| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"elmer swanson" |
| Date: |
29 Jun 2004 03:11:05 PM |
| Object: |
What went wrong in Iraq? ("Who Lost Iraq?" from nyt.com) |
While I have no problem with freemarket economics (within reason),
this does sound f*cked up...
`....The insurgency took root during the occupation's first few
months, when the Coalition Provisional Authority seemed oddly
disengaged from the problems of postwar anarchy. But what was Paul
Bremer III, the head of the C.P.A., focused on? According to a
Washington Post reporter who shared a flight with him last June,
"Bremer discussed the need to privatize government-run factories with
such fervor that his voice cut through the din of the cargo hold."
Plans for privatization were eventually put on hold. But as he
prepared to leave Iraq, Mr. Bremer listed reduced tax rates, reduced
tariffs and the liberalization of foreign-investment laws as among his
major accomplishments. Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police
stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the
electricity is off most of the time — but we've given Iraq the gift of
supply-side economics.
If the occupiers often seemed oblivious to reality, one reason was
that many jobs at the C.P.A. went to people whose qualifications
seemed to lie mainly in their personal and political connections —
people like Simone Ledeen, whose father, Michael Ledeen, a prominent
neoconservative, told a forum that "the level of casualties is
secondary" because "we are a warlike people" and "we love war."
Still, given Mr. Bremer's economic focus, you might at least have
expected his top aide for private-sector development to be an expert
on privatization and liberalization in such countries as Russia or
Argentina. But the job initially went to Thomas Foley, a Connecticut
businessman and Republican fund-raiser with no obviously relevant
expertise. In March, Michael Fleischer, a New Jersey businessman, took
over. Yes, he's Ari Fleischer's brother. Mr. Fleischer told The
Chicago Tribune that part of his job was educating Iraqi businessmen:
"The only paradigm they know is cronyism. We are teaching them that
there is an alternative system with built-in checks and built-in
review."....`
From:
nyt.com "Who Lost Iraq?" June 29, 2004 By PAUL KRUGMAN OP-ED
COLUMNIST
The formal occupation of Iraq came to an ignominious end yesterday
with a furtive ceremony, held two days early to foil insurgent
attacks, and a swift airborne exit for the chief administrator. In
reality, the occupation will continue under another name, most likely
until a hostile Iraqi populace demands that we leave. But it's already
worth asking why things went so wrong.
The Iraq venture may have been doomed from the start — but we'll never
know for sure because the Bush administration made such a mess of the
occupation. Future historians will view it as a case study of how not
to run a country.
Up to a point, the numbers in the Brookings Institution's invaluable
Iraq Index tell the tale. Figures on the electricity supply and oil
production show a pattern of fitful recovery and frequent reversals;
figures on insurgent attacks and civilian casualties show a security
situation that got progressively worse, not better; public opinion
polls show an occupation that squandered the initial good will.
What the figures don't describe is the toxic mix of ideological
obsession and cronyism that lie behind that dismal performance.
The insurgency took root during the occupation's first few months,
when the Coalition Provisional Authority seemed oddly disengaged from
the problems of postwar anarchy. But what was Paul Bremer III, the
head of the C.P.A., focused on? According to a Washington Post
reporter who shared a flight with him last June, "Bremer discussed the
need to privatize government-run factories with such fervor that his
voice cut through the din of the cargo hold."
Plans for privatization were eventually put on hold. But as he
prepared to leave Iraq, Mr. Bremer listed reduced tax rates, reduced
tariffs and the liberalization of foreign-investment laws as among his
major accomplishments. Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police
stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the
electricity is off most of the time — but we've given Iraq the gift of
supply-side economics.
If the occupiers often seemed oblivious to reality, one reason was
that many jobs at the C.P.A. went to people whose qualifications
seemed to lie mainly in their personal and political connections —
people like Simone Ledeen, whose father, Michael Ledeen, a prominent
neoconservative, told a forum that "the level of casualties is
secondary" because "we are a warlike people" and "we love war."
Still, given Mr. Bremer's economic focus, you might at least have
expected his top aide for private-sector development to be an expert
on privatization and liberalization in such countries as Russia or
Argentina. But the job initially went to Thomas Foley, a Connecticut
businessman and Republican fund-raiser with no obviously relevant
expertise. In March, Michael Fleischer, a New Jersey businessman, took
over. Yes, he's Ari Fleischer's brother. Mr. Fleischer told The
Chicago Tribune that part of his job was educating Iraqi businessmen:
"The only paradigm they know is cronyism. We are teaching them that
there is an alternative system with built-in checks and built-in
review."
