Acknowledging the disaster...
« on: 2005-11-19 13:45:28 »
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson
Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff for 16 years
A "cabal" of neocons, including Cheney, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, and former Pentagon desk wannabe-warrior NeoConArtists Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and Richard Perle, have "hijacked" US foreign policy and have driven the nation into a trumped up war. The Bush Administration is dangerously incompetent.
Gen. William Odom
Chief of the National Security Agency Leading military strategic thinker
Bush’s Iraq adventure is "the biggest disaster in the history of the US."
Gen Brent Scowcroft
National security advisor to Bush senior Republican elder statesman
Bush Jr is "wrapped around the little finger" of Israel’s PM Ariel Sharon*.
Sen. Chuck Hagel
Vietnam Veteran Senator for Nebraska
"Trust and confidence in the United States has been seriously eroded. We are seen by many in the Middle East as an obstacle to peace, an aggressor and an occupier. Our policies are a significant source of friction. ... We have made a very bad decision [the worst] we could possibly make. ... The problem now is how to get out without further destabilizing the Middle East.", Speech to Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, DC.
Sen. John Warner of Virginia
Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee
Introduced a resolution demanding progress reports and accountability from the administration on progress -- or the lack of it -- in Iraq. Passed 98 nil (i.e. veto proof).
Judge Laurence H. Silberman
Chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction
"Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."
Gen Colin Powell
Secretary of State
"Iraqi insurgents are winning the war in recent weeks."
Daniel Benjamin
Director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council
"Not only is the United States losing [the war in Iraq], we are creating a new haven for terrorists."
Michael O'Hanlon
Brookings Institution of Washington
"All the trend lines we can identify are all in the wrong direction...we are not winning, and the security trend lines could almost lead you to believe that we are losing."
John Murtha
Representative for Pennsylvania Decorated Marine Corp Veteran
"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region." "There's no question we're going in the wrong direction and we're not winning, there's nothing that's happening that shows any sign of success."
David Walker
U.S. comptroller general
"We face a demographic tsunami. The United States is in the same position as Rome before the fall of the empire. The country faces deficits in its budget, its balance of payments, its savings and its leadership"
Admiral Stansfield Turner
former Director CIA Ret President of the Naval War College
"I'm embarrassed, I'm embarrassed, that the United States has a vice president for torture. I think it is just reprehensible."
Martin van Creveld
Prof Military History, Hebrew University Military Author
"For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C. sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins."
General Barry R. McCaffrey
Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy Member National Security Council CIC U.S. Armed Forces Southern Command
"The two war theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan cost America each month $ 7 billion and more than a battalion of Marines and soldiers killed and wounded. The American people have walked away from supporting the war in large numbers. The credibility of the civilian Pentagon leadership has been fatally damaged by continuing denial of the evidence apparent to most Americans of the serious and growing lethality of the opposition we face from a large and intractable Sunni insurgency. Our Allies have increasingly joined much of the international community in strong opposition to our actions in the War on terror. The personnel strength of the Army and Marine Corps are increasingly placed in jeopardy by the grind of multiple, sequential combat tours that have generated 18,000 casualties in the undermanned active and reserve forces."
Porter J. Goss
Director CIA
"Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists. These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries."
Vice Adm Lowell E. Jacoby
Director Defense Intelligence Agency
"Our policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment.... Overwhelming majorities in Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia believe the U.S. has a negative policy toward the Arab world... [The Iraq insurgency has grown] in size and complexity over the past year."
General Sir Michael Rose
General Staff, British Army UN commander in Bosnia
"I think the politicians should be held to account ... my view is that Blair should be impeached. That would prevent the politicians treating quite so carelessly the subject of taking a country into war... I would not have gone to war on such flimsy grounds."
Paul Bremer
Head US civilian occupation authority for Iraq
"We [the US] really didn’t see the insurgency coming."
George F. Will
Conservative Columnist
conditions in Iraq have "worsened in the 94 days that have passed since Iraq's elections in December". "And there still is no Iraqi government that can govern," "By many measures, conditions are worse than they were a year ago, when they were worse than they had been the year before.
Meantime, while the WhiteHouse and its fellow travellers, particularly Cheney "His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us." (2003-01-30) try to accuse others of lying rather attempting to address the House Democrats on the Government Reform Committee's little list of "51 misleading statements". Interestingly, in company with Janes, Intelligence Review and others, I remember objecting to many of these statements at the time - and being deluged with streams of NeoConArtist war propaganda by Cheney's self-appointed CoV representative. To my mind, most of these claims were sufficiently ludicrous to anybody with a clue that they reflected the entire US intelligence community as gullible idiots. Knowing that, even when they are sidelined, not all of them are complete fools, I decided then that the presentation of these claims had to represent deliberate lies. And said so. I remain firmly of that opinion. Judging by the table above, a growing number of others are coming to the same conclusion. Hopefully we will eventually see indictements, even if it is too late for far too many people, International law and stability and our tattered, blood-stained reputation.
