| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
12 Nov 2003 09:38:16 PM |
| Object: |
CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
'We could lose this situation'
· CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong
· Crisis talks over transfer of power
Julian Borger in Washington and Rory McCarthy in Baghdad
Thursday November 13, 2003
The Guardian
The White House yesterday drew up emergency plans to accelerate the
transfer of power in Iraq after being shown a devastating CIA report
warning that the guerrilla war was in danger of escalating out of US
control.
The report, an "appraisal of situation" commissioned by the CIA
director, George Tenet, and written by the CIA station chief in
Baghdad, said that the insurgency was gaining ground among the
population, and already numbers in the tens of thousands.
One military intelligence assessment now estimates the insurgents'
strength at 50,000. Analysts cautioned that such a figure was
speculative, but it does indicate a deep-rooted revolt on a far
greater scale than the Pentagon had led the administration to believe.
An intelligence source in Washington familiar with the CIA report
described it as a "bleak assessment that the resistance is broad,
strong and getting stronger".
"It says we are going to lose the situation unless there is a rapid
and dramatic change of course," the source said.
"There are thousands in the resistance - not just a core of
Ba'athists. They are in the thousands, and growing every day. Not all
those people are actually firing, but providing support, shelter and
all that."
Although, the report was an internal CIA document it was widely
circulated within the administration. Even more unusually, it carried
an endorsement by Paul Bremer, the civilian head of the US-run
occupation of Iraq - a possible sign that he was seeking to bypass his
superiors in the Pentagon and send a message directly to President
George Bush on how bad the situation has become.
Proof of the strength of the insurgents and their ability to strike
anywhere in Iraq was provided in another devastating suicide bombing
yesterday.
This time the target was the Italian military police barracks in the
south-eastern city of Nasariya.
At least 17 Italians and eight Iraqis were killed, striking a blow at
one of the few nations prepared to send troops to help the US and
Britain contain the rising violence.
Following crisis talks in Washington yesterday, Mr Bremer flew back to
Baghdad armed with proposals to bolster the US-backed Iraqi governing
council with more powers and more resources in an attempt to speed up
elections.
Under one of the proposals, the council could be expanded or
transformed into a full provisional government backed by an interim
constitution.
That would represent a radical reversal of earlier US policy which was
to put off the transfer of real power to an Iraqi government until
after elections, which in turn would have to await a comprehensive new
constitution.
The new blueprint, which reverses that methodological progression and
which is closer to what was done in post-war Afghanistan, emerged from
an urgently arranged series of meetings between the president, his top
national security advisers, and Mr Bremer, as the security situation
in Iraq continued to deteriorate rapidly.
In scenes last night reminiscent of the height of the war, US forces
went back on the offensive with air strikes and armoured assaults on a
suspected guerrilla stronghold near Baghdad. Guerrilla attacks,
meanwhile, have become more frequent, bolder and bloodier.
In public at least, the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has
insisted that the attacks are the work of a few remnants of Saddam
Hussein's Ba'athist party and a handful of Islamic jihadists from
other Arab countries.
It is understood that Mr Bremer's administration is concerned about
the impact of the decision by US forces to escalate their offensive
against the insurgents, anxious that bombing and heavy-handed raids
will increase popular support for the insurgency.
Mr Bremer refused to provide details of the new US plan, but US and
British officials said he was carrying proposals from Mr Bush aimed at
bolstering the interim Iraqi leadership in the hope of winning the
confidence of Iraqis and paving the way for elections pencilled in for
the end of next year. But, according to some US officials, elections
could be held in four to six months.
The UN security council has given the Iraqi governing council until
December 15 to come up with a constitutional blueprint and organising
elections.
The council, deeply divided by internal disputes, has shown little
sign of meeting that deadline, but the new US proposals would put it
under pressure to accelerate its work and the transfer of power.
One of the options discussed in the White House yesterday was
replacing the governing council with a new body.
The council was hand-picked by Washington after the war, largely from
returning exiles, but it has since disappointed US officials by its
slow progress. Many of its 24 members fail to turn up to its meetings,
and the CIA report said the council had little support among the Iraqi
population.
However, the secretary of state, Colin Powell insisted: "We are
committed to the governing council and are prepared to help them in
any way we can."
"We're looking at all sorts of ideas, and we do want to accelerate the
work of reform," Mr Powell said.