Checks and review? Yesterday a leading British charity, Christian Aid,
released a scathing report, "Fueling Suspicion," on the use of Iraqi
oil revenue. It points out that the May 2003 U.N. resolution giving
the C.P.A. the right to spend that revenue required the creation of an
international oversight board, which would appoint an auditor to
ensure that the funds were spent to benefit the Iraqi people.
Instead, the U.S. stalled, and the auditor didn't begin work until
April 2004. Even then, according to an interim report, it faced
"resistance from C.P.A. staff." And now, with the audit still
unpublished, the C.P.A. has been dissolved.
Defenders of the administration will no doubt say that Christian Aid
and other critics have no proof that the unaccounted-for billions were
ill spent. But think of it this way: given the Arab world's suspicion
that we came to steal Iraq's oil, the occupation authorities had every
incentive to expedite an independent audit that would clear
Halliburton and other U.S. corporations of charges that they were
profiteering at Iraq's expense. Unless, that is, the charges are true.
Let's say the obvious. By making Iraq a playground for right-wing
economic theorists, an employment agency for friends and family, and a
source of lucrative contracts for corporate donors, the administration
did terrorist recruiters a very big favor.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
.
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: What went wrong in Iraq? ("Who Lost Iraq?" from nyt.com) |
30 Jun 2004 04:25:46 AM |
|
|
What went wrong in Iraq?
1. We invaded. There was no link between 911 and Iraq. Iraq had no
WMD's. Containment was working.
2. We invaded with too few troops. The 'Day After Problem' of security
was seen by the military but overruled by the Bush junta. Terrorists are
now well entrenched in Iraq.
3. Our Commander in Chief dared insurgents to attack us with his now
famous 'Bring Em On' bravado.
4. After the invasion, we dissolved the Iraqi army. This left idle hands
to do the work of the devil and they did.
5. Early on, we did not give the Sunni's a share in the government. We
tried to de-bathify the society. Is it any wonder that the 'Sunni
Triangle' is still hot?
6. We tried to privatize their economic engine. This threw a lot of
people out of work.
7. Our economic rebuilding moneys were aimed at US companies, not at the
Iraqi infrastructure. We purposefully excluded Europe to punish them for
non-cooperation. We also excluded the Iraqis, who see our spending as
wasteful.
8. It didn't help that the CPA was stocked with political appointments
from Bush, who's agenda (delusions) didn't match what was happening on
the ground.
9. We continue to stay in Iraq. Even after the transition, we lost 3
troops to IED's. We have no clear exit strategy (aka Vietnam).
10. Our accounting of their oil revenues isn't all that good. Two
Billion are missing from the account since we took over.
11. Bush unilaterally abrogated the Geneva Conventions of War and
tortured prisoners there. This further alienated their 'hearts and
minds' against us.
12. We continue to loose 'hearts and minds' by dropping 500 lb bombs
into residential neighborhoods and killing women and children.
---
In short, the Iraqi Project was bungled, bungled, bungled - by a bunch
of idiots.
.
|
|
|
| User: "elmer swanson" |
|
| Title: Re: What went wrong in Iraq? ("Who Lost Iraq?" from nyt.com) |
30 Jun 2004 01:13:44 PM |
|
|
PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote in message news:<10e51oqlsmdoa2b@corp.supernews.com>...
What went wrong in Iraq?
1. We invaded. There was no link between 911 and Iraq. Iraq had no
WMD's. Containment was working.
2. We invaded with too few troops. The 'Day After Problem' of security
was seen by the military but overruled by the Bush junta. Terrorists are
now well entrenched in Iraq.
3. Our Commander in Chief dared insurgents to attack us with his now
famous 'Bring Em On' bravado.
Unforgivable brainless bravado.
4. After the invasion, we dissolved the Iraqi army. This left idle hands
to do the work of the devil and they did.
They should have been given work and pay even if it was for digging
holes and filling them up again. That's occupying foreign country 101.
5. Early on, we did not give the Sunni's a share in the government. We
tried to de-bathify the society. Is it any wonder that the 'Sunni
Triangle' is still hot?
That may have been unavoidable to some extent. Sunnis and especially
Saddam's kinsmen were losing major power.
6. We tried to privatize their economic engine. This threw a lot of
people out of work.
7. Our economic rebuilding moneys were aimed at US companies, not at the
Iraqi infrastructure. We purposefully excluded Europe to punish them for
non-cooperation. We also excluded the Iraqis, who see our spending as
wasteful.
8. It didn't help that the CPA was stocked with political appointments
from Bush, who's agenda (delusions) didn't match what was happening on
the ground.
9. We continue to stay in Iraq. Even after the transition, we lost 3
troops to IED's. We have no clear exit strategy (aka Vietnam).
