War On Iraq: Yay or Nay??
- 04-04-2004, 12:08 PM
Originally Posted by PC1
The amount of plutonium, tritium, and uranium being leeched into our rivers, and aquafiers is profound and should at the very least disturb every citizen of this country. The amount of nuclear waste sitting in cardboard boxes in wooden sheds waiting to be taken over and dispursed into the air by fire is frightening. A lot of it has already been caught up in forest fires. Our future generations will definitely suffer because of the carelessness of our gov't. The treaty originally signed between the US & Russia sounded great to the public but all it did was decrease the amount of short and medium ranged nukes. Again go look at the figures I gave you and you tell me if that treaty even mattered. Besides like I have stated it is being broken right now anyway.
- 04-04-2004, 12:51 PM
Originally Posted by PC1
1. It increased hatred against America among Arabs => more terrorist recruits
2. Many Iraqi civilians lost relatives/parents and property in the invasion, again these guys are first rate terrorist recruit material
3. It overstretched US military drawing focus off Afganistan
4. There's a lot more terrorist activity going on in Iraq right now than before the invasion and one reason is because the US is vulnerable over there so the terrorists are able to inflict losses on Americans, and each time they succeed it's covered in Arab news papers and they get more recruits
5. It's a waste of US money/soldiers when the budget is already in deficit. It's bad for the economy and it has diminished funds that could have been allocated much better to fight terrorism
6. The invasion had little to do with terrorism in the first place and this is increasingly clear to everyone except a few holdouts. If Bush really wanted to fight terrorism he would have invaded Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, or perhaps more realistically made some agreements with those countries to send troops there to hunt down Al Queda members with the support of local troops. He should have also handled international relations much better and isolated/sanctioned countries that backed terrorism in order to provide incentives for these countries not to do so.
- 04-04-2004, 01:03 PM
BTW PC1 if this wasn't about oil than can you discredit the document found from the members of PNAC stating their first objective was to take control of Iraqi oil fields?
04-04-2004, 01:35 PM
From //www.antiwar.com/casualties/#count: ("Your best source for antiwar news, viewpoints, and activities")Originally Posted by NPursuit
Reported civilian deaths resulting from the US-led military intervention in Iraq (emphasis added) www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm
Now study those numbers briefly:
-- 295 deaths on 02 Mar 04 and 01 Feb 04 caused by "suicide bombers carrying explosives"
-- 55 deaths on 10 Feb 04 by "truck bomb"
-- 30 deaths on 18 Jan 04 by "suicide pickup truck bomb"
-- 47 deaths 11 Feb 04 by "suicide car bomb"
-- (at least) 38 deaths in Dec 03 by "car bomb" and "suicide car bomb"
-- (at least) 38 deaths in Oct 03 by "car bomb"
Well anyway that is enough. I think we can agree that as long as there is warfare, there will be civilian, non-combatant casualties. Here we have a source which is clearly biased toward providing the largest casualty totals of civilians resulting from the US-led military intervention in Iraq (emphasis added, again). (Although I am at a loss as to how deaths from "suicide bombers carrying explosives", "suicide pickup truck bomb", and etc. "result from" US-led military intervention. Whatever.) I'll make my point:
Civilians have been killed in Iraq, and some number of those deaths resulted from the US-led intervention. That number is cretainly less than the 8818 presented here.
Now for an accounting of civilian deaths at the hands of the deposed regime:
-- Documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988, resulted in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths. (Amnesty International)
-- Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds.
-- According to Human Rights Watch, "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October  that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south."
-- Executions: Saddam Hussein's regime has carried out frequent summary executions, including: o 4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984 o 3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998 o 2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign" o 122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000 o 23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001 o At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001 (UN Special Rapporteur's September 2001 report)
Anyway, those are some of the facts I came up with to lend credence to the statement I will repeat:
There is no parallel in the annals of warfare with respect to avoiding both non-combatant and combatant casualties. Period.
Can you please provide evidence for this charge? Otherwise, I will concede: just because there is absolutely no evidence to document something does not mean something is not happening. I just do not like to argue a point devoid of evidence.Originally Posted by NPursuit
When he overran Kuwait in Aug 1990 and stood poised to take Saudi Arabia?Originally Posted by NPursuit
Last edited by michaelton; 04-04-2004 at 07:31 PM.
04-04-2004, 01:38 PM
Because the Iraqis have shown a propensity to blow them up and set them ablaze?Originally Posted by NPursuit
Last edited by michaelton; 04-04-2004 at 07:32 PM.
04-04-2004, 02:31 PM
Uh negative. When you can reply to my points in a non sarcastic manner perhaps I'll respond.Originally Posted by michaelton
04-04-2004, 07:34 PM
Sorry about the sarcasm. It isn't meant to offend; it's just my way. As is the cursing.
But that's a whole 'nother matter.
Last edited by michaelton; 04-04-2004 at 08:14 PM.
04-06-2004, 09:16 AM
Bro, all I can say is, I don't know where you get your information from. Do you work in the industry? Or do you have a first hand account from someone else who does?Originally Posted by NPursuit
That aside, previously, you've expressed a disdain from news obtained through the "media". I'm not sure why that is.
