can be measured.

His senior advisers, the ones really pulling the strings are neoconservatives.

And he chose neoconservatives, because he's a neoconservative and they will espouse that philosophy on all levels.


Not that it really matters, as the second part of your post is correct: His positions fall under neoconservatism.

Right, because he is a neoconservative. Even if he wasn't, by the vast majority of his positions falling under the philosophy, he'd be a de facto neoconservative regardless of what he chose to call himself.

[Truth-Bringer]

A cartoonish, agitprop version of current events,

If you're reading a transcript of Bush's latest speech as you typed that, then you'd be correct.

[GenSeneca]

PLC1,

Thanks for the link but why does this definition of NeoCon not show up - not even a mention of PNAC - in any Dictionary definitions?

I'm not contesting your definition, sounds reasonable enough... at least you provided some qualifier/definition to the term... Just curious.

Your definitions aren't complete. You're lying by omission.

:) I left out only the Pronunciation key in both definitions... :D

This will be the history that remains once the propaganda of the Bush administration has been swept out of office.

Iraq was a Utopian land of sunshine and lollipops before the US arrived... ne'er a slur could be heard, not one single feeling was ever hurt. Human, as well as Civil, Rights guaranteed perfect equality and tranquility for each of Iraq's citizens. The free, fair and open elections were world class in their transparency... and with only one choice on the ballot - things were never confusing.

Boy did we screw that up... Mr. Hedges anecdotal evidence proves decisively that all Americans - especially American Soldiers - are greedy, racist, sadists running roughshod over all of Iraq - with no discernible level of accountability.
--------------------------------------------

Too bad Mr. Hedges couldn't find a terrorist group to follow around... They're all very kind, considerate and open minded, they'd never do anything to harm innocent civilians or journalists... Just ask Daniel Perl.

Better yet, watch the video.
http://www.iaac.us/sixth_film_festival2006/images/d_perl.jpg

---------------------------------------------
I'll not deny there has been abuse on many levels. Corruption on many levels. Waste at all levels... But scapegoating "Bush and the NeoCons" effectively ignores the people from the "other" side of the isle, who have just as much culpability for our current state of affairs.

I found this quote interesting:

"The word "haji" swiftly became a slur to refer to Iraqis, in much the same way "gook" was used to debase the Vietnamese and "raghead" is used to belittle those in Afghanistan..."

[For the Left]...The word "NeoCon" swiftly became a slur referring to those on the Right, in much the same way "Uncle Tom" was used to debase Black Republicans... etc, etc.

Of course Iraqi's have never used derogatory names for Americans... Iraqi's have never kidnapped, tortured and killed Americans... There is also NO context to whats going on in Iraq, just reports about American Troops wandering around aimlessly - "terrorizing kids women and children in the dark of night" completely at random.

[Truth-Bringer]

Iraq was a Utopian land of sunshine and lollipops before the US arrived...

No, Iraq was already screwed up BECAUSE OF PRIOR U.S. INTERVENTION. (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82) The U.S. played a major role in strengthening and empowering Saddam Hussein to begin with.

They did the same with Bin Laden. (http://www.slate.com/id/2102243)

I'll not deny there has been abuse on many levels.

Who gets held responsible in your world? Answer: No one.

Corruption on many levels. Waste at all levels... But scapegoating "Bush and the NeoCons" effectively ignores the people from the "other" side of the isle, who have just as much culpability for our current state of affairs.

If you'll look through my previous posts, I have criticized Democrats, on several different forums, for just playing a "Republican lite" version of foreign policy. Which is equally dangerous and foolish. I do hold them accountable, BY NOT VOTING FOR THEM. The same way I hold Neoconservative Republicans responsible, BY NOT VOTING FOR THEM.


Of course Iraqi's have never used derogatory names for Americans... Iraqi's have never kidnapped, tortured and killed Americans...

Iraqi's aren't occupying our country right now. The Iraqis never gave millions of dollars to maintain repressive regimes here.

