Yeah Marshall, whatever.

We all have heads, some like you have them up their rectums, and so give off that shitty attitude. You distort, lie and evade and call it superior wisdom. Some call it other than that but you are obviously not one to consider the opinions of others...how very fortunate for you, especially in this case.

Know full well that you lied about the facts of a blind trust, it is only in place as long as the person remains in politics, so having stocks bought at 40 bucks a share, or better yet, given as a part of a golden parachute, and traded at 175 a share when leaving office benefits one enormously. Take your disseminating crap back to middle school where the inexperienced might think you actually are a fairminded person concerned only with truth, you aint and this is my last response to a person rather desperately in need of a personality transplant.

I must coincur with Mr. Canning as to the futility of continuing a dialogue with an obviously agendised rightie. I will simply go with Senator Lautenberg :

However, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded in Sept. 2003 that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a “financial interest” regardless of whether the holder of the options will donate proceeds to charities. CRS also found that receiving deferred compensation is a financial interest.

Cheney told “Meet the Press” in 2003 that he didn’t have any financial ties to the firm.

As to the outright disengenuous statements re trusts and their termination after leaving public office, well, shame on you Marshall. Your tactics simply reek and your “truths” are twisted and false.

re comment #75011 by Ardee.  Excellent post.  What you might add is that Halliburton paid no federal income tax during four of the five years during which Cheney was CEO.  Morever, this debate about the extent of Cheney’s present financial ties overlooks the revolving door issue in which Cheney, as Bush I’s Secretary of Defense, commissioned a $9 billion KBR study on the efficacy of privatizing the military support function; then awarded KBR the first lucrative, no-bid LOGCAP contract.  After leaving office, Cheney joined Halliburton.  Under Cheney’s command, KBR lost its LOGCAP contract over fraudulent billing practices in Bosnia, only to have it restored by Bush/Cheney in 2001 shortly before the invasion of Afghanistan.

Of course, in Marshall’s eyes, we are to assume that the restoration of this corporate defrauder to LOGCAP contract status had nothing to do with the Cheney connection.  But then I suspect Marshall would tell you that global warming is a left-wing conspiracy theory.

Marshall, Marshall, wouldnt your response benefit from the omission of the following from it?:

“I only seek to set the record straight because the fundamental point of the original poster was that the Iraq war was waged solely to benefit Cheney financially.  This is obviously not true.  Apparently you’d prefer lies instead? “

‘’’’’’’’ 217;’’’’’’’’ ;??????????’’’’’’’ ;’’’’
The truth is where one finds it and your snide and snippy commentary spoiled your response, sadly.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_ro se_3281_last_1011.html

Cheney’s Halliburton stock options rose 3,281% last year, senator finds

An analysis released by a Democratic senator found that Vice President Dick Cheney’s Halliburton stock options have risen 3,281 percent in the last year, RAW STORY can reveal.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) asserts that Cheney’s options—worth $241,498 a year ago—are now valued at more than $8 million. The former CEO of the oil and gas services juggernaut, Cheney has pledged to give proceeds to charity.

“Halliburton has already raked in more than $20 billion from the Bush-Cheney Administration for work in Iraq, and they were awarded some of the first Katrina contracts,” Lautenberg said in a statement. “It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it. The Vice President should sever his financial ties to Halliburton once and for all.”

Cheney continues to hold 433,333 Halliburton stock options. The company has been criticized by auditors for its handling of a no-bid contact in Iraq. Auditors found the firm marked up meal prices for troops and inflated gas prices in a deal with a Kuwaiti supplier. The company built the American prison at Guantanamo Bay.

The Vice President has sought to stem criticism by signing an agreement to donate the after-tax profits from these stock options to charities of his choice, and his lawyer has said he will not take any tax deduction for the donations.

However, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded in Sept. 2003 that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a “financial interest” regardless of whether the holder of the options will donate proceeds to charities. CRS also found that receiving deferred compensation is a financial interest.

Cheney told “Meet the Press” in 2003 that he didn’t have any financial ties to the firm.

“Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush’s vice president, I’ve severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest,” the Vice President said. “I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven’t had, now, for over three years.”

Cheney continues to received a deferred salary from the company. According to financial disclosure forms, he was paid $205,298 in 2001; $262,392 in 2002; $278,437 in 2003; and $294,852 in 2004.
.........................
In current value Halliburton stock is now about 175% over what it was after Cheney almost ran it into the ground as its CEO.....
I wonder whether Dick has actually done as you insist he has, Marshall, perhaps providing a link to your assertions might aid clarity. Put it anywhere between the insults, Ill find it....