10. Our accounting of their oil revenues isn't all that good. Two
Billion are missing from the account since we took over.
11. Bush unilaterally abrogated the Geneva Conventions of War and
tortured prisoners there. This further alienated their 'hearts and
minds' against us.
12. We continue to loose 'hearts and minds' by dropping 500 lb bombs
into residential neighborhoods and killing women and children.
---
In short, the Iraqi Project was bungled, bungled, bungled - by a bunch
of idiots.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Saunders" |
|
| Title: Re: What went wrong in Iraq? ("Who Lost Iraq?" from nyt.com) |
01 Jul 2004 08:00:46 AM |
|
|
"elmer swanson" <elmer_swanson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fade24c.0406301013.64e71ae0@posting.google.com...
PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:<10e51oqlsmdoa2b@corp.supernews.com>...
What went wrong in Iraq?
<snip>
4. After the invasion, we dissolved the Iraqi army. This left idle hands
to do the work of the devil and they did.
They should have been given work and pay even if it was for digging
holes and filling them up again. That's occupying foreign country 101.
Which army are you referring to? You sound like the Iraqi army surrendered
on the battlefield, were mustered together and then dismissed en masse.
Please recall that the vast majority of the Iraq army simply went home.
--
John Saunders
johnwsaundersiii at hotmail
.
|
|
|
| User: "elmer swanson" |
|
| Title: Re: What went wrong in Iraq? ("Who Lost Iraq?" from nyt.com) |
01 Jul 2004 05:05:02 PM |
|
|
"John Saunders" <johnwsaundersiii@notcoldmail.com> wrote in message news:<2WTEc.33130$Av3.2872@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
"elmer swanson" <elmer_swanson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fade24c.0406301013.64e71ae0@posting.google.com...
PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:<10e51oqlsmdoa2b@corp.supernews.com>...
What went wrong in Iraq?
<snip>
4. After the invasion, we dissolved the Iraqi army. This left idle hands
to do the work of the devil and they did.
They should have been given work and pay even if it was for digging
holes and filling them up again. That's occupying foreign country 101.
Which army are you referring to? You sound like the Iraqi army surrendered
on the battlefield, were mustered together and then dismissed en masse.
Please recall that the vast majority of the Iraq army simply went home.
I do recall that. That they (the Iraqi army) were not present in
formation surrendering to the U.S. doesn't alter the fact that there
would have been far less chaos and bloodshed if the Iraqi soldiers had
been offered jobs (such as public works jobs) by Bremer and co.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Saunders" |
|
| Title: Re: What went wrong in Iraq? ("Who Lost Iraq?" from nyt.com) |
01 Jul 2004 05:14:27 PM |
|
|
"elmer swanson" <elmer_swanson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fade24c.0407011405.48b7d9b5@posting.google.com...
"John Saunders" <johnwsaundersiii@notcoldmail.com> wrote in message
news:<2WTEc.33130$Av3.2872@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
"elmer swanson" <elmer_swanson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fade24c.0406301013.64e71ae0@posting.google.com...
PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:<10e51oqlsmdoa2b@corp.supernews.com>...
What went wrong in Iraq?
<snip>
4. After the invasion, we dissolved the Iraqi army. This left idle
hands
to do the work of the devil and they did.
They should have been given work and pay even if it was for digging
holes and filling them up again. That's occupying foreign country 101.
Which army are you referring to? You sound like the Iraqi army
surrendered
on the battlefield, were mustered together and then dismissed en masse.
Please recall that the vast majority of the Iraq army simply went home.
I do recall that. That they (the Iraqi army) were not present in
formation surrendering to the U.S. doesn't alter the fact that there
would have been far less chaos and bloodshed if the Iraqi soldiers had
been offered jobs (such as public works jobs) by Bremer and co.
I'm saying that there were no "Iraqi soldiers" to offer jobs to. If you
meant "former Iraqi soldiers, dispersed throughout the country and with no
organization whatsoever", how would you even find them, much less offer them
jobs?
--
John Saunders
johnwsaundersiii at hotmail
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: What went wrong in Iraq? ("Who Lost Iraq?" from nyt.com) |
01 Jul 2004 05:31:52 PM |
|
|
"John Saunders" <johnwsaundersiii@notcoldmail.com> wrote in message
news:710Fc.3970$i3.2142@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
"elmer swanson" <elmer_swanson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fade24c.0407011405.48b7d9b5@posting.google.com...
"John Saunders" <johnwsaundersiii@notcoldmail.com> wrote in message
news:<2WTEc.33130$Av3.2872@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
"elmer swanson" <elmer_swanson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fade24c.0406301013.64e71ae0@posting.google.com...
PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:<10e51oqlsmdoa2b@corp.supernews.com>...
What went wrong in Iraq?
<snip>
4. After the invasion, we dissolved the Iraqi army. This left idle
hands
to do the work of the devil and they did.
They should have been given work and pay even if it was for digging
holes and filling them up again. That's occupying foreign country
101.
Which army are you referring to? You sound like the Iraqi army
surrendered
on the battlefield, were mustered together and then dismissed en
masse.
Please recall that the vast majority of the Iraq army simply went
home.
I do recall that. That they (the Iraqi army) were not present in
formation surrendering to the U.S. doesn't alter the fact that there
would have been far less chaos and bloodshed if the Iraqi soldiers had
been offered jobs (such as public works jobs) by Bremer and co.
I'm saying that there were no "Iraqi soldiers" to offer jobs to. If you
meant "former Iraqi soldiers, dispersed throughout the country and with no
organization whatsoever", how would you even find them, much less offer
them
jobs?
Without getting involved in the semantics of current or former, the US had
no problem gathering and identifying them. We even paid them.
www.csmonitor.com/2003/0624/p01s04-woiq.html
"The stipend plan - and the announcement Monday by US administrators that a
streamlined and professional Army will begin recruiting next week - is an
acknowledgment of the dangers stemming from the mass disbandment of former
soldiers. The new monthly payments are a significant departure from the
initial policy of a one-time severance payout. Besides the regular Army, the
Republican Guard will also be included."
The army did not go home. They hung around Baghdad for their monthly
payments and to join the new Iraqi Security services. Their massed presence
in Baghdad forced Bremer to change US strategy to appease them.
Larry
--
John Saunders
johnwsaundersiii at hotmail
.
|
|
|
| User: "elmer swanson" |
|
| Title: Re: What went wrong in Iraq? ("Who Lost Iraq?" from nyt.com) |
02 Jul 2004 12:30:25 PM |
|
|
"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message news:<cc22u4$6jds$1@news3.infoave.net>...
"John Saunders" <johnwsaundersiii@notcoldmail.com> wrote in message
news:710Fc.3970$i3.2142@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
"elmer swanson" <elmer_swanson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fade24c.0407011405.48b7d9b5@posting.google.com...
"John Saunders" <johnwsaundersiii@notcoldmail.com> wrote in message
news:<2WTEc.33130$Av3.2872@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
"elmer swanson" <elmer_swanson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fade24c.0406301013.64e71ae0@posting.google.com...
PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:<10e51oqlsmdoa2b@corp.supernews.com>...
What went wrong in Iraq?
<snip>
4. After the invasion, we dissolved the
Iraqi army. This left idle hands
to do the work of the devil and they did.
They should have been given work and pay even if it was for digging
holes and filling them up again.
That's occupying foreign country 101.
Which army are you referring to? You sound like the Iraqi army
surrendered
on the battlefield, were mustered together and then dismissed en
masse.
Please recall that the vast majority of the Iraq army simply went
home.
I do recall that. That they (the Iraqi army) were not present in
formation surrendering to the U.S. doesn't alter the fact that there
would have been far less chaos and bloodshed if the Iraqi soldiers had
been offered jobs (such as public works jobs) by Bremer and co.
I'm saying that there were no "Iraqi soldiers" to offer jobs to. If you
meant "former Iraqi soldiers, dispersed throughout the country and with no
organization whatsoever", how would you even find them, much less offer
them
jobs?
Without getting involved in the semantics of current or former, the US had
no problem gathering and identifying them.
Ya, it's not like you have to hunt down unemployed
soldiers/ex-soldiers in an impoverished country to offer them money.
We even paid them.
www.csmonitor.com/2003/0624/p01s04-woiq.html
"The stipend plan - and the announcement Monday by US administrators that a
streamlined and professional Army will begin recruiting next week - is an
acknowledgment of the dangers stemming from the mass disbandment of former
soldiers. The new monthly payments are a significant departure from the
initial policy of a one-time severance payout. Besides the regular Army, the
Republican Guard will also be included."
The army did not go home. They hung around Baghdad for their monthly
payments and to join the new Iraqi Security services. Their massed presence
in Baghdad forced Bremer to change US strategy to appease them.
Larry
--
John Saunders
johnwsaundersiii at hotmail
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "elmer swanson" |
|
| Title: There's plenty wrong with Fahrenheit 9/11... |
02 Jul 2004 02:15:08 PM |
|
|
(MJPUDSTER) wrote in message news:<20040629145106.23018.00000807@mb-m07.aol.com>...
