Please continue the discussion here.
Please continue the discussion here.
That’s right, fred. Anyone who cannot see this has their eyes shut very tightly and just doesn’t want to know.
Even the NYT has stated that the story, if it was actually as important as it was trumpeted to be just before the election, should have been followed up after the election. It is clearly obvious that the only import the story had for those who reported it was to harm President Bush’s re-election chances.
We can see the desperation of the Bush fans on this forum, still unable to discuss the numerous concerns raised by the generals about this war. Not able to hold up their end of the discussion because it’s simply too painful for them to be confronted with the opinions of informed career soldiers who care about their country and what this war is doing to its military institutions. Call these generals “traitors” if you will, but it’s worth keeping in mind that these generals are not offering their criticisms on a partisan basis.
We can also see pretty clearly that in the days right before a national election, the Bush administration was willing to offer up big ol’ whoppers about how Col. Anderson’s unit inspected the Al Qaqaa site. It is also clear that the DoD was glad to support the GOP fully in falsely labelling photos of the Al Qaqaa site to support the sorts of lies the Bushies were feeding the American people. I think what we can see is that there is a strong bias by the Bush administration against the American people, evident in the utter lack of respect their ability to weigh real facts and come to their own conclusions.
We’ve seen the Bushies time and again stack the deck against American citizens trying to sort out fact from fiction. EPA scientists aren’t saying what the Bush oil buddies want? Then you simply have to overrule them. Education policies not doing too well with the American people? Then you better pay some commentator to change his opinions and shill away. Lack of fiscal responsibility driving the country deep into the red? Better lie about the economic consequences of the massive tax cuts to your billionaire oil buddies. No-bid, multi-year “emergency” Halliburton contracts vetted by the veep’s office? Better tell people some more lies… The needs of old people getting in the way of some more voodoo economics on the social-security front? Better attack the AARP as a bunch of “traitors”. Why should the state of the war be any different.
You must not be paying attention. I’ve already responded.
Do you mean non-partisan like Former Democratic presidential candidate, four-star General Wesley Clark?
I ask again. How many tons were at the site? 380? 350? 300? 250? 50? 10? Do you know? Does anyone? Then, if you do not know, how do you know that 380 tons were looted? Again, since you have a problem with media shilling ala Gannongate, why are you silent about the media staging of the discovery that 380 tons were missing a week before the presidential election? Why has there been no follow up on the story? How does the media even know that 380 tons were in fact missing? Shouldn’t it print a rebuttal if it does not know? cannot know?
You still have not answered my question:
If you say that Arafat’s death is responsible for the advancement fo the peace process and democracy in Palestine, then do you agree that Bush was right to “write off” Arafat 3 years earlier? Are you then saying that it is the EU, France and Germany that were wrong and that they should have supported Bush and were wrong to continue meeting with Arafat and call Bush’s moves counterproductive? Back to you. Try to answer this time.
Interesting that you’ve been trying to blame the media for the Bush administration’s blatant caught-red-handed lies about the WMDs they failed to secure.
Meanwhile, a new study has been released providing some information on the looting apparently tolerated in the headlong rush to the Oil Ministry:
[quote]SOME 90 sites in Iraq that the United Nations had monitored for unconventional arms materials have been razed or looted since the US intervention, according to a new UN inspection report.
The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), created to track Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, based its conclusion in a report yesterday on satellite imagery from sites with material that had weapons potential.[/quote]
[quote]Satellite imagery has revealed that approximately 90 sites in Iraq subject to U.N. inspection and monitoring have been stripped of equipment or razed, the chief U.N. weapons inspector said in a report Friday.
The commission, known as UNMOVIC, previously reported the looting and razing of sites that contained equipment and materials that were subject to inspection because of their potential for use in chemical or biological weapons or the long-range missiles to deliver them. Friday’s report to the U.N. Security Council was the first to provide information on the extent of the disappearance and destruction.[/quote]
You must not be paying attention. I’ve already responded.[/quote]
And what do you recommend must be done with these “traitors”? You don’t think they can have valid complaints with our Dear Leader’s heroic effort to roll the panzers?
Do you mean non-partisan like Former Democratic presidential candidate, four-star General Wesley Clark? [/quote]
No, I mean former Bush administration Secretary of State Colin Powell. You must not be paying attention.
Yes, MFGR, there was chaos in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion and that was a mistake. It should have been planned for better, but then each and every invasion and each and every war has lessons to be learned which is where the old adage, fighting the last war, came in.