[GenSeneca]

Context for the truth you have brought
The U.S. played a major role in strengthening and empowering Saddam Hussein to begin with.
True.
Now lets add some context: The US overthrow of the Iranian Shaw, the '72 Olympics, The Iranian Hostage Crisis... any of this sound familiar? We had none of those problems with Saddam in Iraq, so when Iran invaded, we helped out to see to it there would not be a decisive winner - we aimed for a stalemate and thats what happened, neither became dominant in the region.
Somebody needs to be held accountable for that "Failed Policy"?
They did the same with Bin Laden.
True.
Now lets add some Context: Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), the Cold War, Berlin Wall, Expansion of Communism through the Asian Continent, Korea, Vietnam... There was one major enemy to focus on. We did help support Bin Laden in his fight against the Communists. His Al-Qaeda group was was one of nearly 400 that we supported in Afghanistan's fight against Communist expansion... But because ONE group came back to bite us in the ask, you think WE'RE the bad guys?
Who gets held responsible in your world? Answer: No one.
I appreciate you trying to answer for me but that would not be my answer.
For cases like those described by Mr. Hedges, Military personnel are held accountable to the Military Courts. Our Military is the most professional on the planet, thanks in no small part to the role our free press plays in keeping them honest. None of our enemies have ever trusted a free press to exist in their nation - let alone tag along with them during a war... that says something, even if you can't hear it, and provides the context which was lacking from Mr. Hedges article.
If you'll look through my previous posts, I have criticized Democrats, on several different forums, for just playing a "Republican lite" version of foreign policy. Which is equally dangerous and foolish. I do hold them accountable, BY NOT VOTING FOR THEM. The same way I hold Neoconservative Republicans responsible, BY NOT VOTING FOR THEM.

Do you consider - criticizing politicians, on several forums, and not voting for them "accountability"? I take a slightly different approach.

Even though we disagree... I want to let you in on a secret... We can write our Congressmen, and other politicians, directly to let them know how we feel about things.

Talk about "Change" being a grassroots movement among the people is true and its all thanks to our Constitution placing power with the people. It starts with We The People contacting our Representatives - so they know how best to represent us... Even people who don't vote have the power of the pen. I don't focus any hopes or dreams on whatever opportunist is currently holding, or seeking, the White House... After which calling it a day and wondering why I'm so horribly represented.

I don't cry about lobbyists or special interests because I'm my own special interest and I lobby the Government - alone if necessary - to get the representation I expect.

435 Representatives (http://www.house.gov/)
100 Senators (http://www.senate.gov/)

Once you have them on your Email Contact list, its easy to write to all of them at once... some of them even reply. (I don't agree with Dennis Kucinich on ANYTHING but he understands what being a Representative is all about and has my admiration for his dedication, openness and availability)

[Federal Farmer]

TB, I take it you've never served in the military. If you had, you'd understand why the Soldier in the article would refer to the Iraqis as "hajis".

Also, what does OIF, OEF, or the GWOT have to do with "neocons", or whatever the political affiliation of POTUS or any of his advisors? Was FDR a "neocon"? What about Truman? Kennedy? Johnson? Lincoln? Adams? Jefferson? Madison? Wilson? Were they all "neocons" too? What of President Clintons culpability for 9-11 by NOT authorizing the "liquidation" of UBL, on two separated occasions, when we had the opportunity?

Thirdly, regardless of the political historical revisionists version of events, we did not make Saddam, nor did we make UBL. Those claims are, to be polite about it, complete lies, propogated by the left, in order to justify their cowardice.

[pocketfullofshells]

TB, I take it you've never served in the military. If you had, you'd understand why the Soldier in the article would refer to the Iraqis as "hajis".

Also, what does OIF, OEF, or the GWOT have to do with "neocons", or whatever the political affiliation of POTUS or any of his advisors? Was FDR a "neocon"? What about Truman? Kennedy? Johnson? Lincoln? Adams? Jefferson? Madison? Wilson? Were they all "neocons" too? What of President Clintons culpability for 9-11 by NOT authorizing the "liquidation" of UBL, on two separated occasions, when we had the opportunity?

Thirdly, regardless of the political historical revisionists version of events, we did not make Saddam, nor did we make UBL. Those claims are, to be polite about it, complete lies, propogated by the left, in order to justify their cowardice.

without knowing what 2 times you are talking about, I will just say there was reason for them. IN at least one case I know of, there was members of the Royal Family of the UAE in the same area, and they did not want to risk killing some Royalty in the strike. That said I wish he had got him, and Clinton has said he did as well. But when they did launch a attack to try to kill him, missing him by a hour, in that Cruise Missile attack , the Republicans Screamed wag the dog and cried about it. The Republican party has nothing to stand on in attacking Clinton over his role against OBL, as its not like they ever made it a issue, did anything about it, and attacked Bill when he did. In Power, they did nothing at all , until the towers fell.