By the by, my broker assures me that, should I place assets into a blind trust and give the proceeds to charity I could, at any time in the future change that and tregain personal possession thereof....what does your broker tell you?

For Marshall,

Cheney’s stocks, in a trust or no, belong to him. When he leaves office he will have access to them at the currently traded price, which is, you might understand, far, far higher than it was when he ran that company almost into the ground. So, while his dividend checks may go to the charity of his choice (is there a torture charity I wonder?) he will have stocks trading at well over 100 bucks a share for which he paid little or nothing. This seems to be a profit in my book, how about yours?

It is hard for me to understand why you wish to defend this reptile eyed author of a horrible war, of an almost (?) criminal energy policy, and a supporter of those who would diminish the rights of his fellow Americans in several obvious ways. Those who have died in Iraq, Iraqi, British and American are on his conscience, and your own conscience should kick in one might think.

For Marshall,

I’m thinking you missed an important few words of Ardees comment, when he wrote:

In the end it really is the fact of an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, for profit by a select few and not to combat “terrorism””

While that is certainly your opinion, it has not been established as fact.  And if it were for profit, then we’ve failed miserably because the war has cost a bundle.

He said for profit by a “select few”. There is in fact some pretty substantiated evidence, (more than opinion) that Cheney invaded and occupied Iraq for no other reason than profit. I think the obscene profits by Halliburton/KBR, Bechtel, Blackwater, and countless others is pretty much proof enough. And yes, “we the people” are in fact paying it, and we have been for a long time now, and really feeling the pain.

Another proof can be well established by taking a look at the Hydrocarbon Draft law that Cheney, Gates, and Condi have all taken turns trying to shove down the throat of the Iraqis. Basically, that law requires that they sign over 3/4 of their proven oil fiels, and ALL the rest that might be discovered in the next 30 years, to transnational oil corporations. These include profit sharing agreements that basically give the companies (non Iraqi companies) about 80 cents on every dollar. And, the Iraqis can’t even start collecting their 20 cents worth until they pay for their own re-construction. (nope, that money we’ve been sending over there has NOT gone to construction on the Iraq infrastructure, but rather on the American Embassy and the huge permanent US military bases, and the Green Zone that has become an American City in Baghdad. The law does not require that Iraqis themselves be employed in their own oil industry, and Cheney’s Halliburton et all is most likely to import cheap labor from South Asia. They also are not required, (in this law) to even pay any sort of export taxes on all of this oil.

It’s also fairly obvious that we didn’t go into Iraq to fight terrorism, because there weren’t any terrorists there at the time, excepting Saddam of course. There was no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq or Saddam, (aside from the fact that they hated each other).

So, bottom line is, Cheney sent our loved ones and our money to Iraq, to steal oil for the transnational corporations, with his own being in line first. That is why we are there. It really is that simple. All roads lead to and from Houston, where Chevron, Mobile-Exxon, Halliburton, (until they moved to Dubai last month) and several others.

The law was drafted by a US corporation, and other friends of Cheney have been assigned to re-writetheir Constitution as well, just so all of this stealing will be legal.

In the end, it would have been much cheaper for us to just PAY for the oil, instead of planning to steal it for the next 30 years, because I admit that they haven’t been too successful with that particular portion of this Grand Theft Larceny of Iraq.

And now of course, we have nine US warships cruising through to Persian Gulf, with all cannons pointed at Iran. They have oil to steal as well, but they aren’t giving it up so easily, just like we’re seeing that the Iraqis won’t either.

#73550 by Marshall on 5/28 at 5:39 pm

To Ardee who said “In the end it really is the fact of an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, for profit by a select few and not to combat “terrorism””

While that is certainly your opinion, it has not been established as fact.  And if it were for profit, then we’ve failed miserably because the war has cost a bundle. And if it were true, then Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, and most other Democrats would also be complicit.  So there’s very little logic to that whole line of reasoning.

Yes it has...just who do you think is paying?

To the point...we the American taxpayer, is the one paying, not corporate America!!!!

That’s the profit incentive...hello?

#73425 by Ernest Canning on 5/28 at 8:16 am

Thank you for your post about the Lancet study.  As I told Marshall; I don’t have the time or energy to debate this adinfinitum and besides what’s the point.  Many more people have died than published by the F#@&*K*&@#G! press! 