"We want to accelerate the work of putting a legal basis under the new
Iraqi government and we are doing everything we can to get the
governing council equipped with everything they need."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1083847,00.html
.
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
13 Nov 2003 05:35:30 AM |
|
|
Bush has already lost in Iraq.
Further, their policies are going in the completely
wrong direction; ie, they are now starting to bomb
civilians as part of their get tough policy.
Additionally, Bush is planning to draw down the number
of troops, and just the oposite is needed. (Where did
all that international help go we were supposed to get?
Bush muffed that one too!)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
13 Nov 2003 07:50:12 AM |
|
|
"PagCal" <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:vr6r43ltrn557b@corp.supernews.com...
Bush has already lost in Iraq.
Further, their policies are going in the completely
wrong direction; ie, they are now starting to bomb
civilians as part of their get tough policy.
Additionally, Bush is planning to draw down the number
of troops, and just the oposite is needed. (Where did
all that international help go we were supposed to get?
Bush muffed that one too!)
Good call pagCal. I remember the cons in here throwing a victory party after
the UN vote. Where is that international help. We're are gonna be in Iraq
for a long time. All for Cheney's oil. I hop some how President Dean can get
us out of there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
13 Nov 2003 08:16:30 AM |
|
|
"Greg" <grag.g@surferie.net> wrote in message
news:vr731lnlerupef@corp.supernews.com...
"PagCal" <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:vr6r43ltrn557b@corp.supernews.com...
Bush has already lost in Iraq.
Further, their policies are going in the completely
wrong direction; ie, they are now starting to bomb
civilians as part of their get tough policy.
Additionally, Bush is planning to draw down the number
of troops, and just the oposite is needed. (Where did
all that international help go we were supposed to get?
Bush muffed that one too!)
Good call pagCal. I remember the cons in here throwing a victory party
after
the UN vote. Where is that international help. We're are gonna be in Iraq
for a long time. All for Cheney's oil. I hop some how President Dean can
get
us out of there.
Japanese just reversed themselves.
They will not be sending troops
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
13 Nov 2003 09:11:41 AM |
|
|
If what you guys are saying, that due to what we have done in Iraq,
insurgents/terrorists are flocking there to fight the Americans, it appears
we have decided to use the Mohammed Ali "Rope A Dope" principle and it must
be working pretty well. I think that would be a good thing to do. I would
much more prefer we pick our battlefield that let the enemy do it because I
think they would rather it be on our soil instead of theirs. I like theirs
better. When it comes down to our civilians being killed versus their
civilians being killed, well, I had rather it be neither, but having to
pick, I'll pick theirs.
--
If you can't protest with a voter registration card
what makes you think you have any clout with
your opinions?
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
| User: "ulTRAX" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
13 Nov 2003 04:47:21 PM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message news:<MaNsb.951671$Of.141173@news.easynews.com>...
If what you guys are saying, that due to what we have done in Iraq,
insurgents/terrorists are flocking there to fight the Americans, it appears
we have decided to use the Mohammed Ali "Rope A Dope" principle and it must
be working pretty well. I think that would be a good thing to do. I would
much more prefer we pick our battlefield that let the enemy do it because I
think they would rather it be on our soil instead of theirs. I like theirs
better. When it comes down to our civilians being killed versus their
civilians being killed, well, I had rather it be neither, but having to
pick, I'll pick theirs.
Bush only came up with this pathetic excuse as another attempt to
divert public attention away from the WMD issue and to further deceive
the American people into thinking the resistance against the US was
all part of some clever plan. By this measure the more resistance...
the better the plan is working because the "terrorists" are over
there.
Bush's demented policies are based on the false premise that there's
some set number of terrorists out there and each on killed is one less
to worry about. That is, of course, *****. Rumsfeld was closer to
the truth when he asked in his leaked memo whether the Islamic
religious schools were turning out more radicals. But even his
question had a hidden premise that blinds them both to the truth.
It's clear that only the CIA now understands that bulk of the
resistance is not just coming from a few hundred foreign fighters or
Saddam loyalists... but it's coming from a resentful Iraqi populace.
