http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/23/iraq.main/index.html



Its time to steam roll the Sunni's, they are the thorn in the side of Iraq ever getting its shit together.

Perhaps we can come up with a "final solution" for the Sunni problem Herr Ibudin

Kill the firstborn in every family? Naaa... too Jewish....

Sunni day at the local soccer field. Free virgins for the first 20,000 who show up....ah its a start.

Who cares who's killing who as long as our new military bases are out of the line of fire. Right George?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/23/iraq.main/index.html



Its time to steam roll the Sunni's, they are the thorn in the side of Iraq ever getting its shit together.


I wonder what happened that caused the destabilizing of Iraq. It seems to me that although Saddam was an asshole something must have happened that is the root cause of all this chaos there. I'm in shock and awe over the whole thing.

Kill the firstborn in every family? Naaa... too Jewish....

It's time to work up a number six on them!

I wonder what happened that caused the destabilizing of Iraq. It seems to me that although Saddam was an asshole something must have happened that is the root cause of all this chaos there. I'm in shock and awe over the whole thing.

Even with the lame attempt at blaming the Bush administration for this Civil war, I will have to say that the real reason is a idelogical one. One thing I have learned about the people over there is they see everything as a whole and not individually. For example, if someone of a different religion does something wrong, then everyone of that religion is evil, and should be punished. They do not look at it as a individual thing. Ideally, when you have a few bad apples (i.e. terrorists), blow up your golden Dome, then you should go after those few people, and not the whole sect of religion. In addition, when the peacemaker Saddam was in power, the minority Sunni kept peace with the threat of death.

You're right, should've left Saddam in power. He only had ours and Israel's best interests at heart.

That's mainly because you are still one of those that believe that Saddam had no WMD nor was he interested in supporting terrorism against us...

Fandros

Shanno is generally on the right track. The various sects, factions, and tribes have long-term, deep-seated distrust and dislike for one another, and events far less significant than the bombing of the Askariyah shrine reinforce those perceptions. Iraqis hardly have a monopoly on prejudice-reinforcing stereotypes, of course, but in their environment the likelihood of violence is greatly increased (much like anti-black violence in the South from Reconstruction to MLK).

These deep divisions were no secret to anyone familiar with the region, yet the present scenario seems to have never been considered by the nation (re)builders.

That is a good example Thor that can relate to our own history. As a majority, most people in the United States has accepted the fact that a individual is held responsible for his actions, and not all teens are gun-toting black leather trenchcoat wearing killers because of Columbine.

oh come on shanno, we all know that's Marilyn Manson's Fault!!

ROFL... You would know Tal.. =)

Y'know.

The whole feeling I get from the "but we removed Saddam from power" argument is the same as when you need a touchdown, but only get a field goal. Its better than nothing, but not what you wanted and not enough.

What is happening right now is what would have occurred down the road, either at the time of Saddam's death or if a successful coup had taken place.
Zar-cow-whee(sp) more than likely has a hand in the bombing of the Golden Dome.

Some of the deep-seated hatreds between tribes and sects over there goes back far before our country was even founded. There was going to be major conflict between the Sunni and Shiite sects, regardless of whether we removed Saddam or not; the only question was when it would occur. My hunch is that this will be used by the Kurds to solidify their position that they need to be independent of these warring factions, and it will not be a surprise to see them move reinforcements to the city and oil fields they are claiming should be part of their independent country.

And so, it begins.....

Not begins Byl, you have it right earlier in your post....it began long long ago.

Fandros

You can trace the root of the conflict in Iraq back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WW1, when 3 quite disparate groups were thrown into a single arbitrarily defined region and named Iraqis. Civil war there has not only been almost inevitable, but by any standards of Western self-determination necessary.

My hunch is that this will be used by the Kurds to solidify their position that they need to be independent of these warring factions, and it will not be a surprise to see them move reinforcements to the city and oil fields they are claiming should be part of their independent country.
The Turkish reaction to a Kurdish "declaration of independence" should be interesting, perhaps even dramatic. The Turks have killed their share of Kurds (tho' using more conventional means compared to Saddam) and have no desire to see a Kurdistan. Perhaps more interesting will be Western reaction to their reaction, and so on.

Turkey will invade northern Iraq if Kurds declare independence. 100% certain of that.

The US will use all of it power to keep Kurds in Iraq. That is the downward spiral.

The thing that irks me so much is that this scenario was well established by scholars long ago. There was a mountain of information about the region, the people, the religion, and the culture that the Bush administration failed to take seriously or give any consideration. Regardless of whether or not we should be there at all, the operation could have and would have been so much easier for all people involved had the administration done any homework or planning whatsoever.

I just read Eaters of the Dead today. It was weird reading about Baghdad being called the "City of Peace" and the crown jewel of civilization, then reading this.

The US could not afford to support an independent Kurdistan, none of the connecting mid-Eastern countries want it, besides the Kurds themselves, and that would leave the West, or the US, diplomatically isolated out there. And let's face it, they need their illusions of support as much as anyone right now.

It's true, you can blame it partially on the Mandates in the wake of the First World War when ourselves and France carved the Mid-East up, but then you can only do the same as in Africa enough times before you think sheet - it might be the people themselves.