We have daily news accounts from generally conservative minded sources like
The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, and Fox. Many others like The New York Times, The LA Times, The Boston Globe, and ABC/NBC/CBS etc., have a demonstrably liberal slant.
Few can argue the Bush administration has many friends in the news media industry. He's lambasted from any angle and at every opportunity.
A reporter's career is made by breaking big stories, stories involving scandal, corruption, pollution, etc. If you or anyone for that matter, can substantiate the claim that all around this country we have wooden sheds filled with cardboard boxes containing nuclear waste, all that needs be done is to place a telephone call to any of the above news outlets. They would be delighted to break such a story, absolutely THRILLED to break such a story.
I don't claim to be a walking news encyclopedia but generally I do follow current events. I've yet to hear such a news story as you've described. Which is not to say I'm a proponent of nuclear energy, or that I know all about it. To the contrary, I'm very skeptical of it and I'd like to see us put an end to it.
I see no reason whatsoever for the major media outlets to NOT be running segment upon segment upon segment showing in graphic detail, wooden sheds containing cardboard boxes, containing skads of nuclear waste spanning our country. "60 Minutes" would only be too delighted to run such a segment. That's right up their alley, that's exactly what they do. And then they go back 6 months later to report if the situation has been corrected, and then they report that. And on and on it goes.
If I'm missing something, by all means, enlighten me.
04-06-2004, 10:19 AM
PC1 It's not like you can just go walking up to these sites. They are on goverment property. You would probably have the same success as trying to walk into Area 51.
04-06-2004, 04:37 PM
04-06-2004, 09:10 PM
Rolling Stone Magaine? This is your "research"? And my problem is that I'm getting my "news" from conventional media outlets? I should give that all up in favor of Rolling Stone Magazine?
First of all, the wooden shed described in the article was housing chemical hazards, not radioactive waste. No disrespect to chemical hazards, but you seem to be a little confused on your facts. Perhaps the nuclear wooden sheds were disclosed in February?
I did read Biggs link, it was an interesting read, but there may or may not be any substance to this article. In any event, I would not characterize your discovery of this article as being "research" on your part.
Irrespective of that, if the article has any truth to it, it would be a perfect "60 Minutes" segment if ever there was one. 60 Minutes, being the liberals they are, would be only too happy to air such a segment against a sitting Republican's administration whom they clearly don't like, and especially during an election year.
And any major newspaper like the NY Times or even a periodical like Newsweek would also be ecstatic to bring the story mainstream. There is no reason for them NOT to.
The media organizations read what each other produce and print, Rolling Stone included. If no one else follows up on this during April, I would dismiss it altogether.
04-06-2004, 09:33 PM
Blinded? There is so "....much evidence is against them"? And just because we can't see the oil being stolen, it's going where......... to secret underground tanks owned by Bush/Cheney?Originally Posted by NPursuit
This is crap, and frankly I wouldn't have expected such a bs post from you.
Our major media outlets for the most part DESPISE Bush. They hammer him every day and have been for months.
For you to suggest that very same media would somehow hold back from reporting the REALLY DAMAGING news is absurd.
There is no point in continuing this discussion. I'm out.
04-07-2004, 07:27 AM
For the record that post wasn't aimed at you. Take a look at who I was quoting. Nevertheless I'm sorry you feel that way PC1. No hard feelings bro. I suppose we are better off letting this topic go, because all this political talk raises my cortisol levels anyway.
04-07-2004, 07:34 AM
I think you need to chill out, considering the fact that he never said it was research of any kind, nor made any points with it or any statement at all for that matter. I just took it as an interesting story, which I can assume is all he was doing. Take a valium.
Originally Posted by PC1
04-07-2004, 02:59 PM
Rolling Stone isn't exactly the pinnacle of journalism and they are pretty biased to the left. I would take any thing they write with a grain of salt.
Liberals are looking for a wedge issue to get themselves back in power. If this was Clinton or Gore do you think they would be acting like this?Liberals are simply asking: what is best for America, what is the smart thing to do, do we have all the information to justify making such leaps in foreign policy?
Europe does hate us. France hate us, Germany hates us, and Europe hates us........well pretty much every one but Israel. The mantra seems to be what would Europe do? Who cares what they do or think. They sure as hell don't care about Americas best interest. For the most part the are a bunch of socialist bureaucrats who think they should be able to dictate policy and laws to the US. The globalist believe that the world and every country is it should be run by the UN. Their goal is to have a world that the UN controls.
Last edited by VanillaGorilla; 04-07-2004 at 03:46 PM.
04-07-2004, 03:42 PM
I think allot of people are forgetting why we went into Iraq. On September -11 3000 people died. Several people from the town I live in and in the surrounding towns died. These people had families ,children, and people that cared about them. They were senselessly killed for what? They were killed because a dozen or so people hate us so much that they were willing to take their own life to kill innocent US citizens. One thing people need to keep in mind is you can't reason or understand people like that. They will only understand one thing. These people (if you want to call them that) have no problem and will strap a bomb to a 5 year old child. If we bend over and grab our ankles for the UN that shows that we are weak. Our reason for going into Iraq was the Government had intelligence that Iraq had WMD's and was possibly in possession of nuclear materials. Now they are saying they were possibly mistaken. You can make a few conclusions out of this.