Both made mistakes, but in my view Bush was far worse because he was told how big a threat obl was, but did zero about it. Clinton I can only say did not do enough.

Also Note that this "lefty" has been attacking people for those remarks about Saddam, and calling on the US to do more, and be more forceful in dealing with Terrorism since long before Sept 11. It has been the right that has brushed aside the facts, and pushed OBL off to the side, because they wanted Iraq, even though Iraq was contained, and we had bigger issues in the middle east.

[PLC1]

PLC1,

Thanks for the link but why does this definition of NeoCon not show up - not even a mention of PNAC - in any Dictionary definitions?

I'm not contesting your definition, sounds reasonable enough... at least you provided some qualifier/definition to the term... Just curious.

I'm basing my definition of the PNAC being a noeconservative think tank, as described in WIKI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

I suppose the definition could be broadened to include people who further the agenda of the PNAC.

The reason we need a firm definition of the term is seen later in your post:

:)[For the Left]...The word "NeoCon" swiftly became a slur referring to those on the Right, in much the same way "Uncle Tom" was used to debase Black Republicans... etc, etc.

We already have way too many political terms that have become meaningless because they mean different things to different people, and are sometimes used as pejoritives that really mean "people whose opinions are different from mine."

[Federal Farmer]

without knowing what 2 times you are talking about, I will just say there was reason for them. IN at least one case I know of, there was members of the Royal Family of the UAE in the same area, and they did not want to risk killing some Royalty in the strike. That said I wish he had got him, and Clinton has said he did as well. But when they did launch a attack to try to kill him, missing him by a hour, in that Cruise Missile attack , the Republicans Screamed wag the dog and cried about it. The Republican party has nothing to stand on in attacking Clinton over his role against OBL, as its not like they ever made it a issue, did anything about it, and attacked Bill when he did. In Power, they did nothing at all , until the towers fell.

Whether or not members of any royal family were "in the same area", on the two occasions I'm talking about, our snipers had him in their crosshairs, fingers on the triggers, and were denied permission to 'engage'. There was no threat to anyone in the vicinity, except for UBL, and if they'd been given the 'go', UBL would have been dead 3 seconds later and over 2000 Americans would still be alive. The cruise missile attacks were not directed at UBL, they were nothing but an attempt at distraction to divert peoples attention away from the Monica debocle.

Both made mistakes, but in my view Bush was far worse because he was told how big a threat obl was, but did zero about it. Clinton I can only say did not do enough.

PLEASE! President Bush had been in office for less than 9 months on 9-11, and while he had been "briefed" on UBL, the briefings were coming from Clintons people, you know, the same ones who refused to take him out when they had the chance, and severely downplayed the actual threat UBL posed.

Also Note that this "lefty" has been attacking people for those remarks about Saddam, and calling on the US to do more, and be more forceful in dealing with Terrorism since long before Sept 11. It has been the right that has brushed aside the facts, and pushed OBL off to the side, because they wanted Iraq, even though Iraq was contained, and we had bigger issues in the middle east.

Left, right, center, I don't care what political affiliation someone has as long as they're true to the Constitution (which is why I'll be holding my nose when I vote for the McCainiac in November). As far as doing more about dealing with terrorism, I've been screaming about it since the days of the Baader Meinhoff Gang, Red Brigade, Red Army Faction, Action Direct, Black September and Shining Path! If they'd implimented the steps we were talking about back in the mid 70's, it's entirely possible that 9-11 never would have happened, mainly because the people on those planes would have been able to carry their firearms just like they used to do back in the 60's, and would have shot the terrorists long before they were able to take control of the aircraft.

One point of order if I may, it was hardly "the right" who was pushing off dealing with terrorism in the 70's and 80's, and in fact, it was "the right" who was deliberately prevented from dealing with terrorists on many occasions. Perhaps you've forgotten the Kerry Commission? It was the Democrats in Congress who wrote an unconstitutional 'law' that allegedly prevented POTUS from supporting the Contras in their fight against the Communist Sandanistas, and when they got their little bluff called, they ruined many good mens careers by dragging them in front of Congress and persecuting them for doing their jobs. It was this same stripe of Democrat who turned their backs on our allies, the Vietnamese, and violated our Treaty with them by cutting off the funding that was specifically earmarked for them, and prevented President Ford from providing any further military assistance to them, which is what led directly to the fall of S. Vietnam just 2 years after we had won the war.