We spent an Empire's effort on uniting a thoroughly disunited South Africa, from Xosha to Boer, Zulu to Swali, and though that bogged itself in a century of regime trouble, it's more or less on a prosperous track.

Different religions and peoples is often a trouble in the more backward areas of the world, but the West has shown that it need not lead to inevitable civil war, well, the modern West, anyway.

But perhaps this is the problem in itself. The Mid-East lives in the past, a time when our own countries felt the pressure of diversity in a violent and civil-strife sort of way.

Damn.... I thought this was going to be something about Abraham Lincoln.... all I get is Iraqi shit.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4749866.stm

- Not to be the nay-sayer I usually am, but if civil-war isn't on the horizon, i'd be damned suprised.

More "downward spiral" and civil war "on the horizon" ... Not.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18278442%255E1702,00.html

THE movement of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, alleged to have played a role in the anti-Sunni violence over the last few days, publicly made peace with political and religious Sunni leaders overnight.

Four sheikhs from the Sadr movement made a "pact of honour" with the conservative Sunni Muslim Scholars Association, and called for an end to attacks on places of worship, the shedding of blood and condemning any act leading to sedition.
The agreement was made in the particularly symbolic setting of Baghdad's premier Sunni mosque Abu Hanifa where the Shiite sheikhs prayed under the guidance of Sunni imam Abdel Salam al-Qubaissi.Al-Sadr gets it. You don't. All the hand-wringing anticipation for the inevitable civil war has been rescheduled. Thank you very much for proving once again you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Well then, all is right with the world and we have nothing more to fear regarding Iraq.

After all, today being the 25th, it is an odd day, and on odd days the media can be believed.:rolleyes:

More "downward spiral" and civil war "on the horizon" ... Not.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18278442%255E1702,00.html

Al-Sadr gets it. You don't. All the hand-wringing anticipation for the inevitable civil war has been rescheduled. Thank you very much for proving once again you don't know what the hell you're talking about.


Well thats cool if true and I also agree with you that Al-Sadr gets it:


The meeting also announced the formation of a commission to "determine the reasons for the crisis with a view to solving it", while also calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops.

Thank you very much for proving once again you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Thank you very much for proving once again that your reading comprehension is for shit.

The downward spiral was IF the Kurds try to break away from Iraq and the Turkish response to that. Im getting a kick out of your over use of the term "hand wringing" though. It makes a nice contrast to the Rumsfeldian Zip A Dee Do Dah What can possibly go wrong, "slam dunk" self delusional world view some might accuse you of having.

Its neighbors view Iraq as pie waiting to be divided once the US leaves. Iran isnt going to stop its campaign to convince the Shias to secede.

Iran isnt going to stop its campaign to convince the Shias to secede.

They won't be happy until they have taken over Saudi Arabia and can launch on Israel, and then they will simply choose a new enemy, since they have to hate someone.

'Thank you very much for proving once again you don't know what the hell you're talking about.'

- Siding with radical clerics now, eh? Was only a matter of time before you realised no one around here can endorse your views.

Can I get straight A's this year, mummy?

Al-Sadr says you can!

But hey.. Dont worry Akipt, Faux News is already hard at work at preparing your next set of rose colored glasses

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/234_fox1.jpg

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/234_fox2.jpg

Iran isnt going to stop its campaign to convince the Shias to secede.

Muqtada al'Sadr, it should be noted, cleaves tightly to the authority of senior Iranian clerics. In related news, William Buckley is the latest traitor (http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/buckley/buckley.asp) to say we "...can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." I await for him (and O'Reilly) to be pilloried as was Howard Dean for making similar remarks.

More from the guy who "gets it":
Muqtada wondered aloud, "Do you want to give aid to the enemy? Do you want to render the Occupier victorious? Do you wish to make Satan triumphant, or do you wish to help the Truth?" He added, "If you burn down mosques, are you helping falsehood or the truth? Do you wish to help falsehood?" He shouted, "No, no to falsehood!"

Al-Sadr said, "Do not forget the plotting of the Occupation, for if we forget its plots, it will kill us all without exception." He went on, "Sometimes they curse the Messenger of God [Muhammad] and defame him [with their cartoons], and sometimes they blow up our Imams. This series of attacks is not the first and it will not be the last. The attacks will continue. Beware, and be responsible. Religion is your responsibility, mosques are your responsibility, the Muslim people is your responsibility, so do not attack the secure houses of God. Love one another and be brethren of one another so that our Iraq will be secure and stable and independent. We want the expulsion of the Occupier and not the American ambassador."
Almost amusing seeing his "give aid to the enemy" comment, since it mirrors so well the rhetoric of the administration and its surrogates when responding to critics of the war. Sadr's reasons for calling for calm aren't as altruistic as one might think. While peace would be preferable, he's a militant nationalist who a) knows that the Shiites are the political/ethnic/sectarian majority (compared to Kurds and Sunnis); and b) the best way to get the US out of Iraq (assuming there is any intention to leave) is for there to be unity, even of a temporary sort.

This is how Sadr truly "gets it."

I think it's clear who doesn't "get it".

Thank you very much for proving once again that your reading comprehension is for shit.

...