1. Bush and the evil rich white republicans had no evidence of WMD's what so ever and simply wanted to go into Iraq because of the oil.
2. There were WMD's and Sadom moved them some where else. There are reports of a large convoy of trucks headed towards Syria. The Bush administration doesn't want to go in and get them because he is all ready under pressure for invading Iraq.
3. There are no WMD's and they had bad intelligence. After getting hit of 9-11 and one of your advisers came to you and said we have intelligence that Iraq is in the process of making nuclear weapons possibly a few suit case nukes. They told you that there is a 50/50 chance the intelligence was correct but if you waited they might smuggle suit case nukes out of the country what would you do?
4. The terrorist are basically a organized gorilla ware fare operation. They really don't belong or have any association with any country. They may have some ties to counties but they are not like fighting Germany in WW2. You can't show them your weak because other wise they will hit you again. What do you do? You send a message that you don't F' with us and hit a few countries they have operations in or are associated with. There is some evidence that Iraq might have supplied the terrorist with the Anthrax.
I don't know about you but number 2 bothers me the most. If the WMD's were smuggled out you can bet they are attempting to bring them here.
04-08-2004, 02:45 AM
Originally Posted by jweave23
maybe I should have known it would be necessary to preface a simple link with a statement like that, thanks weave.
04-08-2004, 09:25 AM
Again this is my problem. The war on terrorism is one thing, the war on Iraq was a lie and a stretch, not much to do with 9/11 at all, but certainly a good smoke screen for going in. People still relate these two, no matter how much evidence slowly surfaces to the contrary. 9/11 = War on Terror, not Iraq. Sheep.Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
04-08-2004, 09:26 AM
Well I guess that's what happens whenever everyone gets hot and bothered in a discussion. If you made some statements calling that "research" and so forth, surely it could be argued, but apparently it's hard to present some simple food for thought around here
Originally Posted by Biggs
04-08-2004, 09:58 AM
Exactly!Originally Posted by jweave23
04-08-2004, 12:32 PM
Valium not necessary weave........Originally Posted by jweave23
First of all guys, I enjoy discuss most anything with any of you. But it was a little frustrating for me, frankly, having spent the time I did laying out the positions I did, and debating opposing positions in the detail that I did; only to be told that mainstream media accounts somehow are not telling the whole picture, that I needed to do some other research. The only other "research" offered was this piece from Rolling Stone magazine. And it was taken out of context...... the article dealt with hazardous chemicals, not nuclear waste. That doesn't qualify as research in my book, although I applaud the effort to seek alternative sources.Originally Posted by npursuit
If anyone has anything substantive to offer against my points, on a point by point basis, I'd be happy to take it up again. Pull my quotes on a point by point basis and offer a different view as I have with you. But reviewing this thread, very few of my points have been addressed at all.
Generalizations like being blinded to the truth, or that mainstream media outlets can't be trusted even though they're clearly anti-war/Bush are without substance and meaningless. Only yesterday, there were I believe, 4 journalists who had been kidnapped in Fallujah. People are risking their lives to cover this war, so give me one good reason why their word cannot be trusted?
I have no problem with anyone who is against the war. I wish we didn't have to be there too. But I think we have some good reasons for being there and fighting it from within Iraq. For those of you who think 9/11 and Iraq are separate and distinct wars, al Qaeda and other terrorists from Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran have filtered through and are fighting us in Iraq. Better there than here I say.
04-08-2004, 02:08 PM
The terrorism in Spain during the last month would seem to indicate that the al Qaedists do not see Iraq as being separate from the war on terrorism.Originally Posted by PC1
04-08-2004, 02:32 PM
PC1 I didn't post up the rolling stone article. I felt my points and facts were being overlooked as well. I believe I recognized and either objected or agreed to almost of your points actually. I presented a lot more than what you just stated above in this post. Should I post up some references for you next time?Originally Posted by PC1
04-08-2004, 02:35 PM
doesn't qualify as research in my book either, so there's no need to be patronizing me. as it was I was glancing through these posts while I was also looking for music info at Rolling Stone, saw the other article and threw it up here as simply something else for people to look at. I could really care less about 75% of what I read or see coming out of mass media/news corps, more than anything it is "infotainment" and should be taken as such. it's not that the journalists shouldn't be trusted, it's that news service in this country is an extremely competitive, biased, ratings influenced business in the worst kind of way.Originally Posted by PC1
this was not a presentation of some grand political or personal perspective, nor was I actively seeking to refute what are obviously deeply held opinions and stances detailed in this thread by individuals whose beliefs are truly unalterable.
04-08-2004, 03:04 PM
JW of the four scenarios that I posted do you think the most likely is that Bush deliberately lied just to go in there? From your last post it seems like you do. I think you can accuse them of getting bad intelligence but flat out lying is another manner. If you believe he lied and you say that there is evidence then please provide some evidence to back up your charges.Again this is my problem. The war on terrorism is one thing, the war on Iraq was a lie and a stretch, not much to do with 9/11 at all, but certainly a good smoke screen for going in. People still relate these two, no matter how much evidence slowly surfaces to the contrary. 9/11 = War on Terror, not Iraq. Sheep.