But, more importantly, is Iraq now free of Saddam? Is it free of wmds? You cannot criticize the administration for invading because there were no wmds and then criticize it for not doing a better job of preventing wmd sites from being looted. Surely, you see that?
So, lesson learned: Iraq collapsed into chaos much faster and worse than anyone had predicted.
Colin Powell may have been right but I also notice that the last war fought: Kosovo and Bosnia left the lesson that you should not use too many troops lest the country become overly dependent on your forces. So, then what exactly would you like us to now draw as a conclusion given that our troops or NATO allies are still responsible for ALL security in Kosovo and Bosnia? Just curious since you seem to have all the answers.
Also, you have not answered two questions yet:
Why is it that you are so against media shilling and manipulation (see comments regarding Gannongate where nothing implicating the administration has been found) and so silent when it comes to the obviously politicized reporting and timing for the missing al Qaqaa explosives? If it was such an important story then, why did it disappear so quickly following the presidential elections?
Why also are you not concerned about the total set up of the reporter who had never been to Iraq prompting a soldier who had never been to Iraq to grill Rumsfeld about lack of armor?
Fred, attempting to quote from discredited information is poor form. Considering you have participated in threads where the allegations about Wilson’s question (applauded raucously by 2,300 other troops) to Rumsfeld were already shot down, we can only guess you’re attempting to defend your position as “forum Absolon”. Also, considering that enough oddities have occurred the medicare fake news team and the Armstrong Williams DoE scandal, don’t you feel the Bush administration could perhaps spend taxpayer money a bit more wisely? It’s our money, after all. While you’re at it, please explain how Gannon got into the White House press briefings more than a month before his “news organization” even existed.
The Al Qaqaa explosives story never went away… the UN has now released a report that has systematically shown Bush administration failed to secure the identified WMD sites. Was Rumsfeld deliberately trying to reach his “force reduction”/ “leaner and meaner” armed forces by deliberately selling out our troops? We may never know …
Why do you refer to these generals as “traitors”? Are you only capable of stating your arguments in ridiculous terms?
I’m paying attention… just trying to get you to clarify who you mean.
So what do you want? Yes, their concerns should be addressed and where appropriate, changes should be made.
I will be the forum absolon but remember that I am still the one that stuck the hot poker up your dumb ass so if that is how you want it bend over baby.
Yet, neither the reporter nor the soldier had even been to IRaq so how does that make it a good story? Also, at the time, the reports show that most of the vehicles had in fact been armored so it was just another election stunt.
Do not know how Gannon got in but please feel free to prove anything at all of your wild and deranged allegations. When you do I will listen. In the meantime, best look at the wild allegations of the press that continually fall to nothing. EVEN the Guardian and Der Spiegel are featuring stories with headlines like “Was Bush Right After All.” Stay tuned, more progress will no doubt occur. Anyway, thanks for playing but this is a matter for intelligent thinking people not wild-eyed paranoid conspiracy theorists. Remember denial ain’t a river in Egypt. Must be very sad for you to see all the progress in the Middle East since each and every step forward is one more nail in your coffin. YOU WERE WRONG. haha and no matter what you say, WE ARE WINNING. YOU WERE WRONG AND WE WERE RIGHT. Get it? hahahahahahahaahahah
[quote]The Al Qaqaa explosives story never went away… the UN has now released a report that has systematically shown Bush administration failed to secure the identified WMD sites. Was Rumsfeld deliberately trying to reach his “force reduction”/ “leaner and meaner” armed forces by deliberately selling out our troops? We may never know …
And doesn’t that just sum up a typical MFGR post. YOU may never know because you don’t know anything. That is why your posts are so laughable. One sweeping allegation after another but by your own admission, you DON"T KNOW. We KNOW that you DON"T KNOW that is what is so pathetic about watching you chase your tail around. Get help.
So the US Army was in such a rush to secure the Oil Ministry building that it allowed the oil fields to be looted as well? Does this make sense to you? Bitch all you want about the failure to prevent this looting but this does underline the inconsistency in the arguments of those who believe that this was all about oil. Right?