Its neighbors view Iraq as pie waiting to be divided once the US leaves. Iran isnt going to stop its campaign to convince the Shias to secede.My reading comprehension is perfectly fine, or did you not just prove my point again? All true in this quote of yours (not so in the previous one.) But you can always find something to bitch about, and you score a perfect 10 every time.

- Siding with radical clerics now, eh? Was only a matter of time before you realised no one around here can endorse your views. Such irony. Siding with the natives is what you've always done best.

And yes, as long as Sadr wants to work for a political solution to drive the imperialist great satan out of his country, I'm all for it. He gets it, you don't. They can talk about all the timetables they want, as long as Bush and Rumsfeld keep their existing timetable.

But hey.. Dont worry Akipt, Faux News is already hard at work at preparing your next set of rose colored glasses Hey L2, see that shot with the two people on the one side? They're both giving the TV viewers opposing views. You should experience that sometime.

In related news, William Buckley is the latest traitor (http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/buckley/buckley.asp) to say we "...can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." I await for him (and O'Reilly) to be pilloried as was Howard Dean for making similar remarks.Had you been a real National Review reader instead of the one you're pretending to be, you'd know this isn't the first time WFB has been critical about Iraq. Yet more of those opposing views I'm afraid has been lacking from many people's daily dose of reality.

Sadr's reasons for calling for calm aren't as altruistic as one might think. While peace would be preferable, he's a militant nationalist who a) knows that the Shiites are the political/ethnic/sectarian majority (compared to Kurds and Sunnis); and b) the best way to get the US out of Iraq (assuming there is any intention to leave) is for there to be unity, even of a temporary sort. Well duh? We killed practically all of his little armed friends when he led his revolt earlier in the campaign. You think he's ever going to throw us a rose parade when this is done?

'They're both giving the TV viewers opposing views. You should experience that sometime. '

- Coming from you, I'm not entirely sure whether or not you're joking.

Had you been a real National Review reader instead of the one you're pretending to be, you'd know this isn't the first time WFB has been critical about Iraq. Yet more of those opposing views I'm afraid has been lacking from many people's daily dose of reality.
The point wasn't that WFB was suddenly critical of the war. Rather, he says the same thing that people like Jack Murtha and Howard Dean have said that prompted accusations of treachery and providing aid and comfort to the enemy from the right, including on this forum and including Fox news. Conservatives are gradually waking up to the mess in Iraq; now suddenly talk of withdrawal is just an "opposing view" rather than a hanging offense. What a joke.
Well duh? We killed practically all of his little armed friends when he led his revolt earlier in the campaign. You think he's ever going to throw us a rose parade when this is done?
No, he and the US ceased hostilities and he entered the political fold, allowing his influence to expand considerably. His peace loving bunch may still beactive (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/27/AR2006022701128.html):BAGHDAD, Feb. 27 -- Grisly attacks and other sectarian violence unleashed by last week's bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine have killed more than 1,300 Iraqis, making the past few days the deadliest of the war outside of major U.S. offensives, according to Baghdad's main morgue. The toll was more than three times higher than the figure previously reported by the U.S. military and the news media.

Hundreds of unclaimed dead lay at the morgue at midday Monday -- blood-caked men who had been shot, knifed, garroted or apparently suffocated by the plastic bags still over their heads. Many of the bodies were sprawled with their hands still bound -- and many of them had wound up at the morgue after what their families said was their abduction by the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
Sadr denies the allegations but seems to be having difficulty controlling his militia. On the plus side, one of his clerics has called joint worship sessions between Sunni & Shiite that have attracted both Sadrists and members of the hardline Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars. With luck, the shrine bombing and ensuing carnage will prompt a reversal of the violence and rapprochement between the two factions. Right now we just seem to be caught in the middle.

Rather, he says the same thing that people like Jack Murtha and Howard Dean have said that prompted accusations of treachery and providing aid and comfort to the enemy from the right, including on this forum and including Fox news. Says the same thing? Uh hardly. You need to troll NR some more before spouting off shit like that.

WFB has been disillusioned with Iraq for nearly two years. Unlike Murtha/Pelosi/Dean, he's never said we need an immediate withdrawl or that our troops are "broken" and can barely defend our country in their current state... all statements from Murtha that made Al jazeera flutter with glee. Show me where WFB disparaged our troops like those other major political leaders of the Democratic party have and I'll cancel my subscription.

BAGHDAD, Feb. 27 -- Grisly attacks and other sectarian violence unleashed by last week's bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine have killed more than 1,300 Iraqis, making the past few days the deadliest of the war outside of major U.S. offensives, according to Baghdad's main morgue. The toll was more than three times higher than the figure previously reported by the U.S. military and the news media.You need to find a less sensationalist news source...

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/02/iraqi_governmen.html
The Iraqi Cabinet said today that 379 Iraqis had been killed and 458 wounded in reprisal attacks since last Wednesday's bombing of a Shiite shrine, the Associated Press reports.

That's far lower than the estimate of 1,300 deaths published today by The Washington Post - which said its numbers came from officials at Baghdad's main morgue.