I may be mistaken here but Iraq had terrorist training schools. As I said before that there is some evidence that Iraq may have supplies the 9-11 terrorist with Anthrax.not much to do with 9/11 at all, but certainly a good smoke screen for going in.
Your calling any one who supports the war sheep when you have made a statement like this "Liberals are simply asking: what is best for America, what is the smart thing to do, do we have all the information to justify making such leaps in foreign policy? " ? You also didn't answer my question........ Do you think the democratic leadership would be acting this way if Bill Clinton or Gore or someone with a D instead of an R in from of their name was in office?People still relate these two, no matter how much evidence slowly surfaces to the contrary. 9/11 = War on Terror, not Iraq. Sheep.
04-08-2004, 03:28 PM
I would say a mix of your scenarios 3 and 4, IMO. I do not think the actual man George W. Bush lied about too much, I don't give him credit enough to be able to interpret what he's being told, lol Seriously I blame his administration, not him specifically. But as a figurehead, someone must take the fall, and in this case I feel it should be him as it would remove MOST of the administration as well. Obviously the whole gov't doesn't change under administrations, but some high level decision making power does. Point is: we know the intelligence was bad and that his administration acted on it with what IMHO seems to be little rationale or thought behind it.Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
I am calling anyone who seems to blindly go along with this war sheep, yes. I still have yet to see some conclusive evidence that there was direct ties between Iraq and 9/11. If there is someone please show me (and the rest of rational America, also). I do feel that after the fact, many terrorist organizaions are slowly realizing that it may be to their benefit to band together against the U.S, but that is our own fault for bad policy and inconsistent representation in the Middle East.Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
As for if D's were in the White House? I absolutely feel this would have been handled differently, yes. I think depending upon the intelligence, it may have been a 50/50 for war with Iraq, not presented as a neccessity for the best interest of America. I also believe that certain D leaders may have considered the impact that our occupation would have down the road, and how what we do right now will affect Anti-American hostility for years to come.
04-08-2004, 03:50 PM
Bro, I realize Biggsy posted the rolling stones article.Originally Posted by NPursuit
Was I wrong in saying that's where your concern over the environmental impact of nuclear or toxic chemicals being housed in wooden sheds came from?
04-08-2004, 04:06 PM
Yes you were.Originally Posted by PC1
04-08-2004, 04:40 PM
And on this I agree completely.Originally Posted by Biggs
If one is a democrat/liberal, they will always hold the conviction that somehow George Bush "stole" the presidential election from Gore. It doesn't matter that after the election, several newspapers spent their own money conducting their own independent recounts of the Florida county ballots under the recount scenarios that Gore was seeking in court, HOPING to discredit Bush in the public eye, and that Bush still won those counties anyway, albeit by a razor thin margin. In spite of it, you'll still be pining about how Gore really won the "popular" election and should be in office, even though we don't elect presidents simply by a popular majority. We hold elections under the electoral college system, so that the "flyover" states aren't ignored.
Democrats/liberals use this to whip up resentment against Bush and will say most anything they can think of to discredit him, to impugn his legitimacy. News accounts being 75% infotainment, or being biased being just two examples...... irrespective of the fact they are quite demonstrably biased against him. Bush lies, is a dummy, etc. Well dummies lack what it takes to live in the White House. I can call the most liberal democrat president a lot of things, but stupid isn't among them.
If you're a Republican/conservative, you're glad to have a Republican in the White House. Even if Bush hasn't been as conservative as many Republican's would have like him to be, republicans/conservatives will gladly take him over having a Democrat in office, especially the likes of Clinton/Gore. Especially the Gore who publicly proclaimed he started the internet.
Putting politics aside for a moment, I personally have a lot of faith in people like Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and Condi Rice. They are highly intelligent, articulate and accomplished people. It's just plain naive to think for even a moment that a group of "neocons" are going to pull the wool over their eyes for the purpose of executing an end-run pollitical plan.
They've made the case to transfer the war from NY and other US locations to Iraq. And while one can say they disagree with the thinking and/or are against war, there can be little argument that so far, their plan is working. It's deeply regrettable that even one American in our armed forces has been injured or lost their life in the conflict. Yet it also begs the question that if groups like al Qaeda are using their people and resources to fight us in the Middle East, how many lives have been spared here?
I don't know if we'll ever know how many attacks here in the US have been thwarted by the efforts of our FBI and other Federal and State agencies. No one can guarantee we're going to be safe, and we've been warned that another attack could occur, but so far the strategy has been working. If al Qaeda could attack us again, they WOULD. So partisan politics aside, it's time to give some credit where credit is due.
Last edited by PC1; 04-08-2004 at 04:58 PM.
04-08-2004, 04:51 PM
Originally Posted by NPursuit
Originally Posted by NPursuit
Then by all means, where did you read, see, or hear the basis of your above statement?
04-08-2004, 05:39 PM
Speaking of Condi Rice........
The following is the text of Condoleezza Rice's prepared statements before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on April 8, 2004:
I thank the Commission for arranging this special session. Thank you for helping to find a way to meet the Nation's need to learn all we can about the September 11th attacks, while preserving important Constitutional principles.
This Commission, and those who appear before it, have a vital charge. We owe it to those we lost, and to their loved ones, and to our country, to learn all we can about that tragic day, and the events that led to it. Many families of the victims are here today, and I thank them for their contributions to the Commission's work.