Hermit
*Scowcroft has finally said aloud what no one in official Washington or the media dared to utter. His accusation helps explain much about the Bush Administration’s foreign policies and why they seem so often to damage rather than promote US interests while it appears that the primary objective for the NeoConArtists is to use America’s military and economic power to destroy enemies of Israel - no matter the cost to the US. Which makes it doubly interesting that the FBI, stymied in their previous investigations, appears to be intensifying its war against the NeoConArtists. Certainly they are investigating at least two senior officials of the Israel lobby (one of Washington’s most sacred cows), as well as a NeoConArtist Pentagon analyst for passing national security secrets to Israel. NeoConArtists are making frantic efforts to suppress these investigations and to attempt to depict them as minor mischance rather than the beginning of a major spy scandal.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
The liars are those Democrats who are screaming liar; everyone had the same intelligence, and came to the same conclusions at the time - the same conclusions, BTW, as the intelligence services of Britain, France, Russia, Germany, and practically all others. Methinks that there's some self-serving selective amnesia going on, and I think it's wise and appropriate that those willful amnesiacs and dishonest lie-imputers are being called on same, and being faced with their own past words on these issues.
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.” Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real … Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Re:Acknowledging the disaster...
« Reply #3 on: 2005-11-21 13:24:06 »
[Hermit] More unfounded assertion and attempted ad hominem in place of facts. Let me show you how it should be done (as if...).
[Dees screamed] The liars are those Democrats who are screaming liar; everyone had the same intelligence, and came to the same conclusions at the time - the same conclusions, BTW, as the intelligence services of Britain, France, Russia, Germany, and practically all others. Methinks that there's some self-serving selective amnesia going on, and I think it's wise and appropriate that those willful amnesiacs and dishonest lie-imputers are being called on same, and being faced with their own past words on these issues.
[Hermit shakes his head] "Everyone had the same intelligence, and came to the same conclusions" ? Oh no Dees. You know better than that. You know that at least I, for one, didn't.
[Hermit] For example, remember the aluminum tubes which the administration, its stooges and dupes asserted could only be used for buoilding centrifuges. "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon," [Shrub to the UN GA]. Do you remember the hundreds of posts you made on that one subject alone, when I reported that I disagreed as the same tubes could be used for other purposes, e.g. missile production, and later that Jane's, the US Department of Energy, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the International Atomic Energy Agency all said the same. The CoV archives are replete with this.
[Hermit] How do you reconcile my and other's disagreement with what was supposedly an important justification not just for war with Iraq, but for "urgency" in going to war, with "everyone had the same intelligence, and came to the same conclusions at the time".
[Hermit] You have asserted that your brain is not fried (despite the evidnce to the contrary). If this assertion is true, then I suggest that you had not forgotten that I disagreed - or that I posted disagreements and arguments from others when you wrote the above.
[Hermit] So:
your assertion, "everyone had the same intelligence, and came to the same conclusions is false"
You knew your assertion was false when you made it.
Making an assertion when you know it to be false is to lie.
Those who lie are refered to as liars.
I suggest that you are proven to be a liar, Mr Dees.
[Hermit] I know many people, some in the US military and intelligence services who came to the same conclusions as myself. Some of them were in a position to say that the entire case against Iraq was a pile of crap - from beginning to end. That there had to be other motives than a search for evidence occuring. As did I. As did many people that you called names. Today, those of us who said that every charge we saw was insufficiently supported, trumped up and hysterical have been shown to have been correct. Even your numbskulled President has acknowledged - after all weaselling options had been removed - that there was no legal support or possible legal justification for our unprovoked attack on Iraq.
[Hermit] Here, have a source document, The secret Downing Street memo, explaining that Bush determined to go to war and thereafter, in cahoots with the British, established "justification" for it.
[Hermit] How can you reconcile the sentence, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" with your assertions above.
[Hermit] The White House launched its public campaign to build support for a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in August 2002. This campaign was orchestrated by a small group, the White House Iraq Group, which included:
Andrew Card (White House Chief of Staff)
Condoleezza Rice (National Security Adviser then, now Secretary of State)
Stephen J. Hadley (Deputy NSA then, now National Security Adviser)
Lewis "Scooter" Libby (VP's Chief of Staff)
Karl Rove (Chief Political Adviser)
Nicholas E. Cali (White House Legislative Liason)
Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin & James Wilkerson (White House "Communications Strategists")
[Hermit] How do you explain the uncanny fact that this committee and the US "drive-to-war" campaign began right after this memo was written? How do you reconcile the fact that all the evidence available now, and of course, the missing WMDs and terror links, point to "the intelligence and facts" having been "fixed around the policy" with your assertions?
[Hermit] The Iraqi National Congress, was at that time an "anti-Baath" exile opposition group distrusted by the State Department, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the CIA. Nevertheless, its leader, Ahmad Chalabi, was close to Cheney (VP), Feith(Undersecretary of Defense) and others and piped information into Cheney's office and the Pentagon, according to a June 2002 letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee from the group's Washington spokesman.
[Hermit] Given that the INC was providing unfiltered information directly into Cheney's and Feith's offices, and this information, often from sources regarded as dismally unreliable by the Intelligence community (cf infra), appears according to the Senate Inquiry into Iraq Intelligence, not to have been made available to other agencies - and when it was, to have failed the laugh-test. So how do you justify your assertion that "everyone had the same intelligence, and came to the same conclusions at the time".