Bush has insanely fed the flames that produce MORE "terrorists". He
has bogged down our military so it's not available should we need it
to face a REAL threat. Is THIS your idea that Bush's policies have
made us more safe?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
13 Nov 2003 05:09:08 PM |
|
|
"ulTRAX" <ulTRAX@arabia.com> wrote in message
news:3513d8b1.0311131447.a9215e3@posting.google.com...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:<MaNsb.951671$Of.141173@news.easynews.com>...
If what you guys are saying, that due to what we have done in Iraq,
insurgents/terrorists are flocking there to fight the Americans, it
appears
we have decided to use the Mohammed Ali "Rope A Dope" principle and it
must
be working pretty well. I think that would be a good thing to do. I
would
much more prefer we pick our battlefield that let the enemy do it
because I
think they would rather it be on our soil instead of theirs. I like
theirs
better. When it comes down to our civilians being killed versus their
civilians being killed, well, I had rather it be neither, but having to
pick, I'll pick theirs.
Bush only came up with this pathetic excuse as another attempt to
divert public attention away from the WMD issue and to further deceive
the American people into thinking the resistance against the US was
all part of some clever plan. By this measure the more resistance...
the better the plan is working because the "terrorists" are over
there.
Bush's demented policies are based on the false premise that there's
some set number of terrorists out there and each on killed is one less
to worry about. That is, of course, *****. Rumsfeld was closer to
the truth when he asked in his leaked memo whether the Islamic
religious schools were turning out more radicals. But even his
question had a hidden premise that blinds them both to the truth.
It's clear that only the CIA now understands that bulk of the
resistance is not just coming from a few hundred foreign fighters or
Saddam loyalists... but it's coming from a resentful Iraqi populace.
Bush has insanely fed the flames that produce MORE "terrorists". He
has bogged down our military so it's not available should we need it
to face a REAL threat. Is THIS your idea that Bush's policies have
made us more safe?
I feel a hell of a lots safer with them fighting over there than I would
with them fighting over here. Now, when you, can guarantee me that there
will be no more attacks or any fighting take place on our soil, I'll
consider you strongly for our next President. Until then, you're just
another guy with an opinion so invalid you won't even back it up with the
integrity of your family name. So, which is it? Are you ashamed of your
family name, or are you afraid your family would be ashamed of your opinion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "TruePatriot" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
13 Nov 2003 10:00:23 PM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message news:<naUsb.326308$1v5.3716751@news.easynews.com>...
"ulTRAX" <ulTRAX@arabia.com> wrote in message
news:3513d8b1.0311131447.a9215e3@posting.google.com...
I feel a hell of a lots safer with them fighting over there than I would
with them fighting over here. Now, when you, can guarantee me that there
will be no more attacks or any fighting take place on our soil, I'll
consider you strongly for our next President. Until then, you're just
another guy with an opinion so invalid you won't even back it up with the
integrity of your family name. So, which is it? Are you ashamed of your
family name, or are you afraid your family would be ashamed of your opinion?
I've got bad news buddy. THEY'RE COMING TO KILL YOU AGAIN. SOON. If
you don't believe me look at the INCREASE in attacks since 9/11.
You're no safer now than before because Bush has stirred up a hornets
nest of hatred towards the US. ***** even I hate the US now and most of
my friends do and I'm Canadian. Look around you asswipe I'm talking
about "Old Europe" and all your other former allies that Rumsfield and
Bush insulted. Yes that's right we hear your ***** in other countries
too ***** wads. So live with the fucking grave you dug and stop coming
crawling back to the UN for help. We told you so.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ulTRAX" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
13 Nov 2003 10:55:10 PM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message news:<naUsb.326308$1v5.3716751@news.easynews.com>...
I feel a hell of a lots safer with them fighting over there than I would
with them fighting over here. Now, when you, can guarantee me that there
will be no more attacks or any fighting take place on our soil, I'll
consider you strongly for our next President. [nonsense removed]
And neither can Bush claim his plan will end attacks against the US.
We might not have had any since 911 because none were planned.
Invading Iraq was a move of supreme stupidity and arrogance. We had
some legitimate right to strike back at the Taliban for housing... if
not co-conspiring with Bin Laden. But we have a fundie Christian
president who thinks God told him to invade a SECOND Islamic nation...
and one that had NO role in 911. The ONLY result could be that it
would be a mess... and Cheney predicted back in 91 such an invasion to
depose Saddam would be a "quagmire".