The terrorist threat to our Nation did not emerge on September 11th, 2001. Long before that day, radical, freedom-hating terrorists declared war on America and on the civilized world. The attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985, the rise of Al Qaeda and the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the attacks on American installations in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, the East Africa embassy bombings of 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, these and other atrocities were part of a sustained, systematic campaign to spread devastation and chaos and to murder innocent Americans.
The terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them. For more than 20 years, the terrorist threat gathered, and America's response across several administrations of both parties was insufficient. Historically, democratic societies have been slow to react to gathering threats, tending instead to wait to confront threats until they are too dangerous to ignore or until it is too late. Despite the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 and continued German harassment of American shipping, the United States did not enter the First World War until two years later. Despite Nazi Germany's repeated violations of the Versailles Treaty and its string of provocations throughout the mid-1930s, the Western democracies did not take action until 1939. The U.S. Government did not act against the growing threat from Imperial Japan until the threat became all too evident at Pearl Harbor. And, tragically, for all the language of war spoken before September 11th, this country simply was not on a war footing.
Since then, America has been at war. And under President Bush's leadership, we will remain at war until the terrorist threat to our Nation is ended. The world has changed so much that it is hard to remember what our lives were like before that day. But I do want to describe the actions this Administration was taking to fight terrorism before September 11th, 2001.
After President Bush was elected, we were briefed by the Clinton Administration on many national security issues during the transition. The President-elect and I were briefed by George Tenet on terrorism and on the Al Qaeda network. Members of Sandy Berger's NSC staff briefed me, along with other members of the new national security team, on counterterrorism and Al Qaeda. This briefing lasted about one hour, and it reviewed the Clinton Administration's counterterrorism approach and the various counterterrorism activities then underway. Sandy and I personally discussed a variety of other topics, including North Korea, Iraq, the Middle East, and the Balkans.
Because of these briefings and because we had watched the rise of Al Qaeda over the years, we understood that the network posed a serious threat to the United States. We wanted to ensure there was no respite in the fight against Al Qaeda. On an operational level, we decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton Administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network. President Bush retained George Tenet as Director of Central Intelligence, and Louis Freeh remained the Director of the FBI. I took the unusual step of retaining Dick Clarke and the entire Clinton Administration's counterterrorism team on the NSC staff. I knew Dick to be an expert in his field, as well as an experienced crisis manager. Our goal was to ensure continuity of operations while we developed new and more aggressive policies.
At the beginning of the Administration, President Bush revived the practice of meeting with the Director of Central Intelligence almost every day in the Oval Office - - meetings which I attended, along with the Vice President and the Chief of Staff. At these meetings, the President received up-to-date intelligence and asked questions of his most senior intelligence officials. From January 20 through September 10, the President received at these daily meetings more than 40 briefing items on Al Qaeda, and 13 of these were in response to questions he or his top advisers had posed. In addition to seeing DCI Tenet almost every morning, I generally spoke by telephone every morning at 7:15 with Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld. I also met and spoke regularly with the DCI about Al Qaeda and terrorism.
Of course, we also had other responsibilities. President Bush had set a broad foreign policy agenda. We were determined to confront the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We were improving America's relations with the world's great powers. We had to change an Iraq policy that was making no progress against a hostile regime which regularly shot at U.S. planes enforcing U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And we had to deal with the occasional crisis, for instance, when the crew of a Navy plane was detained in China for 11 days.
We also moved to develop a new and comprehensive strategy to eliminate the Al Qaeda terrorist network. President Bush understood the threat, and he understood its importance. He made clear to us that he did not want to respond to Al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was "tired of swatting flies."
This new strategy was developed over the Spring and Summer of 2001, and was approved by the President's senior national security officials on September 4. It was the very first major national security policy directive of the Bush Administration - - not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of Al Qaeda.
Although this National Security Presidential Directive was originally a highly classified document, we arranged for portions to be declassified to help the Commission in its work, and I will describe some of those today. The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the Al Qaeda network. It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of Al Qaeda a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power - - intelligence, financial, diplomatic, and military - - to meet this goal. And it gave Cabinet Secretaries and department heads specific responsibilities. For instance:
· It directed the Secretary of State to work with other countries to end all sanctuaries given to Al Qaeda.
· It directed the Secretaries of the Treasury and State to work with foreign governments to seize or freeze assets and holdings of Al Qaeda and its benefactors.
· It directed the Director of Central Intelligence to prepare an aggressive program of covert activities to disrupt Al Qaeda and provide assistance to anti-Taliban groups operating against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
· It tasked the Director of OMB with ensuring that sufficient funds were available in the budgets over the next five years to meet the goals laid out in the strategy.
· And it directed the Secretary of Defense to - - and I quote - - "ensure that the contingency planning process include plans: against Al Qaeda and associated terrorist facilities in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control-communications, training, and logistics facilities; against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics; to eliminate weapons of mass destruction which Al Qaeda and associated terrorist groups may acquire or manufacture, including those stored in underground bunkers." This was a change from the prior strategy — Presidential Decision Directive 62, signed in 1998 - - which ordered the Secretary of Defense to provide transportation to bring individual terrorists to the U.S. for trial, to protect DOD forces overseas, and to be prepared to respond to terrorist and weapons of mass destruction incidents.