[Hermit] On 2002-08-26, Cheney charged Iraq with "amassing chemical and biological weapons" adding "many of us are convinced that Saddam Hussein will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon" and suggesting that Iraq could supply these to terrorist (i.e. anti-American) organisations. According to a Senate Intelligence Committee "Report on Iraq Intelligenc", this speech was unsupported by U.S. intelligence or the International Atomic Energy Agency which was responsible for monitoring Iraq's compliance. In addition, U.S. intelligence had no evidence of any alliance between Iraq and al-Qaida, raher the reverse. No Intelligence agency I am familiar with suggested that secular Baathist Iraq would be stupid enough to deliver WMDs to Al Quaeda - or indeed, to any Islamic extremists.
[Hermit] According to many reports, then and now, the White House Iraq group based its case on analysis produced by the "Office for Special Plans", instantiated by Douglas Feith, then Undersecretary of Defense (and a strong proponent of attacking Iraq) when neither the CIA nor the DIA were producing sufficiently strongly worded "evidence" against Iraq. We know that most of the Intelligence Community didn't think there was much there. Some contacts, but nothing substantial. We know that Doug Feith's group fired a number of analysts who objeced to the blatant slanting and cherry picking engaged in to establish purported connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaida. But when they presented their findings to professional analysts in the rest of the Intelligence Community, most notably at the CIA, the consensus was that those findings didn't pass the laugh-test. It is important to note that the DoD repudiated the assertion of this group to the Senate that there was such a linkage as soon as they became aware of it.
[Hermit] Try to reconcile the "slam dunk case" described by the administration with these assertions.
[Hermit] Have a careful look at how Chalabi - who seems to be the flavor of the week with the NeoConArtists, used his Iraqui National Congress to provide material directly to the White House and the Secretary of Defence, in this way bypassing what "filtering" was left in the US intelligence services after the NeoConArtists were through with them.
[Hermit] Don't foget to have fun. Oh, and please don't flood us with information. That would quite possibly make Mermaid unhappy, and given that she bites, you don't want to step on her tail. As I have demonstrated here, it is quite possible to make an argument without flooding.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Just for one example; the aluminum tubes were suitable for either use, rockets or centrifuges, since they could of course have been crammed with accelerants and payloads, pointed and set off; however, the use of such a pricet and high-quality alloy as these tubes were for something that simply goes boom makes no sense, and in fact, tubes made of materials of this quality were rarely if ever used for rockets.
I'll get to the rest eventually; your first steaming load of bovine offal poorly masquerading as a point just made an immediate and repugnant impression on me. For you to try to call me a liar from something such as this simply goes to show to what degree you'll lie in your own personal vendetta of Bush asministration destruction - as far as you can fabricate (aluminum tubes, or otherwise). But everyone who's still searching for the tens of thousands of dead US troops in Afghanistan and the millions of starved AAfghan civilians there is already fully aware to what flights of sheer and ludicrous fantasy you will rush to resort.
And you cetainly can't run with the bullshitters who, thirsting for moveon.org money, tried to maintain that they had always been opposed to the liberation of Iraq, when their own votes and public pronouncements stamp an incandescent L on their foreheads. And I recommend the recent vote on immediate withdrawal from Iraq to you; it was defeated 403-3 in a solid, if reluctant, display of the kind of good and common sense that I despair of you ever achieving.
Re:Acknowledging the disaster...
« Reply #5 on: 2005-11-22 13:29:02 »
[Joe Dees] Just for one example; the aluminum tubes were suitable for either use, rockets or centrifuges, since they could of course have been crammed with accelerants and payloads, pointed and set off; however, the use of such a pricet and high-quality alloy as these tubes were for something that simply goes boom makes no sense, and in fact, tubes made of materials of this quality were rarely if ever used for rockets.
<snip>
And you cetainly can't run with the bullshitters who, thirsting for moveon.org money, tried to maintain that they had always been opposed to the liberation of Iraq, when their own votes and public pronouncements stamp an incandescent L on their foreheads. And I recommend the recent vote on immediate withdrawal from Iraq to you; it was defeated 403-3 in a solid, if reluctant, display of the kind of good and common sense that I despair of you ever achieving.
[Casey] If I recall, you used the aluminum tubing argument as evidence to invade Iraq. That said, the aluminum tubing argument was subsequently shelved due to lack of evidence supporting the side of those who advocated the invasion of Iraq.
That resolution you mentioned was drafted by Rep. Duncan Hunter, (Rep. CA). Indeed, it was a simple version of what Rep. Murtha had envisioned. Indeed, it called for an immediate withdrawal by US Armed Forces. Indeed, the resolution was hastily scheduled for a vote by the GOP. Indeed, the resulting vote was not a surprise to anyone within the beltway, let alone with those who have followed this line of debate. Indeed, it was a ploy used by Hunter to cast shame on the Democrats and some Republicans who have voiced their opposition to the war's handling. Indeed, Rep. Jean Schmidt went so far as to implicitly call Rep. Murtha, a 31 year veteran of the Marines, a coward for advocating the timely and precise withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
It's no wonder that the GOP couldn't get this to pass, let alone tarnish the image of any person who opposes the Bush II administration's folly in Iraq. The GOP is in a quandry and it's members are fighting for their political lives in many districts around the country. They will use whatever means necessary to win reelection. However, that doesn't mean that the Democrats are without their own faults and problems. Both parties play to their own political interests; their favorite PACs; and their favorite cause of the day. However, despite those differing issues (a few issues relating to taxation and, of course, social issues), most Democrats and Republicans are on the same side - they reap the bounty of playing the politics games with special interest groups and pander to the very people who vote them into office, the constituency.