#1. No, I have not seen the movie. I don't need to, I know Michael Moore's
political agenda.
#2. Lie #1. The Saudi's in the US were allowed to leave before the airlines
were aloowed to start flying again. FALSE. They did not leave until 9/14 when
the rest of the Airline industry was allowed to start flying.
#3. Lie #2. The Saudi's who left the US on 9/14 were not questioned about
their involvement in 9/11. FALSE. 95-98% of them were vetted by the FBI and
CIA, and those that weren't were considered not to be threats. BTW, the person
who made the decisison to let them go was that darling of the left, Richard
Clark....
<snipped>
But I have to agree with this guy ...
`... And for all its flaws, "Fahrenheit 9/11" performs an essential
service. It would be a better movie if it didn't promote a few
unproven conspiracy theories, but those theories aren't the reason why
millions of people who aren't die-hard Bush-haters are flocking to see
it. These people see the film to learn true stories they should have
heard elsewhere, but didn't. Mr. Moore may not be considered
respectable, but his film is a hit because the respectable media
haven't been doing their job.
For example, audiences are shocked by the now-famous seven minutes,
when George Bush knew the nation was under attack but continued
reading "My Pet Goat" with a group of children. Nobody had told them
that the tales of Mr. Bush's decisiveness and bravery on that day were
pure fiction.
Or consider the Bush family's ties to the Saudis. The film suggests
that Mr. Bush and his good friend Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the
ambassador known to the family as Bandar Bush, have tried to cover up
the extent of Saudi involvement in terrorism. This may or may not be
true. But what shocks people, I think, is the fact that nobody told
them about this side of Mr. Bush's life.
Mr. Bush's carefully constructed persona is that of an all-American
regular guy — not like his suspiciously cosmopolitan opponent, with
his patrician air. The news media have cheerfully gone along with the
pretense. How many stories have you seen contrasting John Kerry's
upper-crusty vacation on Nantucket with Mr. Bush's down-home time at
the ranch?
But the reality, revealed by Mr. Moore, is that Mr. Bush has always
lived in a bubble of privilege. And his family, far from consisting of
regular folks with deep roots in the heartland, is deeply enmeshed,
financially and personally, with foreign elites — with the Saudis in
particular....`
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/opinion/02KRUG.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Agathena" |
|
| Title: Re: There's plenty wrong with Fahrenheit 9/11... |
02 Jul 2004 05:23:36 PM |
|
|
elmer swanson wrote:
mjpudster@aol.com (MJPUDSTER) wrote in message news:<20040629145106.23018.00000807@mb-m07.aol.com>...
#1. No, I have not seen the movie. I don't need to, I know Michael Moore's
political agenda.
#2. Lie #1. The Saudi's in the US were allowed to leave before the airlines
were aloowed to start flying again. FALSE. They did not leave until 9/14 when
the rest of the Airline industry was allowed to start flying.
If you saw the movie you'd know that the planes' manifests
were put on the screen. The date September 13, 2001.
Therefore Moore DID NOT say that they left before the
travel ban was lifted (13 Sept.)
Moore's point was that they were not
investigated by the FBI.
#3. Lie #2. The Saudi's who left the US on 9/14 were not questioned about
their involvement in 9/11. FALSE. 95-98% of them were vetted by the FBI and
CIA, and those that weren't were considered not to be threats. BTW, the person
who made the decisison to let them go was that darling of the left, Richard
Clark....
They were never questioned by the FBI.
Richard Clarke is not a leftist.
See the movie then attempt a critique.
.
|
|
|
| User: "elmer swanson" |
|
| Title: Re: There's plenty wrong with Fahrenheit 9/11... |
07 Jul 2004 10:26:12 AM |
|
|
Agathena <nospam@thisaddress.com> wrote in message news:<IflFc.936014$Pk3.591816@pd7tw1no>...
elmer swanson wrote:
mjpudster@aol.com (MJPUDSTER) wrote in message news:<20040629145106.23018.00000807@mb-m07.aol.com>...
#1. No, I have not seen the movie. I don't need to, I know Michael Moore's
political agenda.
#2. Lie #1. The Saudi's in the US were allowed to leave before the airlines
were aloowed to start flying again. FALSE. They did not leave until 9/14 when
the rest of the Airline industry was allowed to start flying.
If you saw the movie you'd know that the planes' manifests
were put on the screen. The date September 13, 2001.
Therefore Moore DID NOT say that they left before the
travel ban was lifted (13 Sept.)
Moore's point was that they were not
investigated by the FBI.