Sadr denies the allegations but seems to be having difficulty controlling his militia. On the plus side, one of his clerics has called joint worship sessions between Sunni & Shiite that have attracted both Sadrists and members of the hardline Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars. With luck, the shrine bombing and ensuing carnage will prompt a reversal of the violence and rapprochement between the two factions. Right now we just seem to be caught in the middle.Yup.

The Iraqi Cabinet said today that 379 Iraqis had been killed and 458 wounded in reprisal attacks since last Wednesday's bombing of a Shiite shrine, the Associated Press reports.

That's far lower than the estimate of 1,300 deaths published today by The Washington Post - which said its numbers came from officials at Baghdad's main morgue.


Yeah common sense would say that the official at the morgue would be clueless to how many people were killed, its not like he actually sees the bodies. Of course the its not like the members of the Iraqi cabinet are inside some kind of "green zone" protected from the fighting. :rolleyes:

Yeah common sense would say that the official at the morgue would be clueless to how many people were killed, its not like he actually sees the bodies. Of course the its not like the members of the Iraqi cabinet are inside some kind of "green zone" protected from the fighting



It is also common sense for anyone that has been in Iraq to know that they have a problem with numbers and time. When we were working with Iraqi contractors, and they said they would have something or be done working "tommorrow", the next question was: "is that Iraqi tommorrow or American Tommorrow?". Tommorrow for them was 3-5 days most of the time if ever. Everyone over there was someones cousin, and they always multiplied thier numbers from that actual total... so I am more inclined to believe that inflated numbers would come from the "morgue". Rememeber... people like to make things out to be larger then they really are for more publicity... like the "million" man march... or any democratic fund raiser...

It is also common sense for anyone that has been in Iraq to know that they have a problem with numbers and time. When we were working with Iraqi contractors, and they said they would have something or be done working "tommorrow", the next question was: "is that Iraqi tommorrow or American Tommorrow?". Tommorrow for them was 3-5 days most of the time if ever. Everyone over there was someones cousin, and they always multiplied thier numbers from that actual total... so I am more inclined to believe that inflated numbers would come from the "morgue". Rememeber... people like to make things out to be larger then they really are for more publicity... like the "million" man march... or any democratic fund raiser...

People also like to deflate numbers or accomplishments or numbers associated with disastrous decisions to counter publicity. Like the swift boat veterans, Karl Rove, Bush, Cheney or the Iraqi cabinet.

People also like to deflate numbers or accomplishments or numbers associated with disastrous decisions to counter publicity. Like the swift boat veterans, Karl Rove, Bush, Cheney or the Iraqi cabinet



Oh.. you mean for example the new CBS poll where Bush only has a 34% approval rating? Look at this.. more importantly the bottom where they break down the numbers who were polled. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_bush_022706.pdf

409 to 272.. ya. that is a fair poll. way to slant things once again. But 13% is not a big deal right? Or wait.. I know.. THOUSANDS DEAD FROM KATRINA!!!! or maybe only a few hundred.. OR all the miners are safe.. oh wait.. only 1 sorry.. our bad.

Say what you want, but any time I see anything by the news that shows numbers that I know influence the story, I get skeptical. I made my comments from personal experience and not from crap shoveled to me by the media. (ya.. the last two comments were jabs that I have no personal experience with, so save the time cracking me about not being at the million man march)

The media picks and chooses what it wants the people to see, and they only tackle issues that are in the best interests for them. Why did not ANY of the major news make a issue of Bryant Gumble? To say that the lack of black athletes in the winter olympics is like a RNC convention is not only racist but classless. If the tables were reversed... all hell would break loose.

Oh,, and Fandros... keep posting here because there are not many of us left trying to balance this liberal slanted board...

Or wait.. I know.. THOUSANDS DEAD FROM KATRINA!!!! or maybe only a few hundred.

I know your whole purpose isn't to diminish the whole hurrican situation, or at least I hope not, but there's so far at LEAST 1300 confirmed dead with 2300 people still missing/unaccounted for. Far more than the few hundred you are trying to downplay it too. Here's a link to where I get my data(which I found in more than one place) from a source you'll believe.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184508,00.html

how about we nuke everyone there and give iraq to mexico....

No Tal, I was not downplaying it. I was just using the extreme. When initial reports came out, they were talking 10,000 +. The death toll that is now coming out is minimal considering the devestation that happened. But the point still remains that whatever sells will be told. For example, I am suprised that the total of deaths is only 1100 considering the multitude of gang rapes and the hordes of armed thugs looting and killing innocent people, that were ravaging New Orleans according to reports right after the hurricane. The media published that without any proof to the contrary. That has always been the way it was, but until the internet and alternative media, they got away with it.

It's true, sensationalism sells. You are more likely to keep tuned in if the story says 10,000 people are dead than 1300 confirmed dead with 2300 people still missing/unaccounted for. The media has gotten away from reporting facts, and instead is more worried about ratings.
Remember the Dan Rather fiasco? I used to like the guy because he seemed like he didn't let his slant get in the way of his reporting. Now he'll be remembered as the guy that hated Bush so bad, he believed a fake document to make a story. All for ratings.
The media has forgotten about reporting the facts, and letting the public decide on them for ratings.
This lets people who have an agenda get in on the reporting, because, hey it's popular to bash Bush, all my friends are doing it.
Just remember when you watch ANY news network, they will say whatever it takes to keep you tuned in, be it CNN or Fox.