It's a shame what has become, or what has never become, of this country's political system. The 2 party system, as seen in the US, has not served the interests of the constituency for many decades; some may say since the founding of this republic.
Re:Acknowledging the disaster...
« Reply #6 on: 2005-11-22 14:08:29 »
[Hermit 2005] In a Lesson in Deconstruction, Powell in the Headlights, 2003-11-02 I said, Interalia (emphasis in the original):
<snip>
(d) There is a very strong reliance upon Iraqi defectors. This is a notoriously unreliable source, and many of the claims of the same defectors that Powell implictly refers to have since been shown to be inaccurate.
An example would be the claims of Adnan Saeed al-Haideri, who Powell refers to without naming him (as an "Iraqi civil engineer"). Haideri did not make any claims about mobile production facilities in his first press conferences in December 2001. It was only after debriefing by the US and a three-week "debriefing" by Nabil Musawi, spokesman for the opposition Iraqi National Congress, in Bangkok, that Haideri started talking about mobile facilities, in mid-2002.
In general, Powell makes some plausible claims that Iraq has not stood by the letter of the law in all respects. However, he does not show that Iraq has developed weapons on any scale, or that it has the potential to threaten Iraq's own people or its neighbours, much less the US. Nor does he show that Iraq may be able to develop its non-conventional capacity if weapons inspectors continue their work in Iraq.
<snip>
Aluminium tubes. Powell returns to this one, claiming that the tubes are higher quality than necessary for rockets, and that "they can be adapted for centrifuge use".
Again, ElBaradei's conclusions point in the opposite direction, in his briefing to the Security Council on 9 January 2003 (paras.9-10):
"the IAEA has conducted a series of inspections at sites involved in the production and storage of reverse engineered rockets, held discussions with and interviewed Iraqi personnel, taken samples of aluminium tubes, and begun a review of the documentation provided by Iraq relating to contracts with the traders. While the matter is still under investigation, and further verification is foreseen, the IAEA's analysis to date indicates that the specifications of the aluminium tubes sought by Iraq in 2001 and 2002 appear to be consistent with reverse engineering of rockets. While it would be possible to modify such tubes for the manufacture of centrifuges, they are not directly suitable for it."
Hermit notes that rockets currently in production in France, Germany, Poland and Yugoslavia make use of similarly specified tubes. In other words, no matter what Powell claims about the tubes exceeding rocket specifications, European practice confirms that rocketry is indeed a reasonable explanation for their attempted acquisition. To remove the anodized layer and polish the tubes back to centrifuge standards would be, to my mind (and this is also the official opinion of the FAS), completely impossible for Iraq with her current manufacturing constraints. So without compelling evidence, this duck won't fly. It is deader than the Norwegian Blue.
<snip>
Powell: "I asked for this session today for two purposes: First, to support the core assessments made by Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei. [...] And as Dr. ElBaradei reported, Iraq's declaration of December 7, 'did not provide any new information relevant to certain questions that have been outstanding since 1998.'"
Powell misses out the next part of ElBaradei's quote, where he explains what the "certain questions" are: "Iraq's progress prior to 1991 related to weapons design and centrifuge development". ElBaradei summarises: "While these questions do not constitute unresolved disarmament issues, they nevertheless need further clarification."
ElBaradei's core assessment was that "we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s. However, our work is steadily progressing and should be allowed to run its natural course. With our verification system now in place, barring exceptional circumstances, and provided there is sustained proactive cooperation by Iraq, we should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme. These few months would be a valuable investment in peace because they could help us avoid a war. We trust that we will continue to have your support as we make every effort to verify Iraq's nuclear disarmament through peaceful means, and to demonstrate that the inspection process can and does work, as a central feature of the international nuclear arms control regime." (his concluding words).
Mr Powell shows no sign of supporting that core assessment.
Powell: "Dr. Blix pronounced the 12,200-page declaration rich in volume but poor in information and practically devoid of new evidence."