As far as who's pushing what off, look, it's LONG past time that people quit playing their little school-yard taunt games, and started looking at facts. It's not about which party one belongs to, it's what one chooses to do while IN that office. As far as Saddam, the simple fact is that he thumbed his nose at us for the entire 8 years of the Clinton administration, because Clinton lacked the intestinal fortitude to deal effectively with him and compel him to comply with the terms of surrender that he himself signed. The fact that Clinton is a Democrat has NOTHING to do with it, it was Clinton the man who decided to ignore the threat, and as a result his successor, GW Bush was forced to deal with Saddam. I'm not interested in getting into another long, drawn out discussion about it, mainly because I've wasted entirely too much time, presenting too much evidence, to too many people, who have already made up their minds, regardless of the facts. What I do know is that Saddam had to be taken out, he was given every opportunity to leave of his own accord, he refused, and as a result, he and his sons drew the asshole ticket in the Wanka lottery, and paid for it with their lives. Too bad, so sad, it just sucks to be them.

[Truth-Bringer]

PLEASE! President Bush had been in office for less than 9 months on 9-11, and while he had been "briefed" on UBL, the briefings were coming from Clintons people, you know, the same ones who refused to take him out when they had the chance, and severely downplayed the actual threat UBL posed.


Bush had received a report on his desk a month prior to 9/11 titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.” (http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/rarey/rarey2.html)

Does that in your opinion "downplay the actual threat"?

[Federal Farmer]

Bush had received a report on his desk a month prior to 9/11 titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.” (http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/rarey/rarey2.html)

Does that in your opinion "downplay the actual threat"?

You mean THIS Briefing?

Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997' has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [deleted text] service. An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an [deleted text] service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.

Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al-Qa'ida members — including some who are US citizens — have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa'ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar' Abd aI-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

There is absolutely nothing actionable in this briefing, NOTHING. There is no target, there is no date, there is no timetable, nothing useful in any way that could be used to prevent any attack. The only thing that POTUS can do with a report of this type is to order the FBI, CIA, DIA, NRO, and all of the other assetts of our nation to follow up on it.

[Truth-Bringer]

Context for the truth you have brought

True.
Now lets add some context: The US overthrow of the Iranian Shaw, the '72 Olympics, The Iranian Hostage Crisis... any of this sound familiar? We had none of those problems with Saddam in Iraq, so when Iran invaded, we helped out to see to it there would not be a decisive winner - we aimed for a stalemate and thats what happened, neither became dominant in the region.
Somebody needs to be held accountable for that "Failed Policy"?

Yes, someone does need to be held accountable. It ultimately empowered Hussein. Regardless, IT WAS NONE OF OUR DAMN BUSINESS. If they want to kill each other, so be it. You need to go back and read Washington's farewell address.



True.
Now lets add some Context: Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), the Cold War, Berlin Wall, Expansion of Communism through the Asian Continent, Korea, Vietnam... There was one major enemy to focus on. We did help support Bin Laden in his fight against the Communists. His Al-Qaeda group was was one of nearly 400 that we supported in Afghanistan's fight against Communist expansion... But because ONE group came back to bite us in the ask, you think WE'RE the bad guys?

You need more context. That's your problem, you believe you have the proper context, and you're wrong. All we have to do is leave communist countries alone, and they'll eventually collapse. If we would have stopped grain shipments to the Soviets, they would have collapsed decades earlier. (http://ruwart.com/Healing/chap20.html) If we simply keep our military strong, and leave everyone else alone, we'll be safe and secure. It's not rocket science, people.


None of our enemies have ever trusted a free press to exist in their nation - let alone tag along with them during a war... that says something,

Denial of freedom is an evil. Why should we look to emulate the evil of our enemies? Get a grip, man.

Again, if you continue to vote for the same party, for people who enact the same principles, you are not holding them accountable.


Do you consider - criticizing politicians, on several forums, and not voting for them "accountability"?

I think not voting for them is perfectly clear. If you're going to vote for Democrat or Republican, you have to vote for someone who votes against the budget. There are only a handful of Congressmen doing that. If not, you have to vote for a third party. If you continue to vote for people who contribute to the problem, then you are part of problem.

I take a slightly different approach.

Even though we disagree... I want to let you in on a secret... We can write our Congressmen, and other politicians, directly to let them know how we feel about things.