When initial reports came out, they were talking 10,000 +. The death toll that is now coming out is minimal considering the devestation that happened. But the point still remains that whatever sells will be told.

According to the news interview I saw the other day, the initial "projection" of as many as 10,000 dead was taken directly from the FEMA/Homeland Security computer models that had been prepared for such a situation, so who again was it that took a fairly decent functioning Cabinet level department and collapsed it into the Homeland Security Department, where it now has been dysfunctional and mismanaged?

You can throw all the stones you want at the mayor and Governor and whoever else, but the numbers they were going by were prepared by the Bush appointees and their program.:p

Which just goes to show you that relying for Government for anything is a lost cause. Incidentally, if they used computer models, why didn't the news organizations say "According to FEMA computer model projections, the estimated loss of life can be expected to be xx-10,000." where xx is the number that the lowest model projection came up with?
It was because in a rush to get the big "story" they left out the "not so interesting parts" to get the part that would grab your attention.
I find it hard to believe that Bush's appointees just came out and said "10,000 people are gonna die."
Mark it up to the Media, for the sake of speed.

Now he'll be remembered as the guy that hated Bush so bad, he believed a fake document to make a story.

There was another guy who made a story based on a fake document. That guy used it to start a war...

so who again was it that took a fairly decent functioning Cabinet level department and collapsed it into the Homeland Security Department, where it now has been dysfunctional and mismanaged?




Sigh... I love how you can say it was fairly decent functioning when they did not have to face anything of the magnitude of destruction that Katrina brought forth. They had people prepositioned, but they could not cope with the sheer numbers of people trapped, nor did they expect flooding. The question still remains.. Why the hell was the city not evacuated earlier? Supposedly, everyone knew that a hurricane would break the levies.. so what is the excuse? The fact is no one thought that something like this would happen, and for those that predicted it, they were not the ones involved. Predictions happen all the time, that will not come true, or have not yet. I am still waiting for California to drift away (cannot wait), or for the sun to explode.

Look at the bright side.. If Bush had not directed Katrina to hit New Orleans and intentionally blew up the Levies.. then we would still think FEMA was a fairly decent functioning organization.

Hmm, which fake document was this? This Iraq/WMD talk which is still upsetting the NY Times, began in 1998.

In 1998, Bill Clinton said we had intelligence that showed Iraq was making WMD and becoming a threat to the world.

“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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Maddie Albright agreed:
“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.”
–Sec. of State Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Tom Daschle and lots of other Democrats completely agreed.
“[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:
– Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

Sandy “Pants” Berger agreed:
“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

Nancy Pelosi agreed: “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

Okay…I’m sure there are more quotes out there, but that’s a start. It’s 1998. We have The American President talking Iraq and WMD, and also, outlining a policy of regime change in Iraq.

Sen. Jon Kyl, March 12, 2004
The policy to remove Saddam Hussein was not left over from the first Bush administration, but, rather, unfinished business from the Clinton administration. Upon entering office in January of 2001, President Bush inherited from the Clinton administration a policy of regime change. That policy was based upon the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338), which stated, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” This policy was unanimously approved by the Senate and strongly supported by the Clinton administration.

Not two months after he signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law, President Clinton delivered an address to the nation explaining his decision to order air strikes against Iraqi military targets. He discussed the potential long-term threat posed by Saddam Hussein, stating,

“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he threatens the well- being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

“. . . Heavy as they are, the costs of inaction must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.”

The words, again, of President Clinton. It is hard to think of any Bush administration words more forceful, unqualified or expressive of the grave and growing danger posed by the Iraqi regime. Yet, I’ve heard no criticism of Clinton administration misuse of intelligence.

How can one administration’s use of intelligence be reasonable and credible, but another administration’s use of the same intelligence be an unreasonable lie?

In 1998, the US was certain that Saddam Hussein was acquiring and developing WMD, and that he posed a credible threat. The president said it. His party said it. The opposition party agreed. The press said it. England said it. Israel said it. France said it. China and Russia said it. EVERYONE said it. EVERYONE accepted it. These were the intelligence reports, and everyone found them believable.

No one acted on them, but no one declared they were false, either. While some cynics suggested that the American President’s focus on the WMD was some “dog wagging” to distract attention from an uncomfortable scandal, no one seriously entertained a notion that Saddam Hussein did NOT have WMD. Everyone believed it to be true. Or at least said they believed it.

In 2001, a new president took office, and was party to the same intelligence information as his predecessor. And he believed that information. And when terror struck his country, he decided that the best way to counter terrorism born in the Middle East would be to, finally, change the Middle East.

He had all this intelligence. He believed it. Everyone he showed it to, believed it.

“The intelligence which the president shared with us was in line with what we saw in the White House…”
- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 2003

So the new president decided it was time to act. He talked to the UN about it. He talked to Congress about it. He laid out numerous reasons why the US policy of regime change should finally be acted upon. Then he acted upon it… and he expected to find lots of WMD, based on that all that intelligence that everyone believed.

Whoops.