Blix made this statement to the Security Council on 9 January 2003. He seemed to revise, and in some ways reverse, this judgement in his statement to the Security Council on 27 January 2003:
"In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward. This is welcome." [Hermit 2005] Mr Dees responded with invective and a posting party, lurking in which was this gem, Re:The ongoing disintegration of the Drooling Dees*** and rational thought in America, Reply #3 on: 2003-02-10 (Emphasis added by Hermit in 2005):
[Joe Dees] And has Hermit bothered to read the Powell report or the Blair report, both of which I posted on the BBS? Suport, hell; the BBS is literally DRIPPING with it! Al-Ansar Islam just assassinated a high Kurdish official (shades of Al Quaeda and the Northern Alliance), the Al Quaeda operative Abu Mussab Zarqawi, who operates from Iraq, has ties to Al Tawhid in Germany,is suspected of the London manufacture of the poison Ricin and recently engineered the assassination of a US diplomat in Jordan. In the Northern no-fly zone Kurds have instituted freedom of religion, expression and the press, and have even appointed four women judges - that Prague spring would be brutally crushed the moment we turned our backs on the Kurds again, like what happened when we abandoned them at the end of the Gulf War (I guess Heil Hermit's tender sensibilities don't stretch beyond fascist homicidal dictators to the oppressed yearning for freedom and tolerance). Check out the tapes of the Iraqis discussing hiding nerve agents, look at the photos of sites before and after cleansing, note that the aluminum tubes that were ordered were ordered according to nuclear-fuel-processing specs and not according to looser rocket shell specs, and so much other evidence that the blatant extent of someone's willful and ignorant blindness in the face of the mountain of it renders me physically ILL! This is the fellow who never admitted he was wrong about Afghanistan, and, when it turns out that he was wrong about Iraq, too, will not admit that, either, but simply go on to warn people against doing the next thing that is in the world's best interests, because, hey, he's that kinda guy. [Hermit 2005] Later Mr Dees said the following, to which I replied, Re:The ongoing disintegration of the Drooling Dees*** and rational thought in America, Reply #8 on: 2003-02-11 (Emphasis from the original):
[Joe Dees] [And I notice that you do not address the smoking gun of the ] satellite pictures of sanitized sites,
[Hermit] Mr Powell actually claimed the pictures showed "a signature item for chemical bunkers" I notice that I too have a truck and a shed. Does this mean I am producing chemical weapons? Should I anticipate a dawn raid? Certainly I don't have any chemicals - so how can they be "signatures"? If mine are not "signatures", then why are my truck and shed different? How are those in Iraq "signature items"? This is not evidence. This is lying. And while I'd have thought that only a gullible fool would buy such a transparent lie, there do seem to be a lot of fools around. If Powell really had evidence, where is it?
[Joe Dees] nor the nuclear-reprocessing-capable specs of the aluminum tubes.
[Hermit] [8] Putting the most frightening interpretation on a piece of evidence while pretending that no other interpretation exists: "Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes [suitable for nuclear weapons production]." Comment: Those tubes, unaltered, happen to be a perfect fit for a conventional artillery rocket program. For details, see the tubes section in my essay "An Open Letter to the U.N. About Colin Powell" (http://commondreams.org/views03/0204-07.htm). The Washington Post's Joby Warrick (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35360-2003Jan23.html) adds this: "The tubes were made of an aluminum-zinc alloy known as 7000-series, which is used in a wide range of industrial applications. But the dimensions and technical features, such as metal thickness and surface coatings, made them an unlikely choice for centrifuges, several nuclear experts said. Iraq used a different aluminum alloy in its centrifuges in the 1980s before switching to more advanced metals known as maraging steel and carbon fibers, which are better suited for the task, the experts said. Significantly, there is no evidence so far that Iraq sought other materials required for centrifuges, such as motors, metal caps and special magnets, U.S. and international officials said." Following Powell's address, Susan Taylor Martin of the St. Petersburg Times ( http://www.sptimes.com/2003/02/06/Worldandnation/A_strong_case__but_is.shtml) reported this: "Powell's speech was 'not quite accurate' on two points, according to the Institute for Science and International Security, a nonpartisan organization in Washington that deals with technical aspects of nuclear proliferation. Contrary to Powell's claim, anodized tubes are not appropriate for centrifuges and the anodization, designed to prevent corrosion, would have to be removed before the tubes could be used, said Corey Hinderstein, assistant director: 'It's not to say it would be impossible to use anodized tubes for centrifuges but it adds an extra step.' She also challenged Powell's comment that the tubes must be intended for a nuclear program because they meet higher specifications than the United States sets for its own rocketry. 'In fact, we found European-designed rockets that had exactly this high degree of specificity,' Hinderstein said." Refer Hermit, "Shrub: Natural Born Liar - Good Technical Analysis of Technique", 2003-02-11
[Joe Dees] The future shall prove you just as wrong as history has, and once again you will not be a big enough person to admit it.
[Hermit] If you want to make assertions, prove them, you congenital dribbler. [Hermit 2005] While I am here, let me also devastate your claim re the Intelligence services, Mr Dees. The introductory line was in the original. As usual, this was not rebutted unless a flood of hundreds of unrelated articles can be called a rebuttal. Did you ever have a case? Perhaps the "case"you supposed you had, just evaporated entirely... Attempt to rebut this McPees.
MI6 and CIA: The new enemy within
Source: The Independent, UK [Hermit Notes: A number of interesting links off this page.] Authors: Paul Lashmar and Raymond Whitaker Dated: 2003-02-10
Tony Blair and George Bush are encountering an unexpected obstacle in their campaign for war against Iraq - their own intelligence agencies.
Britain and America's spies believe that they are being politicised: that the intelligence they provide is being selectively applied to lead to the opposite conclusion from the one they have drawn, which is that Iraq is much less of a threat than their political masters claim. Worse, when the intelligence agencies fail to do the job, the politicians will not stop at plagiarism to make their case, even "tweaking" the plagiarised material to ensure a better fit.
"You cannot just cherry-pick evidence that suits your case and ignore the rest. It is a cardinal rule of intelligence," said one aggrieved officer. "Yet that is what the PM is doing." [Hermit Notes: Of course, he is hardly alone in doing this. The US does nothing else.]Not since Harold Wilson has a Prime Minister been so unpopular with his top spies.