Because of Bush's War there's more "terrorists" in the pipeline than
there were before the war. So what makes you think they all will stay
in the mid-east and some won't strike at the US? Al Quida was
certainly motivated to make their way here just based upon US policies
prior to 911. So what's to stop others? Do you really think
"terrorists" will just wait for another golden 911 opportunity to make
a big splash? One person with an RPG can take out a tank of toxic
chemicals in an urban setting. How many people died in Bhopal India
back in '84? 2000? One person can poison a water supply or build a
bomb lie Tim McVay with ordinary materials bought at Home Depot. We
also have to be wary Bush's War won't create a home front of people
already here.
What you and your president are clueless about is it's not WMDs that
kill... it's the willingness to use them. Given enough hatred... those
who hate WILL find a way to inflict pain or damage. None the less your
resident in chief has gone out of his way to stir up a region of the
world that was already a powder keg.
Such are the consequences when self-deluded psychos in high places
think they have a direct line from God. In that respect Bush is little
better than a Bin Ladin. Both have actually deluded themselves into
believing "God" is on their side... and S/He gleefully approves of
whatever death and destruction these "believers" can conceive.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
14 Nov 2003 12:15:25 AM |
|
|
I feel a hell of a lots safer with them fighting over there than I would
Once they build their organization up in Iraq, they'll come for you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
14 Nov 2003 10:41:40 AM |
|
|
Brooks Gregory writes:
Brooks> I feel a hell of a lots safer with them fighting over there than I would
Brooks> with them fighting over here. Now, when you, can guarantee me that there
Does making their recruiting easier make you feel
safer too?
Brooks> will be no more attacks or any fighting take place on our soil, I'll
Brooks> consider you strongly for our next President. Until then, you're just
Brooks> another guy with an opinion so invalid you won't even back it up with the
Brooks> integrity of your family name. So, which is it? Are you ashamed of your
Brooks> family name, or are you afraid your family would be ashamed of your opinion?
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
14 Nov 2003 11:01:39 AM |
|
|
<ahall@no-spam-panix.com> wrote in message
news:kpghe16nbqz.fsf@panix3.panix.com...
Brooks Gregory writes:
Brooks> I feel a hell of a lots safer with them fighting over there
than I would
Brooks> with them fighting over here. Now, when you, can guarantee me
that there
Does making their recruiting easier make you feel
safer too?
As long as they are doing it over there, damn right it does. The more of
them that get identified, the more of them that get nullified. And that
makes me feel a lot safer. Are you saying that leaving them alone would make
you feel safer? Maybe you should move into a high rise office building where
you would really feel safe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
17 Nov 2003 09:12:07 AM |
|
|
Brooks Gregory writes:
ahall@no-spam-panix.com> wrote in message
news> kpghe16nbqz.fsf@panix3.panix.com...
Brooks Gregory writes:
Brooks> I feel a hell of a lots safer with them fighting over there
Brooks> than I would
Brooks> with them fighting over here. Now, when you, can guarantee me
Brooks> that there
Does making their recruiting easier make you feel
safer too?
Brooks> As long as they are doing it over there, damn right it does. The more of
Where do you think the 19 hijackers were recruited?
Brooks> them that get identified, the more of them that get nullified. And that
Yes, but if more are recruited than nullified, it is not a good
thing.
Brooks> makes me feel a lot safer. Are you saying that leaving them alone would make
Brooks> you feel safer? Maybe you should move into a high rise office building where
No, but focusing on the correct targets would.
Brooks> you would really feel safe.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chris.holt" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
14 Nov 2003 02:05:13 PM |
|
|
Brooks Gregory wrote:
<ahall@no-spam-panix.com> wrote...
Does making their recruiting easier make you feel
safer too?
As long as they are doing it over there, damn right it does. The more of
them that get identified, the more of them that get nullified. And that
makes me feel a lot safer. Are you saying that leaving them alone would make
you feel safer? Maybe you should move into a high rise office building where
you would really feel safe.
Hmm. Increasing the numbers of people who hate you from n to 5n
makes you feel safer, as long as it's Over There. It's an
interesting theory, and Just Might Work if there were no
way for Them to get Over Here.
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
14 Nov 2003 03:18:02 PM |
|
|
"chris.holt" <chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bp3cho$eno$4@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
Brooks Gregory wrote:
<ahall@no-spam-panix.com> wrote...