Been doing that a while. I wish more people would do it, but most of the folks in Congress obviously aren't listening. The majority of people want out of Iraq. The majority of people don't want higher taxes. And the majority of people don't want them to continue to spend us further into debt.

[Truth-Bringer]

There is absolutely nothing actionable in this briefing, NOTHING.

You didn't answer the question. Did that report "downplay the threat"?

[Federal Farmer]

Context for the truth you have brought

True.
Now lets add some context: The US overthrow of the Iranian Shaw, the '72 Olympics, The Iranian Hostage Crisis... any of this sound familiar? We had none of those problems with Saddam in Iraq, so when Iran invaded, we helped out to see to it there would not be a decisive winner - we aimed for a stalemate and thats what happened, neither became dominant in the region.
Somebody needs to be held accountable for that "Failed Policy"?

Uh, a point of "truth" if I may; we didn't have anything to do with the overthrow of the SHAH of Iran, and in fact were supporters of his, which is why President Carter went to Iran to visit him in 1977, we didn't have anything to do with the '72 Munich Olympic murders (that was Black September, a PLO terrorist group), and the actions of Delta to free our hostages from Iran following the take over of our Embassy in their Revolution was LONG overdue, but doomed because of a lack of proper resources provided to the rescue team. As to what any of that has to do with Saddam, I'm at a loss to follow.

True.
Now lets add some Context: Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), the Cold War, Berlin Wall, Expansion of Communism through the Asian Continent, Korea, Vietnam... There was one major enemy to focus on. We did help support Bin Laden in his fight against the Communists. His Al-Qaeda group was was one of nearly 400 that we supported in Afghanistan's fight against Communist expansion... But because ONE group came back to bite us in the ask, you think WE'RE the bad guys?

Bin Laden was a minor "lieutenant" during the Afghans fight against the Soviets, and any help we may have provided him was totally a coincidence, as he was one of the many thousands we were 'helping', but he was far from being a "major player" in that campaign.

[Federal Farmer]

You didn't answer the question. Did that report "downplay the threat"?

Mainly because your question is a Red Herring. You asserted that President Bush had been briefed on UBL, and intimated that he should have done something, yet the very briefing you present as somehow being 'proof' that he should have done something only serves to prove that there was nothing that he could have done with the very information you presented.

Now, do you have any evidence of any briefings, or factual information that President Bush had at any time in the 9 months from the time he took the Oath of Office, and the 9-11 attacks, that was actionable?

[GenSeneca]

Uh, a point of "truth" if I may; we didn't have anything to do with the overthrow of the SHAH of Iran, and in fact were supporters of his, which is why President Carter went to Iran to visit him in 1977, we didn't have anything to do with the '72 Munich Olympic murders (that was Black September, a PLO terrorist group), and the actions of Delta to free our hostages from Iran following the take over of our Embassy in their Revolution was LONG overdue, but doomed because of a lack of proper resources provided to the rescue team.
Quite right, my apologies for the inaccuracy and thanks for the corrections.
As to what any of that has to do with Saddam, I'm at a loss to follow.
My attempt was to show there was a great deal going on in the world and specifically concerning the middle east. Things were not so simple as US supporting Saddam for no apparent reason, it was in our best interest to see he didn't lose but also didn't win.
Bin Laden was a minor "lieutenant" during the Afghans fight against the Soviets, and any help we may have provided him was totally a coincidence, as he was one of the many thousands we were 'helping', but he was far from being a "major player" in that campaign.
Thanks for reinforcing my point that he was a virtual nobody who came back to haunt us... As opposed to the view that we knew all along he was a psychopath bent on killing Americans but supported him anyway.

[GenSeneca]