The mounting tension is mirrored in Washington. "We've gone from a zero position, where presidents refused to cite detailed intel as a source, to the point now where partisan material is being officially attributed to these agencies," said one US intelligence source.
Mr Blair is facing an unprecedented, if covert, rebellion by his top spies, who last week used the politicians' own weapon - the strategic leak - against him. The BBC received a Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) document which showed that British intelligence believes there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qa'ida network. The classified document, written last month, said there had been contact between the two in the past, but it assessed that any fledgling relationship foundered due to mistrust and incompatible ideologies.
That conclusion contradicted one of the main charges laid against Saddam Hussein by the United States and Britain, most notably in Wednesday's speech by the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, to the UN Security Council - that he has cultivated contacts with the group blamed for the 11 September attacks.
Such a leak of up-to-date and sensitive material reveals the depth of anger within Britain's spy community over the misuse of intelligence by Downing Street. "A DIS document like this is highly secret. Whoever leaked it must have been quite senior and had unofficial approval from within the highest levels of British intelligence," said one insider. In response the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, tried to play down the importance of the DIS, which he repeatedly called the Defence Intelligence Services.
No sooner had that embarrassment passed, however, than it emerged that large chunks of the Government's latest dossier on Iraq, which claimed to draw on "intelligence material", were taken from published academic articles, some of them several years old. It was this recycled material that Mr Powell held up in front of a worldwide television audience, saying: "I would call my colleagues' attention to the fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed ... which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities."
Now Glen Rangwala, the Cambridge University analyst who blew the whistle on the original plagiarism, has pointed out the deception did not end there. He showed that the young Downing Street team, led by Alison Blackshaw, Alastair Campbell's personal assistant, which put the document together had "hardened" the language in several places (see box).
How selectively the work of the intelligence agencies is being used on both sides of the Atlantic is shown by a revealing clash between Senator Bob Graham and the Bush administration's top intelligence advisers. Mr Graham, a Democrat, is chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Last July, baffled by the apparently contradictory assessments on Iraq by America's 13 different intelligence agencies, he asked for a report to be drawn up by the CIA that estimated the likelihood of Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction.
The CIA procrastinated, but finally produced a report after Senator Graham threatened to accuse them of obstruction. The conclusions were so significant that he immediately asked for it to be declassified. The CIA concluded that the likelihood of Saddam Hussein using such weapons was "very low" for the "foreseeable future". The only circumstances in which Iraq would be more likely to use chemical weapons or encourage terrorist attacks would be if it was attacked. [Hermit Notes: This was in October 2002]
After more arguments the CIA partly declassified the report. Senator Graham noted that the parts released were those that made the case for war with Iraq. Those that did not were withheld. He appealed, and the extra material was eventually released. Yet the report has largely been ignored by the US media.
Last week Colin Powell made much of the presence in Iraq of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man he identified as running an al-Qa'ida network from Baghdad. He drew on information from al-Zarqawi's captured deputy, but made no mention of another explosive allegation from the same detainee: that Osama bin Laden's organisation received passports and $1m (#600,000) in cash from a member of the royal family in Qatar. It is well known in US intelligence circles that the CIA director, George Tenet, is angry with the Qatari government's failure to take action. But the Gulf state would be the main US air operations base in any war on Iraq, and Washington does not want to air the inconvenient facts in public. [Hermit Notes: In addition, this is in areas which are "off-limits" to Saddam - "protected" by the US and UK.]
The doctored dossier
A British government dossier, "Iraq - its infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation", was largely copied - complete with poor punctuation and grammar - from an article in last September's Middle East Review of International Affairs and two articles in Jane's Intelligence Review.
But the Downing Street compilers also rounded up the numbers and inserted stronger language than in the original. In a section on a movement called Fedayeen Saddam, members are, according to the original, "recruited from regions loyal to Saddam". The Government dossier says they are "press-ganged from regions known to be loyal to Saddam".
On Fedayeen Saddam's total membership, the original says 18,000 to 40,000. The dossier says 30,000 to 40,000.
A similar bumping-up of figures occurs with the description of the Directorate of Military Intelligence.
Included among the duties of the secret police, the Mukhabarat, says the original, are "monitoring foreign embassies in Iraq" and "aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes". The dossier says the duties include "spying on foreign embassies in Iraq" and "supporting terrorist organisations in hostile regimes".
The plagiarists cannot even copy correctly, confusing two organisations called General Security and Military Security. This means that the dossier says Military Security was created in 1992, then refers to it moving to new headquarters in 1990. The head of Military Security in 1997 is named as Taha al-Ahbabi, when he was actually in charge of General Security.
(c) 2002 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd [Hermit 2005] You still appear ill Mr Dees, but you now look stupid as well.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Re:Acknowledging the disaster...
« Reply #7 on: 2005-11-22 14:47:52 »
[Joe Dees] as quoted by Jake:
"Just for one example; the aluminum tubes were suitable for either use, rockets or centrifuges, since they could of course have been crammed with accelerants and payloads, pointed and set off; however, the use of such a pricet and high-quality alloy as these tubes were for something that simply goes boom makes no sense, and in fact, tubes made of materials of this quality were rarely if ever used for rockets."