More importantly, we recognized that no counterterrorism strategy could succeed in isolation. As you know from the Pakistan and Afghanistan strategy documents that we made available to the Commission, our counterterrorism strategy was part of a broader package of strategies that addressed the complexities of the region.
Integrating our counterterrorism and regional strategies was the most difficult and the most important aspect of the new strategy to get right. Al Qaeda was both client of and patron to the Taliban, which in turn was supported by Pakistan. Those relationships provided Al Qaeda with a powerful umbrella of protection, and we had to sever them. This was not easy.
Not that we hadn't tried. Within a month of taking office, President Bush sent a strong, private message to President Musharraf urging him to use his influence with the Taliban to bring Bin Laden to justice and to close down Al Qaeda training camps. Secretary Powell actively urged the Pakistanis, including Musharraf himself, to abandon support for the Taliban. I met with Pakistan's Foreign Minister in my office in June of 2001. I delivered a very tough message, which was met with a rote, expressionless response.
America's Al Qaeda policy wasn't working because our Afghanistan policy wasn't working. And our Afghanistan policy wasn't working because our Pakistan policy wasn't working. We recognized that America's counterterrorism policy had to be connected to our regional strategies and to our overall foreign policy.
To address these problems, I made sure to involve key regional experts. I brought in Zalmay Khalilzad, an expert on Afghanistan who, as a senior diplomat in the 1980s, had worked closely with the Afghan Mujahedeen, helping them to turn back the Soviet invasion. I also ensured the participation of the NSC experts on South Asia, as well as the Secretary of State and his regional specialists. Together, we developed a new strategic approach to Afghanistan. Instead of the intense focus on the Northern Alliance, we emphasized the importance of the south - - the social and political heartland of the country. Our new approach to Pakistan combined the use of carrots and sticks to persuade Pakistan to drop its support for the Taliban. And we began to change our approach to India, to preserve stability on the subcontinent.
While we were developing this new strategy to deal with Al Qaeda, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-Al Qaeda initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke. Many of these ideas had been deferred by the last Administration, and some had been on the table since 1998. We increased counterterror assistance to Uzbekistan; we bolstered the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize terrorist assets; we increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies; and we moved quickly to arm Predator unmanned surveillance vehicles for action against Al Qaeda.
When threat reporting increased during the Spring and Summer of 2001, we moved the U.S. Government at all levels to a high state of alert and activity. Let me clear up any confusion about the relationship between the development of our new strategy and the many actions we took to respond to threats that summer. Policy development and crisis management require different approaches. Throughout this period, we did both simultaneously.
For the essential crisis management task, we depended on the Counterterrorism Security Group chaired by Dick Clarke to be the interagency nerve center. The CSG consisted of senior counterterrorism experts from CIA, the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Defense Department (including the Joint Chiefs), the State Department, and the Secret Service. The CSG had met regularly for many years, and its members had worked through numerous periods of heightened threat activity. As threat information increased, the CSG met more frequently, sometimes daily, to review and analyze the threat reporting and to coordinate actions in response. CSG members also had ready access to their Cabinet Secretaries and could raise any concerns they had at the highest levels.
The threat reporting that we received in the Spring and Summer of 2001 was not specific as to time, nor place, nor manner of attack. Almost all of the reports focused on Al Qaeda activities outside the United States, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. In fact, the information that was specific enough to be actionable referred to terrorist operations overseas. More often, it was frustratingly vague. Let me read you some of the actual chatter that we picked up that Spring and Summer:
· "Unbelievable news in coming weeks" · "Big event ... there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar" · "There will be attacks in the near future"
Troubling, yes. But they don't tell us when; they don't tell us where; they don't tell us who; and they don't tell us how.
In this context, I want to address in some detail one of the briefing items we received, since its content has frequently been mischaracterized. On August 6, 2001, the President's intelligence briefing included a response to questions he had earlier raised about any Al Qaeda intentions to strike our homeland. The briefing item reviewed past intelligence reporting, mostly dating from the 1990s, regarding possible Al Qaeda plans to attack inside the United States. It referred to uncorroborated reporting from 1998 that terrorists might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft in an attempt to blackmail the government into releasing U.S.-held terrorists who had participated in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. This briefing item was not prompted by any specific threat information. And it did not raise the possibility that terrorists might use airplanes as missiles.
Despite the fact that the vast majority of the threat information we received was focused overseas, I was also concerned about possible threats inside the United States. On July 5, Chief of Staff Andy Card and I met with Dick Clarke, and I asked Dick to make sure that domestic agencies were aware of the heightened threat period and were taking appropriate steps to respond, even though we did not have specific threats to the homeland. Later that same day, Clarke convened a special meeting of his CSG, as well as representatives from the FAA, the INS, Customs, and the Coast Guard. At that meeting, these agencies were asked to take additional measures to increase security and surveillance.
Throughout this period of heightened threat information, we worked hard on multiple fronts to detect, protect against, and disrupt any terrorist plans or operations that might lead to an attack. For instance:
· The Department of Defense issued at least five urgent warnings to U.S. military forces that Al Qaeda might be planning a near-term attack, and placed our military forces in certain regions on heightened alert.