No WMD. Some think they’ve been spirited to Syria, but no one knows. All anyone knows is…no WMD.

[Let me be clear. I believe Iraq had WMD. I DO NOT think President Clinton made it all up. But if he didn’t…then neither did Bush.]

Now, if a president were LYING about the existance of WMD, he might think to plant a few hundred gallons of something (and maybe a funked-out nuclear device) in the desert around Iraq, in order to bolster his claim, to not look like a fool or a miscreant. But if he were simply BELIEVING the intelligence everyone else believed, why…I guess he would assume that reasonable people would say,”wow…we ALL believed that there were WMD. There were not. How come?”

Bush’s boner was in assuming he was dealing with reasonable people, people who understand that a “lie” is a willful mistatement of a fact, while a belief based on intelligence deemed credible by everyone in the whole world is…a belief based on intelligence deemed credible by the whole world…[but which in fact was wrong.]

Why was the intelligence wrong? That was a pretty big mistake, and it was a mistake made, it seems, around 1998. Where did the false intelligence come from, and who propagated it? And why?

Those are the questions that need answering. If the Senate wants to shut down until they are answered, I’m all for it. Let’s get a real investigation going, here. Let’s find out where the bad intel came from. Let’s find out why, when we believed such weapons existed, our FBI and CIA were not talking about it together. Let’s find out why the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Hutton Commission in England both declared that the Niger Yellowcake story was “credible” and why Britian still stands by it. Let’s find out what Able Danger did or did not confirm about WMD. Let’s find out if Sandy Berger spirited any information about what we really did or did not know, out of the National Archives. Was the whole thing another illusion, one that appealed to Saddam’s romance-novel writing machismo vanity? One that the whole world sustained because there was money to be made from the sanctions and the UN Oil-for-Food Bank for Big Guys?

It seems like back in 1998, and in the succeeding years, the possibility that Iraq had WMD served quite a few people with quite a few agendas. Was it all a lie laid-out-too well? One that “stupid Bush” was not SUPPOSED to believe and act on, because the things were never there?

I’d like the answers. We’d all like the answers. An investigation is well in order. But let’s take it from the beginning, shall we? I want to hear what President Clinton and Sec. Albright and Sandy Berger and Ted Kennedy and everyone else knew or believed, and why, right from the start. I want to hear from Kofi Annan and George Galloway and all the folks who pocketed money or barrels or oil thanks to the sanctions against “dangerous, recalcitrant” Iraq. When and what did they believe, about WMD, and why?

Then I would like to hear what team Bush knew or believed, and why.

Then I want to hear why everyone believed it until it was proved false, and then everyone’s belief simply became “one man’s lie.”

We are a whole nation, not merely a nation of thems and we’s. The whole nation needs to know what the whole government thought, and when it thought it; what it believed and why it believed it.

I suggest Sen. Reid and Sen. Durbin get to it. Mount an investigation. America deserves it. She has earned it. Her troops have earned it.

What was “true” in 1998, and “true” in 2003, has turned out to be “not true,” in 2005. I am at a loss to understand how that is one man’s “lie.” But if it is…which man?

Until we know that, here are some more quotes:

“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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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.”
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without 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 is miscalculating America’s response to his 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

http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/11/02/where-did-the-wmd-intel-come-from/

There was another guy who made a story based on a fake document. That guy used it to start a war...


Ya, that is all true.. well at least it is speculated. You see the story is that
President McKinley told the American people that the USS Maine had been sunk in Havana Harbor by a Spanish mine. Thus that was the start of the Spanish-American War...

Sigh... I love how you can say it was fairly decent functioning when they did not have to face anything of the magnitude of destruction that Katrina brought forth.

I swear Shan, sometimes you come across as an intelligent young person, and others as a 6th grade dropout who never learned reading comprehension.

I said, and still say, that FEMA was a fairly decent functioning Cabinet level department (based on how it responded to hurricanes, the flooding of the Mississippi from MN down to the gulf several years back, etc.) until Bush collapsed it into the Homeland Security conglomeration. NOW, it has shown itself to be a mismanaged and dysfuntional shadow of it's former self, with wasted money and efforts still being exposed on almost a weekly basis in the still unfolding aftermath of Katrina.

There has been severe devastation and destruction in prior hurricanes and from floods, and FEMA drew little bad press, and actually seemed to learn from each and have a better response as the next one came along. The tragedy of Katrina showed us that layering more levels of bureaucracy and putting people in charge with virtually no experience in the field was almost a guaranteed recipe for failure. Most folks tend to understand the concept of "If it ain't broke don't fix it", but Bush decided to scrap FEMA as an independent department and fold it into HS, and make terrorism it's main focal interest.

No matter how you may try to spin this one, this mess can be laid at the feet of King George for making the series of decisions in constructing his departments and appointing personnel that failed their mission.

Although this is way off thread I thought perhaps I'd respond to Byl's claim that the Katrina disaster should be laid entirely upon King Bush's shoulders.


Hmmmm no bud, Blanco bears a great deal of responsibility as does the mayor of New Orleands. "King Bush" doesn't get to move in until help is requested, his administration couldn't even preposition help unless the Gov asks for help.....She , Gov Blanco, refused to allow Bush and crew in....