Does making their recruiting easier make you feel
safer too?
As long as they are doing it over there, damn right it does. The more of
them that get identified, the more of them that get nullified. And that
makes me feel a lot safer. Are you saying that leaving them alone would
make
you feel safer? Maybe you should move into a high rise office building
where
you would really feel safe.
Hmm. Increasing the numbers of people who hate you from n to 5n
makes you feel safer, as long as it's Over There. It's an
interesting theory, and Just Might Work if there were no
way for Them to get Over Here.
Uhhh, isn't the point of us being over there?
.
|
|
|
| User: "chris.holt" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
14 Nov 2003 04:12:49 PM |
|
|
Brooks Gregory wrote:
"chris.holt" <chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk> wrote...
Brooks Gregory wrote:
<ahall@no-spam-panix.com> wrote...
Does making their recruiting easier make you feel
safer too?
As long as they are doing it over there, damn right it does. The more of
them that get identified, the more of them that get nullified. And that
makes me feel a lot safer. Are you saying that leaving them alone would
make
you feel safer? Maybe you should move into a high rise office building
where
you would really feel safe.
Hmm. Increasing the numbers of people who hate you from n to 5n
makes you feel safer, as long as it's Over There. It's an
interesting theory, and Just Might Work if there were no
way for Them to get Over Here.
Uhhh, isn't the point of us being over there?
Well, I missed the plan to destroy the airline and tourist
industries. After all, the people who did 9/11 didn't
(as far as I know) check the little boxes on their forms
that asked "Are you or have you ever been a terrorist?"
And without that, how do you prevent infiltration? [Isn't
that a good 1950s word? :-]
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
14 Nov 2003 04:38:50 PM |
|
|
"chris.holt" <> wrote in message
news:bp3k10$if8$1@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
Brooks Gregory wrote:
"chris.holt" < > wrote...
Brooks Gregory wrote:
<ahall@no-spam-panix.com> wrote...
Does making their recruiting easier make you feel
safer too?
As long as they are doing it over there, damn right it does. The more
of
them that get identified, the more of them that get nullified. And that
makes me feel a lot safer. Are you saying that leaving them alone would
make
you feel safer? Maybe you should move into a high rise office building
where
you would really feel safe.
Hmm. Increasing the numbers of people who hate you from n to 5n
makes you feel safer, as long as it's Over There. It's an
interesting theory, and Just Might Work if there were no
way for Them to get Over Here.
Uhhh, isn't the point of us being over there?
Well, I missed the plan to destroy the airline and tourist
industries. >
http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
Maybe they didn't know you wanted to be in on it. Did you try to contact
them?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gogarty" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
14 Nov 2003 03:37:33 PM |
|
|
In article <eEbtb.7540$Te.72356@news.easynews.com>,
brooksgregory@sbctelco.com says...
Uhhh, isn't the point of us being over there?
What is the point of our being over there? What is this week's
rationalization?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
14 Nov 2003 03:52:05 PM |
|
|
"Gogarty" <Gogarty@Dublin.edu> wrote in message
news:IaGdnUSXJe6K1iii4p2dnA@bway.net...
In article <eEbtb.7540$Te.72356@news.easynews.com>,
brooksgregory@sbctelco.com says...
Uhhh, isn't the point of us being over there?
What is the point of our being over there? What is this week's
rationalization?
Oh, I would have to say it is to back up our word. You know, these words:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies
is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destrution and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is
doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have
alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if
left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to
develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He
is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He
presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently
prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his
consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of
Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
After all, somebody had to sooner or later.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
17 Nov 2003 09:13:38 AM |
|
|
Brooks Gregory writes:
Brooks> "Gogarty" <Gogarty@Dublin.edu> wrote in message
news> IaGdnUSXJe6K1iii4p2dnA@bway.net...
In article <eEbtb.7540$Te.72356@news.easynews.com>,
brooksgregory@sbctelco.com says...
Uhhh, isn't the point of us being over there?
What is the point of our being over there? What is this week's
rationalization?
Brooks> Oh, I would have to say it is to back up our word. You know, these words:
Brooks> "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
Brooks> develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
Brooks> That is our bottom line."
Brooks> President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
Looks as if it was working.
Brooks> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
Brooks> clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
Brooks> weapons of mass destruction program."