I'm not endorsing these "Lie #..." per se, but it did seem Moore was
implying the Saudis left BEFORE the flight ban was lifted and BEFORE
ANY U.S. investigators (either CIA or FBI) had a chance to talkt to
them thuroughly.
What I personally didn't like about the movie was the insinuation the
U.S. went into Afghanistan to install a puppet (Karsai) so some US
company (UNICAL) could have a pipeline built.
Anyway, forget the Lie#1,2,3. The important part of the post is what
Krugman said....
`... And for all its flaws, "Fahrenheit 9/11" performs an essential
service. It would be a better movie if it didn't promote a few
unproven conspiracy theories, but those theories aren't the reason why
millions of people who aren't die-hard Bush-haters are flocking to see
it. These people see the film to learn true stories they should have
heard elsewhere, but didn't. Mr. Moore may not be considered
respectable, but his film is a hit because the respectable media
haven't been doing their job.
For example, audiences are shocked by the now-famous seven minutes,
when George Bush knew the nation was under attack but continued
reading "My Pet Goat" with a group of children. Nobody had told them
that the tales of Mr. Bush's decisiveness and bravery on that day were
pure fiction.
Or consider the Bush family's ties to the Saudis. The film suggests
that Mr. Bush and his good friend Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the
ambassador known to the family as Bandar Bush, have tried to cover up
the extent of Saudi involvement in terrorism. This may or may not be
true. But what shocks people, I think, is the fact that nobody told
them about this side of Mr. Bush's life.
Mr. Bush's carefully constructed persona is that of an all-American
regular guy — not like his suspiciously cosmopolitan opponent, with
his patrician air. The news media have cheerfully gone along with the
pretense. How many stories have you seen contrasting John Kerry's
upper-crusty vacation on Nantucket with Mr. Bush's down-home time at
the ranch?
But the reality, revealed by Mr. Moore, is that Mr. Bush has always
lived in a bubble of privilege. And his family, far from consisting of
regular folks with deep roots in the heartland, is deeply enmeshed,
financially and personally, with foreign elites — with the Saudis in
particular....`
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/opinion/02KRUG.html
#3. Lie #2. The Saudi's who left the US on 9/14 were not questioned about
their involvement in 9/11. FALSE. 95-98% of them were vetted by the FBI and
CIA, and those that weren't were considered not to be threats. BTW, the person
who made the decisison to let them go was that darling of the left, Richard
Clark....
They were never questioned by the FBI.
Richard Clarke is not a leftist.
See the movie then attempt a critique.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: What went wrong in Iraq? ("Who Lost Iraq?" from nyt.com) |
01 Jul 2004 01:53:09 PM |
|
|
The US swept into Baghdad as the Iraqi army faded into the background to
fight another day.
The US NEVER defeated Sadam's army though, and consequently, the 'day
after' problem was (and still is) the REAL battle for Iraq.
If the Iraqi 'freedom fighters' are smart, they will wait, inactively,
until the US pulls out, then just launch a coup and throw the elected
Iraqi government out. Inactive probably isn't the right word though -
they will continue their 'selective killing' campain to destroy the
middle class. And, probably blow up a few pipelines or power plants here
and there.
Sadam, if he isn't killed, will at least be the figure head.
The Kurds, meanwhile, won't have any part of it, so they'll splinter off.
As well, the coup probably won't get too far south, into Shiite
teritory. Iran won't let them either, so expect their troops to cross
the border in support of the Shiite. Eventually, after 10 years of
killing and endless civil war, we'll end up with a tri-partition
solution for Iraq.
John Saunders wrote:
"elmer swanson" <elmer_swanson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fade24c.0406301013.64e71ae0@posting.google.com...
PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:<10e51oqlsmdoa2b@corp.supernews.com>...
What went wrong in Iraq?
<snip>
4. After the invasion, we dissolved the Iraqi army. This left idle hands
to do the work of the devil and they did.
They should have been given work and pay even if it was for digging
holes and filling them up again. That's occupying foreign country 101.
Which army are you referring to? You sound like the Iraqi army surrendered
on the battlefield, were mustered together and then dismissed en masse.
Please recall that the vast majority of the Iraq army simply went home.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What went wrong in Iraq? ("Who Lost Iraq?" from nyt.com) |
30 Jun 2004 01:47:43 PM |
|
|
On 30 Jun 2004 11:13:44 -0700, (elmer
swanson) wrote:
4. After the invasion, we dissolved the Iraqi army. This left idle hands
to do the work of the devil and they did.
They should have been given work and pay even if it was for digging
holes and filling them up again. That's occupying foreign country 101.