I guess people just don’t want to face the reality of this present government (denial?)...horrified doesn’t even begin to express my feelings.

Cyrena
Thank you for the kind words and the alliance. I look forward to many more such exchanges.

Mr. Canning

I wondered how long it would take you to realise that beating your head against a wall because it feels so good to stop is silly. I do admire your desire to exchange in good faith ideas and information but those like Cupera1 and PeterPumpkin only distort your words and care nothing for actual facts or exchanges, thus waste everyones time. I stopped banging my head as soon as I understood the caliber of opposition. There are many fine and literate folks here, these two are simply not among them.

For Ardee

Thanks for quibbling with me, since I do in fact agree with you, about a jillion percent. You wrote:

I believe we owe it to the truth to continue to speak it, and even more frequently to those who easily spout the lies and propaganda they have been taught is true. It isnt their fault in many ways, some are afraid to rock the boat, fearing the loss of their lifestyles, some substitute testosterone for real patriotism, some, and these are the majority I fear, simply cannot be bothered with politics as they are “too busy” to participate.

And, yes...this is all true. Specifically, it is NOT their fault, and not necessarily because they fear losing “comfortable” lifestyles, but because they have the basic human instincts of SURVIVAL. So, when people are faced with the choice of “going along” with the lies, or chosing not to question them, or even go so far as to share a bit of the truth with their loved ones and colleagues, it can be downright DANGEROUS. And, I would know, having chosen that path...to speak the truth, knowing that it would eventually result in the loss of my employment/income, and that 27 years of loyalty to the “corporation” would be basically....down the drain, and that I was pretty much relinguishing what had at one time been an accepted principle that these long years of hard work would allow me to at least continue to provide for myself. So, when I (like so many others)had to choose between the truth and principle, and maintaining the corporate lies, I choose the freedom of conscience. But, I have to tell you, it’s a very costly choice, and so I understand perfectly, why so many folks are unable to make it. It becomes a choice of: Do I continue to eat, and maintain a roof over my head, by just keeping my head down, and remaining silent, or do I speak the truth, knowing that my ass is gonna be in the unemployment line, to collect about 6 weeks of pay, and then out on the street trying to preach the truth without so much as a cup of coffee to maintain the energy to do so?

Those are choices that none of our political leaders of the past several years have been willing to make, most of whom were in far more comfortable positions to make those same choices. (ie, Colin Powell, George Tenet, and a number of others). These people could have resigned once they figured it out, and they didn’t have to worry about starving as a result. But, they didn’t. And those who DID in fact choose principle and integrity in spite of the personal losses, have rarely been mentioned or noted, but quitely (and sometimes very ruthlessly)been “eliminated” There are literally hundreds of thousands of career professionals who have been run out of their jobs by this choice. And, we ALL loose as a result.

Still, it remains the utmost importance to remain committed to the truth, and to making it available to anyone who actually might gain from it. But, it DOES take some courage, because obviously it DOES mean “rocking the boat” or worse. But, we gain courage through knowledge, and so we can hopefully expect that eventually, we’ll all get the point that we’re in this together, and that our collective survival depends on collectively taking back our government and the democracy that was founded so long ago.

Thanks for the quotes.

All the diversionary nonsense notwithstainding, E. J. Dionne hits the nail on the head in this article.  It’s past time that the “left” and “Liberals” who bash Democrats accept the reality Dionne details.

Want to challenge Congresspersons to impeach, and whatever else you demand?  Challenge the REPUBLICANS, as they are the obstacles.

Neville

all right I won’t use evidence hard facts on you any more

I could use that same methods and interpellations in selected areas of LA and get the same numbers and come up with the same conclusion of the number of deaths from gang bangers and the police. Would it make the study and methods and results any less correct and verifiable that the Lancet study?

Go away, cupera1, you are beginning to bore me.

I could cook a poll with the right leading questions and choose the right political groups ratio and get any result that I want.  These guys really believe that this big a daily death toll would not be noticed. and be verified. It does not pass the smell test.  Again only 547 dead were actual found during the time of the study and to get that to 655,000 If you belive that I have some ocean front property in Yuma that I would like to sell you to, cash only.

cupera1:  It is obvious you do not have a clue about the science of epidimiological study.  Do you think that when polls are conducted they interview everyone in America?  These were sampling studies from which estimates are established through population statistics.  Stop embarrassing yourself by continuing to display the profound level of your ignorance.