Brooks> President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
Yep, no weapons or delivery systems found.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TruePatriot" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
13 Nov 2003 09:37:31 PM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message news:<MaNsb.951671$Of.141173@news.easynews.com>...
If what you guys are saying, that due to what we have done in Iraq,
insurgents/terrorists are flocking there to fight the Americans, it appears
we have decided to use the Mohammed Ali "Rope A Dope" principle and it must
be working pretty well. I think that would be a good thing to do. I would
much more prefer we pick our battlefield that let the enemy do it because I
think they would rather it be on our soil instead of theirs. I like theirs
better. When it comes down to our civilians being killed versus their
civilians being killed, well, I had rather it be neither, but having to
pick, I'll pick theirs.
Have a look around numbnuts. This "war on terror" is a lost cause.
YOU'LL FAIL IT. You already have. Add up the attacks before 9/11 and
the ones since and you'll see they're on THE RISE. Next time I'd say
thousands and thousands more Americans will die. Violence breads
violence and hate and every time you retards attack you'll bread more
and more contempt. Hell you've probably created thousands of Osama Bin
Ladens in Iraq, a country that previously had nothing to do with
terrorism. What you don't see is that this war in Iraq is the last
gasp of a dying civilization. Your country's dominance is basically
over, you'll be replaced by the Chinese in 10 years or less. I just
hope for your sake that they were as nice a superpower as you guys
were... NOT!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Skip Freeman" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
13 Nov 2003 12:00:18 PM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message news:<MaNsb.951671$Of.141173@news.easynews.com>...
When it comes down to our civilians being killed versus their
civilians being killed, well, I had rather it be neither, but having to
pick, I'll pick theirs.
For any given war that is right, moral and necessary, I too, if given
the opportunity to decide, would have it fought as far away from
myself and my family as possible. However, this war in Iraq is none
of these three but is in fact, quite the opposite. Thus, if it was
absolutely going to be waged, then it would have been better for it to
have been waged right here on American soil. This, of course, could
never have happened, but if it had then perhaps the Americans who
unthinkingly support the war would then have come to fully understand
the folly, horror and immorality of it.
-Skip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
13 Nov 2003 01:01:25 PM |
|
|
"Skip Freeman" <skip@cutey.com> wrote in message
news:178e088.0311131000.59b46eda@posting.google.com...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:<MaNsb.951671$Of.141173@news.easynews.com>...
When it comes down to our civilians being killed versus their
civilians being killed, well, I had rather it be neither, but having to
pick, I'll pick theirs.
For any given war that is right, moral and necessary, I too, if given
the opportunity to decide, would have it fought as far away from
myself and my family as possible. However, this war in Iraq is none
of these three but is in fact, quite the opposite. Thus, if it was
absolutely going to be waged, then it would have been better for it to
have been waged right here on American soil. This, of course, could
never have happened, but if it had then perhaps the Americans who
unthinkingly support the war would then have come to fully understand
the folly, horror and immorality of it.
-Skip
And, I suppose you would advocate they all throw up their hands, surrender
and say we're sorry, right? Young fellow, this old world ain't a happy
place. It never has been and it never will be. There will always be those
that hate us because we caused them some harm and there will always be those
that hate us because we were perfect and there will always be those that
hate us for any number of reasons in between the extremes. It's a fact of
life pal. We either react to it, or we succumb to it. I choose the former
and I don't give a ***** what the reasons are. If there is the slightest hint
of a threat to my family, I am not going to stand around a wait for it to
evolve into more than a mere threat. That's the new world order and I
suggest we get ready for it.
If anybody thinks pre-emtion is not the best tactic, maybe they should visit
the family of that young fellow that was murdered and hung out on a fence in
Arizona or that black man in Jasper, Texas, or that gay banker in Houston,
Texas. Everyone of them were threatened well in advance of their demise. And
by ignoring that, they are no longer with us. When Saddam said after Clinton
wiped out the aspirin factory that Americans would scream into the streets
with their skin melting from their bodies, that's about all it took for me
agree with a change from the "Kill Americans First" theory to one of
Pre-emption.
If there is anyone in this country that is so naive as to believe that
someone like the leaders of Iraq, Syria, N. Korea or others of that ilk
would not take this country down the very minute they saw a chance, has to
be living one hell of a fantasy.