[Blunderov] The tubes were not intended to form part of the rocket. They were for artillery rocket launching tubes.
"Aluminum tubes were cited as evidence by the White House that Iraq was actively pursuing an atomic weapon.
In 2002 the White House stated the tubes were part of a clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. The tubes could be used to make a centrifuge for the enrichment of uranium. The tubes were manufactured in China and were intercepted by the US in Jordan. Condoleezza Rice, said on CNN Late Edition on September 8, 2002 that the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs" and "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The dissenting view was that the tubes were to manufacture the launch tubes for artillery rockets."
Hermit and others at the time noted that the specifications of the tubing were inappropriate for centrifuges.
Actually, with a little work, they could well have served the purpose, and Saddam had plenty of money and contacts with which to obtain the proper modifying technology, once he had tubes to modify. The very fact that something CAN be used for another purpose does not mean that such is the purpose that is planned for it; shotgun pellets may be used to weight fishing lines, but hunters, rather than anglers, tend to buy them. The Wikipedia article itself does not assert that the intended purpose of the tubes was as rocket casings.
As to the forced vote, it was held in order to put the clamps on the guerilla Iraq-sniping in which the Democrats were engaging, as a surreptitious campaign tactic; this is also why their prior statements and votes re: Iraq have been shaken in their faces.
Further discusion of this Democratic ploy, and the measures which the Republicans have employed in order to counter it, may be found at:
Re:Acknowledging the disaster...
« Reply #9 on: 2005-11-24 13:29:58 »
[Salamantis] "Actually, with a little work, they could well have served the purpose."
[Blunderov] And with a little more work they could probably have been turned into pigs ears too. Why don't we appeal to Occam's razor here? Rocket launchers are 81mm in diameter. The tubes were 81mm in diameter. Saddam has an army which not only uses rocket launchers but is under immanent threat of attack. Maybe the tubes are for rocket launchers?
Probably though, it would take more than just a "little" work to turn the tubing into pigs ears:
"Feed: The Huffington Post | Raw Feed Title: Ian Masters: Dishonest Mistakes? "...Ms. Rice's claim of aluminum tubes as centrifuges was like comparing raw silicon to the latest Intel chip. Rocket launchers 81mm in diameter are nothing like a highly engineered array of centrifuges that spin at 70,000 RPM with rotating baffles inside...""
There are many, many things that that 'might' be. But successfully justifying the murder thousands of people on the basis of what they 'might' theoretically be capable of, and on the basis of no other evidence at all, will never be one of them in my book.
Permitting the continuation of a mass murderer's rule for any reason whatsoever outside fear of a nuclear conflagration is not okay in my book. Many more Iraqis are alive now than would have been had we not intervened, if one simply extrapolates Saddam's kill rate on his own people into the period follwing Coalition intervention.
Re:Acknowledging the disaster...
« Reply #11 on: 2005-11-26 09:05:44 »
Posted by: Salamantis Posted on: Today at 02:37:54 Permitting the continuation of a mass murderer's rule for any reason whatsoever outside fear of a nuclear conflagration is not okay in my book. Many more Iraqis are alive now than would have been had we not intervened, if one simply extrapolates Saddam's kill rate on his own people into the period follwing Coalition intervention.
[Blunderov] This is unmitigated bullshit. There is no way that statement can be falsified. How dare you so blithely cast aside the lives of innocent women and children on the basis of you perverted neoconvict moral calculus? How dare you take it upon yourself to decide who shall live and who shall die? Who the fuck gave you that right?
You rabidly froth in defence of totalitarianism, or at least in opposition to it's hold over a suffering people being terminated, and them being helped to self-government bt benevolent forces, and apparently have no problem with permitting the mass murdering thug Saddam to remain in power and decide, day by day, which and how many of Iraq's citizens he should have murdered by his Baathist thug henchmen.
The lion's share of the people who have been killed in Iraq by Coalition forces have benn Baathist remnant thugs or Al Qaedan infiltrator jihadist terrorists; the lion's share of the Iraqi civilians who have been killed in Iraq have been killed by these selfsame Baathist thugs and Al Qaedan mujaheddin, so those whom the Coalitian forces in Iraq have killed have, by their very actions, demonstrated that they richly deserved such a fate, and that for the Coalition forces to mete it out preserved the lives of the Iraqi civilians which such terrorists and thugs would have killed had they not been terminally prevented from doing so.
Since I have conclusively disabused you of one malevolent myth, allow me to assist in clearing away others which you apparently hold:
Urban Legend: The Bush Administration in general, and the Vice President and his office in particular, pressured the Central Intelligence Agency to exaggerate evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Reality: Here is the verdict of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s bipartisan Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq: “The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform with administration policies on Iraq’s WMD programs, not a single analyst answered ‘yes.’”
Urban Legend: The President and his administration intentionally misled the country into war with Iraq—and the “16 words” that appeared in the 2003 State of the Union are the best proof of it. In the words of Senator Ted Kennedy, “The gross abuse of intelligence was on full display in the President’s State of the Union…when he spoke the now infamous 16 words: ‘The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’… As we all now know, that allegation was false….”