Think McFly, think

That comes to 554 dead on a daily basis and over 2200 wounded (that is the standard killed to wounded ratio).  Every hospital bed in the the area would be full in lest than a week and overflowing to tents in a month.  That news and pictures would be on the MSM and would have the lead story every day during the presidential campaign Perhaps just begin with the fact that the study found 547 actual deaths in their surveyed group and extrapolated a mind boggling 655,000 from such a miniscule sample.
That’d be a fair start.

Do the guys giving testimony believe it, sure Barnum was right too.

Peter, Peter, Peter, back to eating pumkins for you old sport.

Where on earth do you get this shit?
“You have forgotten that you were defending Clinton’s record on his contribution to the war on terror. Not long ago you cited Sandy Berger with his, to your mind, crucial information left to Bush’s administration. Sandy Berger got under fire for destroying some papers (I am sure they were not simply shopping or laundry lists of Hillary and Bill) when Bush got picked by clintonites for giving his gracious exit to Bin Laden’s family during the 9/11 episode. “
------------------------
No Peter, I was certainly not defending Clinton in any way, you were diverting the discussion at hand with irrelevent and ridiculous crap. The Kosovo intervention stopped a genocide, the Bush intervention began one and you are displaying abysmal ignorance or agendized and blind loyalty in your ridiculous attempts to become Cupera1, pity.

The FACT that outgoing administrations brief incoming ones, make the briefings known, excepting the secret stuff of course, makes your feeble silliness quite bemusing and not at all amusing. Clinton and Berger have been on record as declaring that they briefed Bush and Rice respectively and specifically about AlQaeda and bin Laden, deny or distract all you like.

In fact Peter, this discussion is become quite tedious, you do not debate in good faith, you lie and twist and generally display all the attributes of a typical neocon stooge, thus I will cease all response to your nonsense forthwith. You folks used to be background noise on the political scene and soon will be nothing more than that again. The American public has become sickened by your lies and your incompetency and will return you to the footnote of history you deserve...learn to live with it.

Peter, Peter, Peter, back to eating pumkins for you old sport.

Where on earth do you get this shit?
“You have forgotten that you were defending Clinton’s record on his contribution to the w

On second thought, cupera1, some might think it unfair of me to pick on your obvious lack of an education.  Here is what Dr. Les Roberts, the co-author of the Lancet study, told Amy Goodman:

“We...went to about 50 neighborhoods spread around Iraq that were picked at random, and each time we went, we knocked on 40 doors and asked people, ‘Who lived here on the first of January, 2002?’ and ‘Who lived here today?’ And we asked, ‘Had anyone been born or died in between?’ And on those occasions when people said someone die[d], we said, ‘Well, how did they die?’ And we...wrote down the details: when, how old they were, what was the cause of death.  And when it was violence, we asked, ‘Well, who did the killing?  Exactly how did it happen?  What kind of weapon was used?’ And at the end of the interview, when no one knew this was coming, we asked most of the time for a death certificate.  And 92% of the time, people walked back into their houses and could produce a death certificate.  So we are quite sure people didn’t make this up.

“And our conclusion was comparing the death rate for that 14 months before the invasion, with the 40 months after, that the death rate is now about four times higher.  And, in fact, it’s twice as high as when...we did our first study....We think about 650,000 extra people have died because of this invasion, and about 600,000, some 90% are from violence.”

So, cupera1, I hope you can appreciate how infuriating it is when someone like you says something idiotic as that the study failed to delineate “whether an old man chocked [sic.] on a chicken bone...or someone chopped off someones [sic.] head.”

It’s bad enough you spout off about something for which you have absolutely no knowledge.  In this instance, I had provided you with a cite to Amy Goodman’s October 12, 2006 interview of Dr. Roberts on Democracy Now!  The very least you could have done is checked it out before you posted such drivel.  What better source is there for the methodology used in the Johns Hopkins/Lancet study than one of its co-authors?

The name of this site is Truthdig.  “Truth” means trying to be as accurate as possible when you post.  “Dig” means striving to obtain factual information necessary to assure oneself that they are being truthful.  If you are incapable of digging out the truth, don’t post!

So cupera1, you want to challenge a study done by expert researchers with doctorate degrees from fully accredited universities who have testified under oath before Congress on their methodology.  Perhaps you can share with us your expert qualifications for weighing in on the subject.