I wonder, was it politics or is she flat out stupid. I think it's the polarization of our nation that should bear the brunt here.

And the more folks fan the flames the wider the gap shall be.

Fandros

Although this is way off thread I thought perhaps I'd respond to Byl's claim that the Katrina disaster should be laid entirely upon King Bush's shoulders.


Hmmmm no bud, Blanco bears a great deal of responsibility as does the mayor of New Orleands. "King Bush" doesn't get to move in until help is requested, his administration couldn't even preposition help unless the Gov asks for help.....She , Gov Blanco, refused to allow Bush and crew in....


Sorry that the derail occurred, but a couple corrections are needed here.
I have said the FEMA portion should be laid at Bush's feet, not the entire disaster. Also, Blanco had to request before Bush could send in military assistance, but not FEMA. FEMA actually did have some prepositioned assets, but no effective communication channels.



/Derail off.


They are reporting that mortar rounds fell in the area of another of the holiest sites, so my money says there is going to continue to be an escalation. Whether it is the act of terrorists wanting to prevent the West from succeeding at it's goal of promoting an allied government, or Sunni vs Shiite actions, the attacking of holy sites cannot be tolerated by people so steeped in their religion. This will only get worse.

/derail on again

Any blather about Katrina and the rescue response should refer to this article beforehand...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html

/derail off

Popular Mechanics is an obvious Neocon front organization that should be put out of business by any decent, free thinking, Liberal minded person who believes that forced diversity is better than people thinking for themselves. *














*sarcasm

Hmm, which fake document was this? This Iraq/WMD talk which is still upsetting the NY Times, began in 1998.

In 1998, Bill Clinton said we had intelligence that showed Iraq was making WMD and becoming a threat to the world.

“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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Maddie Albright agreed:
“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.”
–Sec. of State Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Tom Daschle and lots of other Democrats completely agreed.
“[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:
– Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

Sandy “Pants” Berger agreed:
“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

Nancy Pelosi agreed: “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

Okay…I’m sure there are more quotes out there, but that’s a start. It’s 1998. We have The American President talking Iraq and WMD, and also, outlining a policy of regime change in Iraq.

Sen. Jon Kyl, March 12, 2004
The policy to remove Saddam Hussein was not left over from the first Bush administration, but, rather, unfinished business from the Clinton administration. Upon entering office in January of 2001, President Bush inherited from the Clinton administration a policy of regime change. That policy was based upon the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338), which stated, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” This policy was unanimously approved by the Senate and strongly supported by the Clinton administration.

Not two months after he signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law, President Clinton delivered an address to the nation explaining his decision to order air strikes against Iraqi military targets. He discussed the potential long-term threat posed by Saddam Hussein, stating,

“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he threatens the well- being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

“. . . Heavy as they are, the costs of inaction must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.”

The words, again, of President Clinton. It is hard to think of any Bush administration words more forceful, unqualified or expressive of the grave and growing danger posed by the Iraqi regime. Yet, I’ve heard no criticism of Clinton administration misuse of intelligence.

How can one administration’s use of intelligence be reasonable and credible, but another administration’s use of the same intelligence be an unreasonable lie?

In 1998, the US was certain that Saddam Hussein was acquiring and developing WMD, and that he posed a credible threat. The president said it. His party said it. The opposition party agreed. The press said it. England said it. Israel said it. France said it. China and Russia said it. EVERYONE said it. EVERYONE accepted it. These were the intelligence reports, and everyone found them believable.

No one acted on them, but no one declared they were false, either. While some cynics suggested that the American President’s focus on the WMD was some “dog wagging” to distract attention from an uncomfortable scandal, no one seriously entertained a notion that Saddam Hussein did NOT have WMD. Everyone believed it to be true. Or at least said they believed it.

In 2001, a new president took office, and was party to the same intelligence information as his predecessor. And he believed that information. And when terror struck his country, he decided that the best way to counter terrorism born in the Middle East would be to, finally, change the Middle East.

He had all this intelligence. He believed it. Everyone he showed it to, believed it.

“The intelligence which the president shared with us was in line with what we saw in the White House…”
- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 2003

So the new president decided it was time to act. He talked to the UN about it. He talked to Congress about it. He laid out numerous reasons why the US policy of regime change should finally be acted upon. Then he acted upon it… and he expected to find lots of WMD, based on that all that intelligence that everyone believed.

Whoops.

No WMD. Some think they’ve been spirited to Syria, but no one knows. All anyone knows is…no WMD.

[Let me be clear. I believe Iraq had WMD. I DO NOT think President Clinton made it all up. But if he didn’t…then neither did Bush.]

Now, if a president were LYING about the existance of WMD, he might think to plant a few hundred gallons of something (and maybe a funked-out nuclear device) in the desert around Iraq, in order to bolster his claim, to not look like a fool or a miscreant. But if he were simply BELIEVING the intelligence everyone else believed, why…I guess he would assume that reasonable people would say,”wow…we ALL believed that there were WMD. There were not. How come?”

Bush’s boner was in assuming he was dealing with reasonable people, people who understand that a “lie” is a willful mistatement of a fact, while a belief based on intelligence deemed credible by everyone in the whole world is…a belief based on intelligence deemed credible by the whole world…[but which in fact was wrong.]