· The State Department issued at least four urgent security advisories and public worldwide cautions on terrorist threats, enhanced security measures at certain embassies, and warned the Taliban that they would be held responsible for any Al Qaeda attack on U.S. interests.
· The FBI issued at least three nationwide warnings to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, and specifically stated that, although the vast majority of the information indicated overseas targets, attacks against the homeland could not be ruled out. The FBI also tasked all 56 of its U.S. Field Offices to increase surveillance of known or suspected terrorists and reach out to known informants who might have information on terrorist activities.
· The FAA issued at least five Civil Aviation Security Information Circulars to all U.S. airlines and airport security personnel, including specific warnings about the possibility of hijackings.
· The CIA worked round the clock to disrupt threats worldwide. Agency officials launched a wide-ranging disruption effort against Al Qaeda in more than 20 countries.
· During this period, the Vice President, DCI Tenet, and the NSC's Counterterrorism staff called senior foreign officials requesting that they increase their intelligence assistance and report to us any relevant threat information.
This is a brief sample of our intense activity over the Summer of 2001.
Yet, as your hearings have shown, there was no silver bullet that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. In hindsight, if anything might have helped stop 9/11, it would have been better information about threats inside the United States, something made difficult by structural and legal impediments that prevented the collection and sharing of information by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
So the attacks came. A band of vicious terrorists tried to decapitate our government, destroy our financial system, and break the spirit of America. As an officer of government on duty that day, I will never forget the sorrow and the anger I felt. Nor will I forget the courage and resilience shown by the American people and the leadership of the President that day.
Now, we have an opportunity and an obligation to move forward together. Bold and comprehensive changes are sometimes only possible in the wake of catastrophic events - - events which create a new consensus that allows us to transcend old ways of thinking and acting. Just as World War II led to a fundamental reorganization of our national defense structure and to the creation of the National Security Council, so has September 11th made possible sweeping changes in the ways we protect our homeland.
President Bush is leading the country during this time of crisis and change. He has unified and streamlined our efforts to secure the American Homeland by creating the Department of Homeland Security, established a new center to integrate and analyze terrorist threat information, directed the transformation of the FBI into an agency dedicated to fighting terror, broken down the bureaucratic walls and legal barriers that prevented the sharing of vital threat information between our domestic law enforcement and our foreign intelligence agencies, and, working with the Congress, given officials new tools, such as the USA PATRIOT Act, to find and stop terrorists. And he has done all of this in a way that is consistent with protecting America's cherished civil liberties and with preserving our character as a free and open society.
But the President also recognizes that our work is far from complete. More structural reform will likely be necessary. Our intelligence gathering and analysis have improved dramatically in the last two years, but they must be stronger still. The President and all of us in his Administration welcome new ideas and fresh thinking. We are eager to do whatever is necessary to protect the American people. And we look forward to receiving the recommendations of this Commission.
We are at war and our security as a nation depends on winning that war. We must and we will do everything we can to harden terrorist targets within the United States. Dedicated law enforcement and security professionals continue to risk their lives every day to make us all safer, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. And, let's remember, those charged with protecting us from attack have to succeed 100 percent of the time. To inflict devastation on a massive scale, the terrorists only have to succeed once, and we know they are trying every day.
That is why we must address the source of the problem. We must stay on offense, to find and defeat the terrorists wherever they live, hide, and plot around the world. If we learned anything on September 11th, 2001, it is that we cannot wait while dangers gather.
After the September 11th attacks, our Nation faced hard choices. We could fight a narrow war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban or we could fight a broad war against a global menace. We could seek a narrow victory or we could work for a lasting peace and a better world. President Bush chose the bolder course.
He recognizes that the War on Terror is a broad war. Under his leadership, the United States and our allies are disrupting terrorist operations, cutting off their funding, and hunting down terrorists one-by-one. Their world is getting smaller. The terrorists have lost a home-base and training camps in Afghanistan. The Governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia now pursue them with energy and force.
We are confronting the nexus between terror and weapons of mass destruction. We are working to stop the spread of deadly weapons and prevent then from getting into the hands of terrorists, seizing dangerous materials in transit, where necessary. Because we acted in Iraq, Saddam Hussein will never again use weapons of mass destruction against his people or his neighbors. And we have convinced Libya to give up all its WMD-related programs and materials.
And as we attack the threat at its sources, we are also addressing its roots. Thanks to the bravery and skill of our men and women in uniform, we removed from power two of the world's most brutal regimes — sources of violence, and fear, and instability in the region. Today, along with many allies, we are helping the people of Iraq and Afghanistan to build free societies. And we are working with the people of the Middle East to spread the blessings of liberty and democracy as the alternatives to instability, hatred, and terror. This work is hard and dangerous, yet it is worthy of our effort and our sacrifice. The defeat of terror and the success of freedom in those nations will serve the interests of our Nation and inspire hope and encourage reform throughout the greater Middle East.
In the aftermath of September 11th, those were the right choices for America to make — the only choices that can ensure the safety of our Nation in the decades to come.
Thank you. Now I am happy to answer your questions.