Lancet study measures ALL deaths whether an old man chocked on a chicken bone and died or a terrorist chopped off some ones head or a woman killed to preserve the honor of the family or an inocent bystander caught in the cross fire.  With such a system I can show that the civil war in LA between the Bloods and the Cripts is causing just as many deaths that are happening in Iraq.

For those who continue to question the validity of the Lancet study, I would recommend reading, listening or watching the explanation of the study’s methodology provided when its co-author, Les Roberts, a researcher with Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health was interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, 10/12/06.  Mr. Roberts explained that the study’s “cluster method” is “the standard way of measuring mortality in very poor countries where government isn’t functional or in times of war.”

During a December 2006 House sub-committee hearing chaired by Dennis Kucinish (see, Democracy Now 12/15/06), Mr. Roberts asked, “Can the press pretend they’ve done even a credible job of reporting in Iraq, if they have consistently downplayed the number of deaths by a factor of ten?” He later noted, “According to the United Nations, the Iraqi government surveillance network reported exactly zero violent deaths from Anbar province in the month of July, in spite of all the contradictory evidence we saw if we watched CNN.  The most widely cited sources--IBC, the United Nations, Brookings--report about 80% of the violent deaths coming from Baghdad.  And as Dr. Burnham mentioned, Baghdad actually is only about as violent as the nation on average.  So here it is--one-fifth of the courtry reporting four-fifths of all violent deaths, and we know their rate of violent deaths isn’t any higher than the rest.  Something is wrong with those sources....We feel our estimate is by far the best available, inspite of considerable imprecision.”

Mr. Kucinich put the numbers into perspective:  “According to the United Nations, the population of Iraq was 25 million in 2003, and we have now learned that since then an estimated 650,000 have perished to violence.  Now, if such a rate of violence were to be inflicted against the US, we would have lost about 7.8 million Americans....Consider the massive psychological impact the 9/11 attacks and resulting deaths have had on our nation.  Imagine the impact we’d feel as a nation, if over a period of three years, 7.8 million of our citizens died in ongoing, uncontrollable violence.”

Neville

I do believe the Marine Captain that was at Salman Pak when I talked to when he came home.  Next time try talking to the returning soldiers and don’t burn them in effigy like you did in Portland.

Neville

if George Soros continues to pay you will keep on going

If Fox News told cupera1 that Saddam was responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire, he’d believe them.

For course Treblinka didn’t happen and the plies of skulls in Cambodia were not there and Saddam never ever had any WMD’s and there wasn’t 500 tones of yellow cake at the nuclear research center of Al-Tuwaitha and the terrorist were not training at Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak

When you are on your knees are you bowing to Mecca or with your neck stretched out?

For Cyrena’

An excellent post but quibble with a bit of it I must....

you noted:
“Earnest has provided a free and excellent education for folks like culprea1, but let me say that folks like that are pretty hopeless. They don’t WANNA know the real details, for whatever the reason. They are part of a “cult” that clings desperately to the group speak of the Mob, and it’s all very recognizable. So, for those, it’s a hopeless cause, and they won’t even thank you...decades down the road, for the insight. They’ll never admit to being wrong, and they’ll still be talking about the silverware that the Clintons supposedly stole from the Whitehouse, and they’ll still be making invisible connections in their own minds, that simply don’t exist. Saddam was a very bad dude, but he was never aligned with al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organization.”

I believe we owe it to the truth to continue to speak it, and even more frequently to those who easily spout the lies and propaganda they have been taught is true. It isnt their fault in many ways, some are afraid to rock the boat, fearing the loss of their lifestyles, some substitute testosterone for real patriotism, some, and these are the majority I fear, simply cannot be bothered with politics as they are “too busy” to participate.

Unless we continue to raise the issues, refute the lies, combat the corruption and stand up to those who would destroy our demcracy for a few more dollars in profit, we become as guilty as the rest.

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesnt go away.” Phillip K.Dick

“The only reason to be in politics is to be out there all alone and then be proven right.” Edward Muskie

“our doubts are traitors,
and make us lose the good we oft might win,
by fearing to attempt.” William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure

#73257 by Marshall on 5/27 at 1:57 pm

Marshal,
No, I don’t want to see high numbers.