Why was the intelligence wrong? That was a pretty big mistake, and it was a mistake made, it seems, around 1998. Where did the false intelligence come from, and who propagated it? And why?

Those are the questions that need answering. If the Senate wants to shut down until they are answered, I’m all for it. Let’s get a real investigation going, here. Let’s find out where the bad intel came from. Let’s find out why, when we believed such weapons existed, our FBI and CIA were not talking about it together. Let’s find out why the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Hutton Commission in England both declared that the Niger Yellowcake story was “credible” and why Britian still stands by it. Let’s find out what Able Danger did or did not confirm about WMD. Let’s find out if Sandy Berger spirited any information about what we really did or did not know, out of the National Archives. Was the whole thing another illusion, one that appealed to Saddam’s romance-novel writing machismo vanity? One that the whole world sustained because there was money to be made from the sanctions and the UN Oil-for-Food Bank for Big Guys?

It seems like back in 1998, and in the succeeding years, the possibility that Iraq had WMD served quite a few people with quite a few agendas. Was it all a lie laid-out-too well? One that “stupid Bush” was not SUPPOSED to believe and act on, because the things were never there?

I’d like the answers. We’d all like the answers. An investigation is well in order. But let’s take it from the beginning, shall we? I want to hear what President Clinton and Sec. Albright and Sandy Berger and Ted Kennedy and everyone else knew or believed, and why, right from the start. I want to hear from Kofi Annan and George Galloway and all the folks who pocketed money or barrels or oil thanks to the sanctions against “dangerous, recalcitrant” Iraq. When and what did they believe, about WMD, and why?

Then I would like to hear what team Bush knew or believed, and why.

Then I want to hear why everyone believed it until it was proved false, and then everyone’s belief simply became “one man’s lie.”

We are a whole nation, not merely a nation of thems and we’s. The whole nation needs to know what the whole government thought, and when it thought it; what it believed and why it believed it.

I suggest Sen. Reid and Sen. Durbin get to it. Mount an investigation. America deserves it. She has earned it. Her troops have earned it.

What was “true” in 1998, and “true” in 2003, has turned out to be “not true,” in 2005. I am at a loss to understand how that is one man’s “lie.” But if it is…which man?

Until we know that, here are some more quotes:

“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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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.”
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without 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 is miscalculating America’s response to his 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

http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/11/02/where-did-the-wmd-intel-come-from/


OMG The Anchoress left out the part about the blowjob.

/derail on again

Any blather about Katrina and the rescue response should refer to this article beforehand...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html

/derail off


Or they could refer to this one here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060301/ap_on_go_pr_wh/katrina_video)

Or they could refer to this one here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060301/ap_on_go_pr_wh/katrina_video)Sorry Rover, once again you've been duped.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/118569AP usage of 'breach' was wrong


THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — An Associated Press story Thursday on this page incorrectly reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.
The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaching.
The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun.

Not the first time the media has dropped the ball...

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060303-114405-5545r.htm
The top U.S. commander in Iraq yesterday declared an end to a 10-day wave of sectarian violence that killed an estimated 350 civilians, asserting that many reports of violence were "exaggerated."
...
He also said the number of violent incidents turned out to be lower than press and security forces reported in the immediate aftermath of the bombing.... Gen. Casey said that in a reported 30 attacks on mosques, only two were severely damaged. Of eight mosques that were reported damaged, inspections showed only one had damage -- a broken window.
...
Despite the sectarian violence, the number of suicide bombers in Iraq in February stood at 17, about half the total in January. Last summer, there were about 60 per month. Suicide-bomber attacks are the main tactic of al Qaeda in Iraq, the foreign infiltrators whose numbers have declined in the face of tighter border-control measures.

350 people dead is bad, but not the civil war the New York Times and other major media outlets in the US were promising their followers.

You have got to be kidding. You are playing on words...breach...or go over the top...he was told that this would be a disaster and New orleans would be in grave danger and to be prepared. He ignored it.


What will it take for you to come to the realization that this administrations best quality is fucking things up? What will it take for you to realize that GW Bush has basically ruined everything he has been in charge of?

Karl rove said " I bet I can make this guy president" He never said "this guy should be president"

He was basically made president on a bet between some political insiders who wanted to see if they could make one of the biggest idiots the president.





Transcript of the Bush levee breaching tape:

Mr president..the levees are in danger of breaching.

Well we are prepared. But first define breaching.

The floodwaters will go over the levees and flood the city.

Well thats good 'cause we are prepared for 15 feet of water only if its the water that goes over the top...we arent prepared for water that comes in through a hole...everyone knows that there are 2 kinds of water...over the top water and hole goin through water.

Mr president you are forgetting that there is a third possibility here. The water could bubble up from the ground.

On another note. People who oppose the DPW deal are being called racists simply because UAE is an arab nation. Guess what? Bush just told Pakistan they cannot have the same civilian nuclear program that India has. I wonder why not?

I dunno Phel, perhaps it's still too recent in our memories that it was a Pakistani scientist who sold nuclear secrets to questionable folks.

I'm sure we'll work out something that'll appease Pakistan tho.

Fandros