I was stunned last night to see the administration going on about the
Army building schools and play fields, etc. They had GI's to the
labor (the story was about how the contractors had gone home because
of threats and soldiers were taking up the slack). This in a country
with 60 to 70% unemployment? How dense can we be?
First contractors, then soldiers, while the populace has no jobs?
.
|
|
|
| User: "A. Dulcimer" |
|
| Title: Re: What went wrong in Iraq? ("Who Lost Iraq?" from nyt.com) |
30 Jun 2004 01:52:29 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:47:43 GMT, wrote:
On 30 Jun 2004 11:13:44 -0700, (elmer
swanson) wrote:
4. After the invasion, we dissolved the Iraqi army. This left idle hands
to do the work of the devil and they did.
They should have been given work and pay even if it was for digging
holes and filling them up again. That's occupying foreign country 101.
I was stunned last night to see the administration going on about the
Army building schools and play fields, etc. They had GI's to the
labor (the story was about how the contractors had gone home because
of threats and soldiers were taking up the slack). This in a country
with 60 to 70% unemployment? How dense can we be?
First contractors, then soldiers, while the populace has no jobs?
It almost seems as if this administration is purposely trying to make
as many mistakes as possible in Iraq.
--
Now watch this drive......
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Bramscher" |
|
| Title: Re: What went wrong in Iraq? ("Who Lost Iraq?" from nyt.com) |
29 Jun 2004 03:23:12 PM |
|
|
elmer swanson wrote:
<snippage>
Let's say the obvious. By making Iraq a playground for right-wing
economic theorists, an employment agency for friends and family, and a
source of lucrative contracts for corporate donors, the administration
did terrorist recruiters a very big favor.
Just go one step further than make the next conclusion: that Iraq is
also a reflection, a manifestation, a real-life case scenario of the
right-wing hardliner agenda at work. Iraq is the way that the hardlined
West would have the rest of the world look like if we fully gave them
the chance to do at home what they've done abroad.
The colonial powers carved Africa and the Mideast up into their present
borders, more or less, selected their post-colonial favorites, the CIA
helped install the Ba'athists, they normalized relations with Saddam,
and then they decided he got too big for his britches and destroyed the
country. The civilians are a non-issue, an annoyance, between a port on
the Gulf (Kuwait) or vast oil supplies (Iraq). Iraq is the sort of
world they wish they had here in America, it's their darling, their
brainchild.
We'll obviously reap the same harvest from Reagan's policies of
supporting death squads in Central America.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What went wrong in Iraq? ("Who Lost Iraq?" from nyt.com) |
29 Jun 2004 06:16:21 PM |
|
|
On 29-Jun-2004, Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
elmer swanson wrote:
<snippage>
Let's say the obvious. By making Iraq a playground for right-wing
economic theorists, an employment agency for friends and family, and a
source of lucrative contracts for corporate donors, the administration
did terrorist recruiters a very big favor.
Just go one step further than make the next conclusion: that Iraq is
also a reflection, a manifestation, a real-life case scenario of the
right-wing hardliner agenda at work. Iraq is the way that the hardlined
West would have the rest of the world look like if we fully gave them
the chance to do at home what they've done abroad.
The colonial powers carved Africa and the Mideast up into their present
borders, more or less, selected their post-colonial favorites, the CIA
helped install the Ba'athists, they normalized relations with Saddam,
and then they decided he got too big for his britches and destroyed the
country. The civilians are a non-issue, an annoyance, between a port on
the Gulf (Kuwait) or vast oil supplies (Iraq). Iraq is the sort of
world they wish they had here in America, it's their darling, their
brainchild.
We'll obviously reap the same harvest from Reagan's policies of
supporting death squads in Central America.
It's scary to think you are right. It is also scary to think that anyone
would even express such a thought. It never would have occured to us 4 years
ago. All the violence and misery we have spread around the world is coming
back with a vengeance. Blowback. The word no longer seems adequate.
Eric
--
Bush announced today that Fahrenheit 911 is "full of factual inaccuracies".
He is 100% correct. Most of the movie is ... footage of Bush and friends
telling lies to the American people. [From Roedy Green
<look-on@mindprod.com.invalid>]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "elmer swanson" |
|
| Title: Re: What went wrong in Iraq? ("Who Lost Iraq?" from nyt.com) |
30 Jun 2004 08:41:32 AM |
|
|
Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message news:<cbsj3m$781$1@lenny.tc.umn.edu>...
elmer swanson wrote:
<snippage>
Let's say the obvious. By making Iraq a playground for right-wing
economic theorists, an employment agency for friends and family, and a
source of lucrative contracts for corporate donors, the administration
did terrorist recruiters a very big favor.