I’m an old fart who remembers the Viet Nam war...numbers were everything.  We inflated the “number of enemy killed” and deflated the “number of civilians killed”.  This is a documented fact...so...logic dictates (based on past behavior) that “our” published numbers are very conservative.

I do not have the will or energy to argue this point adinfinitum. 

Let’s say that the Lancets numbers are wrong by 50%...what is your point?

Do you think we are correct to be in Iraq?

E.J., I generally agree with your reasoning, but you’ve missed the boat big time on this one, even though I understand that there are all of these political compromises involved with LEGITIMATE legislation in our government. However, because this is a totally ILLEGITIMATE exercise in killing, extortion, mass murder of innocent civilians, and the total destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure, it’s quite impossible to make a case for funding it, AT ALL.

Earnest has provided a free and excellent education for folks like culprea1, but let me say that folks like that are pretty hopeless. They don’t WANNA know the real details, for whatever the reason. They are part of a “cult” that clings desperately to the group speak of the Mob, and it’s all very recognizable. So, for those, it’s a hopeless cause, and they won’t even thank you...decades down the road, for the insight. They’ll never admit to being wrong, and they’ll still be talking about the silverware that the Clintons supposedly stole from the Whitehouse, and they’ll still be making invisible connections in their own minds, that simply don’t exist. Saddam was a very bad dude, but he was never aligned with al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organization.

Fortunately, most folks are getting the message. There is growing knowledge that the ONLY people who want our military to stay in Iraq are the chiefs of al-Qaeda, (Zawahiri and Osama if he’s even still alive)and Dick Cheney. Matter of fact, it was a dream come true for al-Qaeda, when Dick Bush sent them that invitation, to “meet us in Iraq”. They did, (although they still didn’t have much of a fighting force at the time, but we’ve given them 5 years or more to build it up. So, they ABSOLUTELY love it!!! al-Qaeda wants us there, and they never fail to send the occassional reminder. Dick Bush has given them everything they ever wanted in the world, and they can die as happy martyrs, after killing as many Americans as they possibly can, because that’s exactly what they’ve been saying they want to do. And, just so we’re all clear, Cheney is perfectly aware of that. He has responded in kind. He says...."the terrorists think that if they kill enough of us, we’ll leave, but the U.S. is in the Middle East to stay.” So, he agrees that we now have terrorists in Iraq, (not there before) and he’s gonna fight them to the death of us all, and then slip away to his retirement home in Dubai, where he recently moved his company’s headquarters. (Halliburton, the largest “ENERGY MANAGEMENT” Corp on the globe. George has purchased a large portion of South America for his own “get-away”. But, our troops will still be returning home in boxes, or in straight jackets, and that’s the way it is, as long as we continue to let them control us.

And, until that oil has been secured, and the Iraqis have signed it over, (which would effectively be a death sentence for any of them that are still alive and haven’t fled) Dick isn’t withdrawing any troops, and it doesn’t MATTER to these people, WHAT the American people want. It never has. Because, hijackers don’t take VOTES from their victims. These people hijacked our government, because they had demands, demands that required the blood and money of most Americans, and countless Iraqis. So, after nearly 7 years, do we REALLY expect them to listen to “we the people” when they never have before? And...we’ve ALLOWED it??? Meantime, there is MORE than enough money for us to pay to pack up our 140,000 to 160,000 troops, (and all of their equipment) and BRING THEM HOME, because there is no solution to the political problems for the Iraqis, until there is no longer a US military presence in their nation.

Neville

When I talked to my grandfather about why he left Germany he told me he told me that no good could come from what was happening to his country.  The signs were so plan to him and it astounded him that others refused see what was coming.  If you want to play ostrich you live in a free country and you have that right.  I also have the right to say “I don’t like you because you’re going to get me killed”.

cupera1:  You are a living example of how someone can be brain dead, and still find a way to post a moronic message.

Peter,
Its fourteen grandkids and you were correct in your assessment of your “new” information.
How you know what it is that Berger destroyed, if indeed he did so, especially given its status as ‘secret” is more puzzling than your unsolicited insults and rudeness, which usually is a cover up for insecurity if not something even worse.

CIA records , given in testimony to Henry Waxman’s committee, plainly show the logs of Tenet’s visit to Condi Rice and also the visit of his chief of staff to Crawford, but you seem repelled by fact for some reason unknown to me. That you want to continue to deflect the conversation back to Kosovo seems a bit odd, as do your posts for that matter, but I digress.