This moral ***** is just that, *****. It is akin to walking up on your
Mother being raped and not helping her because she once did an imoral act of
lying by telling you there was a Santa Claus. I don't buy into that and if
you think about it, I doubt you would either. It's the same ***** some
people try to use with that trading arms for hostages crap. If one of those
hostages would have been your daughter or your son, you have kissed Reagans
***** to try to get him to make the trade. Unless you just don't love your
kids.
.
|
|
|
| User: "lsj7" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
13 Nov 2003 02:10:41 PM |
|
|
Brooks Gregory wrote:
"Skip Freeman" <skip@cutey.com> wrote in message
news:178e088.0311131000.59b46eda@posting.google.com...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:<MaNsb.951671$Of.141173@news.easynews.com>...
Brooks, you are full of ***** up to your ears.
--
lsj7
It may be true that you can't fool all the people all the time, but you
can fool enough of them to rule a large country.
________will durant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starman" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
14 Nov 2003 02:33:05 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:10:41 -0600, "lsj7"
<modus_ponens@ifthenbut.coma> wrote:
Brooks Gregory wrote:
"Skip Freeman" <skip@cutey.com> wrote in message
news:178e088.0311131000.59b46eda@posting.google.com...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:<MaNsb.951671$Of.141173@news.easynews.com>...
Brooks, you are full of ***** up to your ears.
What ears? But I'll concede your point. He's a perfect example of
those who have been so successfully indoctinated to believe the 'We
may not always be right but we're never going to be wrong' school of
first-strike presumptive virtue that they don't even question their
faulty one-sided grasp of World History and US Foreign Policy, which
in any case is just sufficient for them to obediantly-- and
predictably-- fall-into line behind and endorse the latest premiere
Imperialist despot who panders to their fears, encourages their
venality, excuses their banal moral weakness and absolves them of
their self-indulgent ignorance and conceits. What he sees as 'strength
and security through conquest' is a one-size-fits-all cliched-set of
blinders that 'saves' him the inconvenience and potential distraction
of an ethical dilemna over the inconsistencies and contradictions of
socially-institutionalized double-standard policies that make a
mockery of justice and a travesty of human-rights. His kind of
suck-up-to-authoritarian-elitism citizenship was precisely what Ben
Franklin had in mind when he said, "I am in favor of this
Constitution, as flawed as it is, because we need good government and
we need it fast. And this, properly enacted, will give us, for a space
of years, such government.
"(Yet) ... it will fail, as all such constitutions have in the past,
because of the essential corruption of the people. (He pointed his
finger at all the American people.) And when the people become so
corrupt, we will find it is not a republic that they want but rather
despotism -- the only form of government suitable for such a people."
(~ Ben Franklin quoted by Gore Vidal in an interview with LA Weekly's
Marc Cooper, while speaking about his latest book, 'Inventing a
Nation: Washington, Jefferson, Adams'.
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=48666)
Starman
**********
"The "war against terrorism" is a strategy to consolidate American
power. It includes bribing and controlling governments in former
Soviet central Asia, establishing US bases in the region to control
resources and to "contain" China, the expansion of the American arms
industry; and the speeding up of trade liberalisation.
"This is a war of the rich against the poor. The toll is 12 million
children under the age of five every year, according to United Nations
estimates. The "war on terrorism" gives a pretext for the capitalist
countries, dominated by the US, to increase their dominance over world
affairs. America intends to eliminate challenges to its efforts to
control and manage the "global economy". Hannah Middleton
Everyone should know that the US National Security Strategy -- now
includes attacking possible future competitors first, assuming
regional hegemony by force of arms, controlling energy resources
around the globe, and maintaining a -----permanent-war ------
strategy.
http://pnac.info/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
13 Nov 2003 11:38:52 AM |
|
|
Rope-A-Dope
Did you see what rope-a-dope did to Ali? He's now perminantly brain damaged.
Is that what you want to happin to the US?
.
|
|
|
| User: "steve2000" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
13 Nov 2003 09:14:51 PM |
|
|
PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote in message news:<vr7gdcrp9bdq24@corp.supernews.com>...
Rope-A-Dope
Did you see what rope-a-dope did to Ali? He's now perminantly brain damaged.
Is that what you want to happin to the US?