Reality: On July 14, 2004—after a nearly half-year investigation—a special panel reported to the British Parliament that British intelligence had indeed concluded that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium from Africa. The Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by Lord Butler, summarized: “It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium…. The statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.”
In the U.S., the Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq revealed that the CIA considered it important that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.” The Select Committee on Intelligence also noted that the CIA reviewed and cleared the President’s State of the Union address....
Urban Legend: Helping democracy take root in Iraq was a postwar rationalization by the Bush administration; it was an argument that was not made prior to going to war. In the words of a November 13, 2003 New York Times editorial, “The White House recently began shifting its case for the Iraq war from the embarrassing unconventional weapons issue to the lofty vision of creating an exemplary democracy in Iraq.”
Reality: The President argued the importance of democracy taking root in Iraq before the war began. A February 27, 2003 New York Times editorial shatters the very myth the paper was perpetrating just nine months later: “President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [in an American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a ‘free and peaceful Iraq’ that would serve as a ‘dramatic and inspiring example’ to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East, and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time.” President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union made the same case….
Urban Legend: Saddam Hussein posed no threat. In the words of former Senator Max Cleland, “Iraq was no threat. We now know that. There are no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons programs, no ties to al-Qaeda. We now know that.”
Reality: Upon his return from Iraq, weapons inspector David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, said in Senate testimony: “I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein…. I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought…. After 1998, it became a regime that was totally corrupt…. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country.”
Dr. Kay’s report noted that, “We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.” He concluded, “Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction…. Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to restart CW [chemical weapons] production.”
Urban Legend: There were no links between al-Qaeda and Iraq.
Reality: The 9/11 Commission Report indicates that a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan in late 1994 or early 1995 and that contacts continued after bin Laden relocated in Afghanistan. Iraq harbored senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda associate. CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (in a 10/7/02 letter), “We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade.” Senator Hillary Clinton stated on October 10, 2002 that Saddam “has given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.” The Clinton administration tied Iraq to al-Qaeda back in 1998, arguing that Saddam Hussein had provided technical assistance in the construction of an al-Qaeda chemical plant in Sudan….
Urban Legend: President Bush and his administration wrongly tried to link Iraq and Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks. “President Bush should apologize to the American people” for this “plainly dishonest” effort, insists a New York Times editorial.
Reality: Neither President Bush nor any member of his foreign policy team has ever said Iraq was linked to the attacks of September 11. On September 17, 2003, for example, in response to a question from a reporter, President Bush said: “No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11.”
Urban Legend: President Bush has shown an “arrogant disrespect” for the United Nations on Iraq, according to Senator Ted Kennedy.
Reality: The administration devoted enormous time and energy to pass five separate U.N. Security Council Resolutions on Iraq, each by unanimous vote.... President Bush personally addressed the U.N. General Assembly in September 2002. The administration supported the work of Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. special envoy in Iraq, and a continued U.N. role in Iraq’s political transition.
Urban Legend: The President launched a “unilateral attack on Iraq,” to use the words of former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.
Reality: The coalition that liberated Iraq ranks among the largest war coalitions ever assembled. President Bush in his 2004 State of the Union address: “Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq…. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.”
Urban Legend: Flights out of the country for members of the bin Laden family were allowed before national airspace reopened on September 13, 2001; there was political intervention to facilitate the departure of the bin Laden family from America; and the FBI did not properly screen them before their departure.
Reality: Here are excerpts from The 9/11 Commission Report: “First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001. To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.
Second, we found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals....
Third, we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights.... The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures. They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights.”
Re:Acknowledging the disaster...
« Reply #13 on: 2005-11-27 02:39:45 »
Academic Report Issued Pursuant to GW Bush's "No School Left Standing, No Teacher Left Behind Act" of Vengeance
Aside from running with scissors and disrupting classes by screaming and throwing rubbish around on every possible occasion, Joey Dees has continued to post op-ed articles all around the school. For some imaginary reason, possibly related to his imaginary friend, "Dubya" whose name he keeps murmuring as he beats himself off to pictures of swastika emblazoned dominatrices, upsetting all the other children; he seems to imagine that this is meaningful when stacked up against referenced source documents. We have an additional concern in that it seems that Joey is still copying the work of others and handing it in as his own. This would perhaps not be completely terrible (it can be argued that this is one area, perhaps the only area, where Joey shows diligence and initiative) only he has consistently shown terrible judgment in choosing which work to copy. Most of the work he has submitted has been of exceedingly poor quality and highly inappropriate. This has unfortunately led to our being forced to award Joey demerits.
The educational committee has investigated and determined that Joey's ongoing socialization issues, inability to relinquish his fantasy world, inappropriate behavior and overall poor work performance have earned him an aggregate mark of F- for this academic year.
As you can no doubt imagine, even in this school for the very disturbed and academically challenged monstersdarlings, this is a failing grade. For the 43rd year in succession. This means that yes, Joey will need to repeat the year yet again. Due to the fact that the CoV kindergarten is not equipped to deal with incontinent 5 year olds in 50 year old bodies, we are forced to request that you withdraw him and attempt to place him in another institution for the next school year.
Joey's Home Class Teacher and the Education Committee wish you and Joey all the best for the future in your very own best of all possible totally imaginary worlds.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Author
Logged