It is 2007, George Bush is pResident, we are in Iraq not Serbia, and I hope this little refresher helps. What the f*&k;any of this has to do with the topic at hand is a matter for you and your mental health professional, and is unknown to me, not being one, a mental health professional that is. It is nice that the abysmally ignorant queen of the one line irrelevency, Cupera1 has company. I hope the two of you are quite happy in that world of your own making. I intend to remain here on this planet however, but thanks for playing.

Oh and the line about ‘smoking’ was a better alternative than calling you bat shit crazy, dontcha think?

Ernest

You are a living example of a NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN

Cupera1, you have me completely baffled.  Just who is it that you think I suggested we “appease.” Are you suggesting that it amounts to appeasement to end an illegal occupation that came about when the Bush regime committed the ultimate war crime--starting an unprovoked war of aggression--is an act of appeasement?  Are you suggesting that if we return Iraq, its oil, resources and its economy to its rightful owners--the Iraqi people--this amounts to an act of appeasement?

It pains me to see that there are individuals, like yourself, who have been so thoroughly indoctrinated; so overwhelmed by the lies that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 or al-Qaeda; that we somehow just had to invade a country that was no threat whatsoever as part of the so-called “war on terror;” that anyone opposing our imperial war of aggression and occupation must be a “terrorist” and that anyone who suggests that we abandon this folly is therefore “appeasing the terrorists.”

I would strongly urge that you begin accessing real news at Democracy Now.org.  Perhaps, if you have time, go back through their archives and acquire the facts that will permit you to discuss present day issues in an intelligible fashion.

Ernest

Are you that naive that appeasement is going to work???

#73257 by Marshall on 5/27 at 1:57 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

Marshall, I read the article and thanks for the link. I also remember listening to the Johns Hopkins researchers describing their survey and the results thereof. I do agree with the author on one very important point; whether it is 130,000 or 650,000 it is a horrific number of dead.

In the end it really is the fact of an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, for profit by a select few and not to combat “terrorism”, that deserves the thrust of our attention. Bush lied and many died, we are torturing and murdering people to enrich Cheney and his former company as well as to install fear in our own citizenry to keep an inept few in power, we have suspended Habeus Corpus, Posse Comitatus and other essential Constitutional guarrantees. Is this not enough on our plate already? Do we needs quibble over the numbers as it distracts from the goal.

Peter,Peter, what have you been smoking?

#73242 by Peter RV on 5/27 at 12:19 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

Anybody who places his faith in doings of Clinton Administration, shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Here comes Ardee with his wishful belief that Clinton informed “Bush’s morons” that “well ahead of 9/11” he warned them of dangers of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
Ardee is in his fantasy World.
For his information, Clinton used Osama Bin Laden and Al Quada (just like in Afganistan)in Bosnia and Kosovo to fight those nasty anti-Muslim Serbs, which he bombed mercilessly for three months.What is more, he aproved arming Bosnian Muslims with Iranian (yes,Iranian!) arms.
Feeling dizzy with the discovery of this,Ardee?
Does it offend your dedicated Democratic Partizanship?
What you don’t seem to fathom is, that the present failures of our foreign policy are all results
of Blowbacks of our actions committed well before the Bush’s idiots took over.
Grow up Ardee.

....
I am quite grown up Peter, far too mature in fact to respond in the same juvenile and sarcastic fashion as you couch your silly distortions and refusal of the real facts.

Facts such as the outgoing Clinton administration warned the incoming Bush group numerous times about the dangers of AlQaeda and bin Laden, this is fact Peter. Sandy Berger has publically stated that he told Condi Rice that she would be spending most of her time on AlQaeda in fact. Clinton has also chimed in on his briefings of Bush about bin Laden and AlQaeda as well.

Our own former CIA chief, George Tenet has said that he went to the White House with “his hair on fire” to tell Condi about an imminent threat of attack, he also sent someone to Crawford to report the same dire warnings to Bush .Why you fail to know this is as unimportant and irrelevent as your childish screed.

Peter, if you can do no better than High School garbage responses I would hope you could ignore my posts, having raised four children and currently being involved with fourteen grandkids I really havent the time for someone elses problem child.

Many thanks to Dawn and Earnest for their inciteful and accurate additions to this discourse. I would add a bit of information to the mix, in the interest of clarity.

al-Zarqawi would certainly seek treatment in Iraq which had the finest hospitals in the region, at least prior to our bombing them almost out of existence and denying the surviving ones access to medicines and equipment. That he might have seen a doctor there, but probably not Hussein’s personal one as they were at opposite ends of the political spectrum to be certain, would be possible.