[quote]The southern and northern oil fields are in the good hands of the coalition forces. Both major oil fields, north and south, made it through the fighting with limited damage. Iraqi forces had set afire 7 wells in the south, just one in the north, far less than had been anticipated. Damage to other oil-related infrastructure, such as pipelines, refineries, and storage tanks also appear minimal. In sum, the coalition strategy to seize and isolate the oil fields in the very stages of the conflict, to protect the infrastructure and prevent the Iraqi military from repeating what had happened to the Kuwaiti oil fields, proved very successful.
Unfortunately, destruction from continued looting has not been contained. Facilities have been damaged or stolen and oil field documentation destroyed. Much of the supporting systems are gone. Equipment and machinery has been lost. Importantly, employees are finding it difficult to get to their former place of work, either gasoline is not available or the means of transportation have been stolen. [/quote]
As I’m following events in the Middle East, I’m beginning to suspect more and more that you guys were right in one of your key assessments of how events would unfold there and I was wrong.
Specifically the effects of forcibly toppling autocratic Arab regimes and working to replace them with democratically elected popular governments.
I anticipated that the primary effect of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq would be to radicalize moderate Arab majorities and drive them towards hard-line anti-western Islamists but it appears that the pent-up desire for normalcy and stability among Arab/Muslim populations may trump their frustration and anger instead.
The momentum seems to be clearly in that direction now. If the U.S. and Israel could only truly equitably resolve their conflict with the Palestinian people at this point it could seal that momentum irrevocably and truly lead to a new age of peace and stability in the Middle East.
Let’s hope that the trend continues. We do have momentum, but this has often been lost in the past. Keep your fingers crossed, but I do have to admit as well that this insurgency has been a lot worse in Iraq than I would have predicted. But I guess, win some, lose some, but as long as the overall trend remains positive, I think we may be in for some positive changes. It would be nice to nail some borders down with a Palestinian state once and for all. They have had their share of world attention for far too long.
Save it for Gannon.
What you have is an American soldier giving Rumsfeld a dose of truth and Rummy ducking the question. Are you again trying to falsely claim that the humvee situation is resolved just because the Pentagon got embarrassed and sent a bunch of equipment over to one unit from which originated probably the single most famous soldier gripe in modern military history? I’ve already provided information straight from Iraq, posted within minutes of receipt along with other stats, stating flatly that there remained a serious problem for most other units.
By the way, the Wilson-Rumsfeld confrontation happened in December. Are you going to claim every incident is “just another election stunt”, even when there is no election coming up?
Please provide links to Guardian and Der Spiegel articles with such titles about Gannon. I want to hear more about this.
We will likely not know because the Bush administration is uncommonly secretive and resists investigation like a vampire hates crosses. Look at the sham investigation into the Valerie Plame matter … they’re jailing journalists who didn’t even report on Plame and completely leaving Novak alone. Go figure. Perhaps that’s going to be the hallmark of the Bush presidency – striking wherever nobody in their right mind would expect them. If Bush had been in charge of World War II, we would have come out from Pearl Harbor with a forceful attack on Mexico.
It is sad to see you reach such a state but here is the state of affairs.
You have no proof that Gannon was approved by anyone in the White House. You have no proof that his “shilling” in any way affected the reporting of any other news agency. In fact, he was a joke. DO YOU HAVE PROOF?
You have no proof that Bush did not complete his National Guard service. The initial media rush thought that something was there. Nope. Witness the mass resignation at CBS. DO YOU HAVE PROOF?
You have no proof how many tons of explosives were at al Qaqaa but you KNOW that 380 tons were missing? How exactly? DO YOU HAVE PROOF?
You state that the Bush team was so eager to rush to the Oil Ministry building. This was the target at all costs, but the building is in itself worthless. The oil fields like to the north and south and while not destroyed were looted of equipment. Why not secure the oil fields if it was all about oil? DO YOU HAVE PROOF?
You have no proof that anyone in the Bush administration outed Valerie Plame. There is no crime in outing a CIA agent who is not on covert mission. She publicly put herself forward when she recommended her husband for the job in Niger. He publicly put them both forward when he went to the press with his “findings.” When these “findings” were discredited, so was he and then it went back to who recommended him for the job. Guess who? His wife. DO YOU HAVE PROOF?
You were the one that brought up Absolon. Ergo I assumed that you knew in Canterbury Tales, that Absolon despite being made fun of was the one who stuck the hot poker up the wise-cracking fool’s ass. You are that ass. Can’t you even get your classical literature down. Another embarrassing lapse? DID YOU EVEN READ THE BOOK?