Thanks to the Idiot POTUS, it already has happened.
sx
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Suomy Nona" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
15 Nov 2003 12:06:47 PM |
|
|
PagCal wrote:
Rope-A-Dope
Did you see what rope-a-dope did to Ali? He's now perminantly brain
damaged.
Is that what you want to happin to the US?
GW started out that way - his brain was already damaged
from drugs and alcohol..
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bush Lies" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
13 Nov 2003 11:54:25 AM |
|
|
Brooks Gregory wrote:
If what you guys are saying, that due to what we have done in Iraq,
insurgents/terrorists are flocking there to fight the Americans,
No, it is Iraqis which have decided they don't want colonialism.
it appears
we have decided to use the Mohammed Ali "Rope A Dope" principle and it must
be working pretty well. I think that would be a good thing to do. I would
much more prefer we pick our battlefield that let the enemy do it because I
think they would rather it be on our soil instead of theirs. I like theirs
better. When it comes down to our civilians being killed versus their
civilians being killed, well, I had rather it be neither, but having to
pick, I'll pick theirs.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "FauxPrez" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
13 Nov 2003 09:49:40 AM |
|
|
In article <MaNsb.951671$Of.141173@news.easynews.com>, "Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:
}If what you guys are saying, that due to what we have done in Iraq,
}insurgents/terrorists are flocking there to fight the Americans, it appears
}we have decided to use the Mohammed Ali "Rope A Dope" principle and it must
}be working pretty well. I think that would be a good thing to do. I would
}much more prefer we pick our battlefield that let the enemy do it because I
}think they would rather it be on our soil instead of theirs. I like theirs
}better. When it comes down to our civilians being killed versus their
}civilians being killed, well, I had rather it be neither, but having to
}pick, I'll pick theirs.
Yeah, keep telling yourself this outcome was chosen deliberately.
Keep telling yourself that it was all planned this way. Keep
telling yourself that the world is safer now with this
"strategy."
Maybe you'll sleep better at night with your delusions.
Nighty-night!
----
"This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude
... 'We know the answers - give us the intelligence to support
those answers.'"
- Gregory Thielmann, who served as a director in the state
department's bureau of intelligence until his retirement in
September 2002, and who had access to the classified reports
which formed the basis for the U.S. case against Saddam, spelled
out by pResident Bush and his minions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong |
13 Nov 2003 10:24:32 AM |
|
|
"FauxPrez" <shrub@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:oKNsb.9264$nz.8666@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In article <MaNsb.951671$Of.141173@news.easynews.com>, "Brooks Gregory"
<brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:
}If what you guys are saying, that due to what we have done in Iraq,
}insurgents/terrorists are flocking there to fight the Americans, it
appears
}we have decided to use the Mohammed Ali "Rope A Dope" principle and it
must
}be working pretty well. I think that would be a good thing to do. I would
}much more prefer we pick our battlefield that let the enemy do it because
I
}think they would rather it be on our soil instead of theirs. I like
theirs
}better. When it comes down to our civilians being killed versus their
}civilians being killed, well, I had rather it be neither, but having to
}pick, I'll pick theirs.
Yeah, keep telling yourself this outcome was chosen deliberately.
I won't read any further than that because I didn't say what you are trying
to say I did. Surely you noticed the "If".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
"Oh by the way, we've 30,000 muslim terrorist in America now."
War cost now exceeds $300,000,000,000.
Just now: 25,000 Americans under Israel fire!
Re: 140,000 troops now in Iraq
Police estimate of anti-Bush, pro-choice demonstration is now 800,000.
60%
50,000 Canadian passports now in the hands of criminals and terrorists
Cuba now has 71,000 doctors
| Total U.S. casualties in Iraq now over 21,000 -- 21,083
To Kim Jong Il. Physics is War. Apocalypse Now. On Armageddon (Apocalyptic Guerrilla War) and the 10,000 Year Agricultural Revolution. The Final Revolutionary War of Economic Salvation. On What is to be Done? On the Military Strategy for the Defeat
140,000 troops now in Iraq-nam!
U.S. wounded in Bush's obscene war now over 13,000. Any thoughts, Rove?
Number of U.S. troops wounded in Iraq passes 16,000. Now 16,061
U.S. troop casualties in Iraq now top 30,000 -- 30,157
Now it's "journalist" George Will with a $250,000 payola
|
|
|