Yes, someone does need to be held accountable. It ultimately empowered Hussein.
Doing nothing would have empowered Iran but you fail to take that scenario into account. You don't see it as a catch 22 - I do. There was no perfect solution.
Regardless, IT WAS NONE OF OUR DAMN BUSINESS. If they want to kill each other, so be it.
You have moved from facts to pure opinion. So in my opinion, it was our business, they did want to kill each other and we let them... Neither side became dominant in the region as a result of our "interference".
All we have to do is leave communist countries alone, and they'll eventually collapse. If we would have stopped grain shipments to the Soviets, they would have collapsed decades earlier.
You don't see the policy of containment playing any role in that being the case? Isolationist nations cannot by definition use a policy of Containment.
If we simply keep our military strong, and leave everyone else alone, we'll be safe and secure. It's not rocket science, people.
Valence effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valence_effect) in action.
http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dspolitic/pm/1942/21225cs.jpg
Denial of freedom is an evil. Why should we look to emulate the evil of our enemies? Get a grip, man.
Straw man tactic. Come back to reality and deal with what I said: We are better than other nations because we have a free press and they don't. The fact that you can point to all of our misdeeds, and none of the enemies, proves my point. I think this reality is responsible for the spotlight fallacies about America and its Military.
Again, if you continue to vote for the same party, for people who enact the same principles, you are not holding them accountable.
Heres the problem... I can agree with a 3rd party on 3/3 policies but they stand no chance of winning on a national stage. There are only 2 viable parties on the national stage, one I agree with 2/3 times and the other 1/3.
This years candidates are both 0 for 3 on my scale, so I'm looking at tossing my vote away on a third party anyway... No matter who wins the White House, we will have a tax-n-spend Congress calling the shots. A majority in Congress is the real prize, they hold the purse strings, only they can fix the budget.
Additionally, Holding Government Officials accountable for their actions is the role of the Government. The separation of powers and the system of checks and balances is in place specifically to maintain a high level of accountability, its just not exercised as often as it should be.
I think not voting for them is perfectly clear. If you're going to vote for Democrat or Republican, you have to vote for someone who votes against the budget. There are only a handful of Congressmen doing that. If not, you have to vote for a third party. If you continue to vote for people who contribute to the problem, then you are part of problem.
We agree on this as far as presidential candidates go... This cycle we're doomed. For the House and Senate its a bit easier to find fiscal conservatives RUNNING for office, but not many get voted into office... Fiscally irresponsible Politicians that promise "Free stuff" usually get the job over them.
Been doing that a while. I wish more people would do it, but most of the folks in Congress obviously aren't listening. The majority of people want out of Iraq. The majority of people don't want higher taxes. And the majority of people don't want them to continue to spend us further into debt.
Saying the majority of people want out of Iraq has no qualifier, same with taxes and same with spending.

"Do you want us out of Iraq?" can be answered "yes" by people with 3 different opinions about WHEN; a. when the country is secure, b. when the Iraqi's can begin to secure their own country, c. right now, no matter what the consequences.

Taxes: Do you want to save the planet from Global Warming? A majority will answer yes, whether or not they realize it means oppressive taxation.

Spending: Do you want Universal Healthcare? A majority will answer yes, because people don't care so much about the budget going farther into deficit, so long as they get something out of it.

People don't pay attention to these correlations and the media has an agenda to push, so they only point out such correlations when its in their best interest.

[Truth-Bringer]

So in my opinion, it was our business,

Then go enlist in the military, or are interventionism and war only good in your opinion if other people besides you have to do the fighting and the dying?

To you and Federal Farmer, I've already addressed all your points before, (http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2780) and on more than one occasion. (http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2777) I'm not going to waste any more time on this thread with either of you.

[Federal Farmer]

Then go enlist in the military, or are interventionism and war only good in your opinion if other people besides you have to do the fighting and the dying?

To you and Federal Farmer, I've already addressed all your points before, (http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2780) and on more than one occasion. (http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2777) I'm not going to waste any more time on this thread with either of you.

Excuse me? You throw out a Red Herring, and then claim that you don't want to talk about it any more? Is that strains of "retreat" I hear in the background as I watch the white flag being hoisted over your camp?

As far as your admonition that someone who supports the GWOT, OIF and OEF should enlist, perhaps you'd care to inform us of YOUR service? As a Veteran, I find it more than just a bit disingenuous of someone to even suggest that someone do something that they themselves have never done, especially in a vain attempt to 'score points' in a political debate. If you have served, THANK YOU. If not, shove it up your fourth point of contact.

[Truth-Bringer]

Excuse me? You throw out a Red Herring, and then claim that you don't want to talk about it any more?

As I said, I've already addressed all these points. I'm not going to listen to your fallacies. You can't handle the truth. (http://www.chaostan.com/whydotheyhateus.html)

As far as your admonition that someone who supports the GWOT, OIF and OEF should enlist, perhaps you'd care to inform us of YOUR service?

I don't support interventionism, therefore my position is not hypocritical. You guys are the ones that want to send troops everywhere, yet you won't go fight in the wars you support. You want other people besides you to do the fighting and the dying. Doesn't matter if you've served in the past, what matters is your current support of sending other people to war. Either join up again and go, or your position is hypocritical.