You have no proof that there was no plan to armor the vehicles in Iraq. When the story broke, ironically, you have a reporter and a soldier who had never been to Iraq bringing it up. You have basically a shill situation that you were so outraged about with regard to the highly ineffective Gannon who never after all was able to influence any news stories or prompt interest in any of Bush’s policies in an effective way. When the story comes out, it turns out there was a plan and most of the vehicles were in fact already armored and the rest were going to be armored very shortly thereafter. The story was given. The reason for the delays was given. You have even cited it yourself. Bureaucratic obstacles. DO YOU HAVE PROOF?
You said Bush was doing nothing about port security. Then you quote from a source that says that much of the port security that was done was inappropriate. You cannot have it both ways, either port security was being done or it was not being done but you cannot have it being done and then have it being done ineffectively. DO YOU HAVE PROOF?
The most ridiculous thing about this is that you claim Bush led us to war because he wanted to attack Iraq at all costs and KNEW that there were no wmds. This can be disputed when you look at every major intelligence service, including the French, German and Russian, as well as the UN inspectors. DO YOU HAVE PROOF?
You claim that Halliburton cheated the US government, but we have found that the money all went to a middleman in Kuwait that the company was pressured to use in the interests of securing fuel before the war and that it had to pay a premium on the price. Halliburton was therefore vindicated. DO YOU HAVE PROOF?
You claim that this is all about oil, but neither the US nor US oil companies control anything in Iraq. DO YOU HAVE PROOF?
So what do you have? Any proof? Anything at all? Well, then, I guess you know what you can do. Thanks for playing. Denial ain’t a river in Egypt.
What’s Gannon doing in the White House press briefing more than a month prior to even having a “news organization” to work for? You’re denying that anything strange is going on here??
The CBS situation meant that they had the wrong document. However, the veracity of the information has thus far not even been challenged. Bush disappeared for a large portion of his Texas Air National Guard commitment with no explanation, no excuse and not even a single airman will come forward to offer an alibi.
Did the Bush administration tell whopper after whopper right before the election on this? Yes. So sad to see that the Bush administration doesn’t think that the American people are good enough to be trusted with even a tiny dose of truth.
Well, if the war was “about WMDs”, why not try to secure the WMD sites identified and sealed by the UN? Wouldn’t that make sense to ensure that dangerous materials didn’t get into the hands of others? Maintaining order in the streets would have also been a smart idea, but Rummy had some cute comments on looting.
I guess you never bothered to read the Novak column. Please show justification for your statement “[t]here is no crime in outing a CIA agent who is not on covert mission”.
Absolon, the but-kissing dweeb sitting outside Alisoun’s window? However, you can save your “hot poker” for Gannon.
Did the reporter bring it up? No. Did the soldier come up with his own question? Yes. Did the soldier word the question himself? Yes. Did he ask the question himself? Yes. Of course, with butt-kissers like yourself spreading disinformation about the troop supply situation, I’m sure that the bureaucrats had fewer and fewer reasons to look for solutions to the supply problems. No pressure on them until Wilson blew the cover on their little crony-capitalism schemes. It was months ago that I even suggested getting those “The Fast and the Furious”-style custom auto shops on board – noting that if there was anybody who could make a fully armored humvee go twice as fast across Baghdad, these guys could.
You presented a single corporate press release and (in a tactic just like you did with later with Wilson’s unit) claimed that security work on one port meant that all U.S. ports were secure. How tiresome…
It’s funny that the best source for Iraq’s WMD program still remains the enormous document that the Iraqis sent to the UN.
Halliburton has their fingers in all sorts of pies… check out the scandals in the mess halls, the “emergency” no-bid contracts, and so on… If Cheney’s office is vetting the contracts, why does the Bush administration even bother pretending they’re trying to spend taxpayer money with even an ounce of care??
Well, if this were about WMDs, perhaps we could deal with a country like North Korea. Oh, wait a minute… no oil there! Perhaps invading the country with the 2nd biggest proven reserves in a world in which Venezuela is mulling cutting off oil sales to the U.S. means that the U.S. will be watched closely. Show me that it’s about WMDs? Right, you can’t. Show me it’s about terror? Right, you don’t have anything there either.
So no proof then huh MFGR. Thanks for playing but denial ain’t a river in Egypt. Bye bye now. Better luck next time. Come back when you have some proof.
Still no response to the concerns of the generals? Oh, right… I guess there is no response other than to blather on and try to change the subject.