04-08-2004, 06:16 PM
Bump! The hell out of that sh*t!Originally Posted by jweave23
I totally understand the global war on terrorism which isn't just an American war it's a threat all countries need to be concerned with. And even though I have no problem with taking a tyrant (Sadam) down I still don't get how folks are relating the Global war on Terror with Iraq.
04-08-2004, 06:37 PM
I believe that information was obtained from a book I read a while back. I'll see if I can find the name for you. I'm sure you could find that information in a few minutes searching google. Anyway though PC1 throughout this discussion you have constantly either directly or indirectly labeled me a liberal. I am far from being a liberal. In my eye these topics have nothing to do with whether you are a liberal or conservative. The fact of the matter is the information I presented pertaining to the nuclear waste is not just a problem for Bush's administration. It has been a problem for decades. The same goes for the rest of the lies that our gov't tells us. I'm not even totally against the war in Iraq. I'm glad that Saddam is out of power. I just believe the catalyst that the Bush administration used was unfair, manipulating, and too many people had too much to profit from it.Originally Posted by PC1
04-08-2004, 06:52 PM
If you can show me where I've called you a liberal, I will gladly apologize. It is a horrible label, I agree, and I would never level a charge like that at you
04-08-2004, 07:47 PM
LOL! It's cool.Originally Posted by PC1
04-08-2004, 09:10 PM
I also agree that very few peple will ever change or alter their political philosophies, at least not without serious time involved (years and years).Originally Posted by PC1
With that said, after I read your post it is quite apparent that you believe Bush did not "steal" the election. I disagree, here are some others that do as well (I don't necessarily expect you to read/view them all, but nonetheless the points brought up in each are quite valid):
04-08-2004, 09:19 PM
Yet again a completely ignorant misinterpretation of the facts, some of which which may be found here:Originally Posted by PC1
One of the best articles I've seen (peer reviewed journal):
More opionated, but still valid:
04-08-2004, 09:19 PM
It's ok, I will gladly accept that label with prideOriginally Posted by PC1
04-09-2004, 01:12 AM
JW I was asking you if a D was in the white house and the exact same thing was going on if you think the Democrats would be saying the same things and acting the same way , not if they were in the Whitehouse would they have handled the situation differently.As for if D's were in the White House? I absolutely feel this would have been handled differently, yes. I think depending upon the intelligence, it may have been a 50/50 for war with Iraq, not presented as a neccessity for the best interest of America.
So if the definition of sheep is someone who blindly follows a group of people or an ideology, what does the statement you wrote about liberals say. Are you telling me that you believe that they are just the good guys who "are simply asking: what is best for America, what is the smart thing to do, do we have all the information to justify making such leaps in foreign policy" and that politics such as taking back control of the white house , congress, and senate have nothing to do with it what so ever?I am calling anyone who seems to blindly go along with this war sheep, yes
That's not what you originally said. You said "the war on Iraq was a lie and a stretch, not much to do with 9/11 at all, but certainly a good smoke screen for going in". The way you worded it implies that they lied deliberately to go into Iraq. If you believed that they had bad intelligence they didn't lie.I would say a mix of your scenarios 3 and 4, IMO. I do not think the actual man George W. Bush lied about too much, I don't give him credit enough to be able to interpret what he's being told
There is no direct evidence but some circumstantial evidence. There are several intelligence reports indication that there was an Iraq / Al Qaeda link. Some of our own Intel. reports show that there was a link between them for ten years or so. Czech intelligence have stated publicly that they have information that Iraq helped finance Mohamed Atta and they he met with Iraqi intelligence at least once. On top of this a few people have come forward reporting that some of the 9-11 terrorist had lesions on their skin. These reports came from a doctor and a pharmacist. Anyway I wrote a whole report about this for school but way to long to go into much more detail than that.I still have yet to see some conclusive evidence that there was direct ties between Iraq and 9/11
Unfortunately the people that are going to pay the price for this is our troops. If this starts to happen I would support turning Iraq into a giant parking lot.many terrorist organizations are slowly realizing that it may be to their benefit to band together against the U.S, but that is our own fault for bad policy and inconsistent representation in the Middle East.
04-09-2004, 01:37 AM
JW I can post several links pointing to the opposite, that Bush didn't steal the election, that it was Gore's intention to steal the election, and that there were wide spread issues of vote fraud going on by democrats. Why didn't Gore want a recount of the whole state instead of just heavily democratic districts and why did he want to throw out absentee ballets from our military? In one story a democrat activist was caught with a voting machine in his car. Guess where that story was? It was on ABC's website. Guess if the report made it on to any TV news. It didn't. Media Bias what's that?Yet again a completely ignorant misinterpretation of the facts, some of which which may be found here:
Similar Forum Threads
- By StangBanger in forum AnabolicsReplies: 4Last Post: 07-25-2011, 09:05 AM
- By mark118 in forum E-Pharm NutritionReplies: 3Last Post: 02-14-2011, 02:37 PM
- By Y2Jversion1 in forum General ChatReplies: 103Last Post: 06-21-2006, 02:55 PM
- By Zen_69 in forum General ChatReplies: 0Last Post: 03-07-2003, 11:36 AM
- By ex_banana-eater in forum Weight LossReplies: 13Last Post: 02-03-2003, 09:02 PM