Just go one step further than make the next conclusion: that Iraq is
also a reflection, a manifestation, a real-life case scenario of the
right-wing hardliner agenda at work. Iraq is the way that the hardlined
West would have the rest of the world look like if we fully gave them
the chance to do at home what they've done abroad.
The colonial powers carved Africa and the Mideast up into their present
borders, more or less, selected their post-colonial favorites, the CIA
helped install the Ba'athists,
Lest we carried away with Lefty mythology of a Saddam-as-CIA-puppet
nexus permit me to insert a little history.
Q. Did the CIA assist in the overthrow of the regime of `Abd al-Karim
Qasim in Iraq in 1963?
A. Apparently so. Allegedly, James Critchfield, "then head of the CIA
in the Middle East," told two authors Andrew and Patrick Cockburn,
`We regarded [the coup] as a great victory.` ("Out of the Ashes", by
Andrew and Patrick Cockburn)
Q. Was Saddam Hussein installed in power in that coup?
A. Hardly. Saddam was 25 years old at the time of the coup and didn't
have an important post until his uncle Hasan al-Bakr appointed him
secretary to the reconstituted Ba'ath Party Regional Command after the
coup. Saddam was arrested after another attempted coup by the Ba'ath
in 1964 and remained in prison until 1966. (A History of Iraq Charles
Tripp)
Q. But did the coup install the Ba'ath Party into power?
A. Not for long. The coup was an alliance of Ba'ath Party and other
Arab nationalists. A non-Ba'ath general `Abd al-Salam `Arif (one of
the Arab nationalists) became president and he and his allies ejected
the Ba'ath Party from power in November, only nine months after the
coup. The Ba'ath party did not really get a firm grip on power until
yet another coup in 1968. (A History of Iraq Charles Tripp)
Q. With the CIA behind the Coup did the new regime advance American or
Western economic or geopolitical interests?
A. No apparent evidence of that. Less than a year and a half after the
coup all banks, insurance companies and large industrial firms in Iraq
were nationalized. Land reform continued.
The grievance of the plotters that overthrew President `Abd al-Karim
Qasim in 1963 was not that Qasim was anti-US or anti-capitalist, but
that he emphasized Iraq's interest at the expense of Arab unity and
was too friendly to the Iraqi Communists. The later point seems to
have been their common interest with the U.S. C.I.A. (A History of
Iraq Charles Tripp)
they normalized relations with Saddam,
and then they decided he got too big for his britches and destroyed the
country. The civilians are a non-issue, an annoyance, between a port on
the Gulf (Kuwait) or vast oil supplies (Iraq). Iraq is the sort of
world they wish they had here in America, it's their darling, their
brainchild.
We'll obviously reap the same harvest from Reagan's policies of
supporting death squads in Central America.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Bramscher" |
|
| Title: Re: What went wrong in Iraq? ("Who Lost Iraq?" from nyt.com) |
30 Jun 2004 10:29:22 AM |
|
|
elmer swanson wrote:
Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message news:<cbsj3m$781$1@lenny.tc.umn.edu>...
elmer swanson wrote:
<snippage>
Let's say the obvious. By making Iraq a playground for right-wing
economic theorists, an employment agency for friends and family, and a
source of lucrative contracts for corporate donors, the administration
did terrorist recruiters a very big favor.
Just go one step further than make the next conclusion: that Iraq is
also a reflection, a manifestation, a real-life case scenario of the
right-wing hardliner agenda at work. Iraq is the way that the hardlined
West would have the rest of the world look like if we fully gave them
the chance to do at home what they've done abroad.
The colonial powers carved Africa and the Mideast up into their present
borders, more or less, selected their post-colonial favorites, the CIA
helped install the Ba'athists,
Lest we carried away with Lefty mythology of a Saddam-as-CIA-puppet
nexus permit me to insert a little history.
It would be incorrect, based on current evidence, to suggest that the
CIA directly installed Saddam. What is certainly established is that
they helped the Ba'athists, which was his vehicle over the next decade
or two. Bombing the USS Stark, using chemical weapons, etc. -- the West
didn't merely look the other way. France sold him Exocets, Germans
built bunkers, the US normalized relations. He was our dictator-ally in
an oil rich country. Sound familiar?
So, in a sense, he was a puppet. Contrary to our supposed ideals of
democracy and freedom (not unlike our situation with the Saudis,
although it's hard to tell who's the puppet and who's the puppetmaster
there), the West has done little since the colonial days to honestly
support racial, religious and gender-blind democracy anywhere in the
Mideast or continent of Africa. On the contrary, we've worked with and
aided the strongmen.
My point is that this produces entirely predictable, and preventable,
human rights tragedies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