It might be worthy to note here that 90% of the opposition to the American occupation of Iraq is coming from the Sunni faction. They are supported and equipped by Saudi Arabia, a Sunni nation. Despite this accurate fact the neocons continue to advance the lie that it is Iran equipping the insurgency in Iraq, and they may very well be supplying their fellow Shia but the violence is coming from Sunnis so why is Bush not talking about invading Saudi Arabia? Well we all know the answer to that one, all excepting those who get their “facts” from the far right propaganda mills.

Very good posts folks, sometimes it is good for the old gray cells to regurgitate the chain of events, nice refreshing total recall. 

Focusing on the misguided history of Commander codpiece decider guy, needs to be dragged out of the closet and get the living dust beaten off more often.

cupera1, I still do not know the precise source of your misguided belief that there was a link between Saddam and al-Zarqawi, but I am certain that it did not come from last October’s Johns Hopkins/Lancet study which estimated, based upon sound data, that the number of Iraqis killed by that point had already reached 650,000.

Also, it is obvious that you are taken in by the Orwellian phrase “war on terrorism.” The fact is that more than 93% of the Iraqis who have taken up arms to resist this illegal occupation of their nation have no connections to al-Qaeda whatsoever.  What is often labeled as “terrorism” is the tactic of guerilla warfare--the tactic that the weak traditionally resort to in the face of a superior force.

We deal with an occupation which has placed the entire Iraq economy in the hands of multi-national corporations who would rather fly in cheap South Asian labor than hire locally, leaving more than 70% of the Iraqi population unemployed; an occupation which, under the Bremer edicts which exempts both the occupation forces and all foreign contractors from Iraqi law, privatized the banking system, placing it in the hands of U.S. & UK banks; edicts which became part of the Iraqi constitution when it was rewritten by Ambassador Khalizad and several hand-picked Iraqis at the eleventh hour.  In October 2005 most Iraqis voted for a constitution that only a select few had seen--a constitution that made permanent the levers of imperial control and domination.

Think about it.  If a coalition of foreign powers were strong enough to invade and occupy the U.S.  If they took over our economy, re-wrote our constitution, captured, killed or tortured our relatives, do you think there just might be a few of us who would take up arms to resist?  Would you consider them “terrorists” if they did?

By the way, do you know what label the Nazis pinned on the resistance movements throughout occupied Europe?  They called them “terrorists.”

Take, for example, cupera’s dead-wrong claim of a link between Saddam and al-Zarqawi, even to go so far as to assert that al-Zarqawi was treated by Saddam’s personal physician, a bit of propaganda he no doubt culled from the faux news at Fox.

It came form that same source that the 600K killed in Iraq, along with the dozens of high profile terrorist that were living in Iraq on the governments dime. 

As long as the dems continue to follow the nuts that believe that you can appease the terrorist and they will leave you alone is as foolish and the English were in 1939.
.

Ardee:  I appreciate your thoughtful observations.  Perhaps I am old-fashioned.  When I received both an undergraduate and graduate education, one cited books, articles, scientific studies, the Congressional Record and the like rather than other postings on the internet, which did not then exist, though your references certainly make it easier to obtain the same verification in order to belie the talking-point memo postings of people like cupera1.

Take, for example, cupera’s dead-wrong claim of a link between Saddam and al-Zarqawi, even to go so far as to assert that al-Zarqawi was treated by Saddam’s personal physician, a bit of propaganda he no doubt culled from the faux news at Fox.

On 9/8/06 the Republican-controlled Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) issued a bi-partisan report which, citing a Jan. 2003 CIA document, entitled “Iraqi Support for Terrorism,” confirmed that al-Zarqawi operated in “Kurish-controlled northeastern Iraq--a mountainous no man’s land Baghdad has not controlled since 1991....” The SSCI report noted that while the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) had formed a “special committee” to track down al-Zarqawi in response “to a foreign request for assistance in finding and extraditing al-Zarqawi for his role in the murder of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley” but that “captured former regime documents and former regime officials” reveal that the IIS was “unable to locate and capture him.” Although the SSCI report postulates that the IIS would have had the capability to track al-Zarqawi when he was briefly hospitalized in Baghdad for possible war wounds, it did not put forth any evidence to show that the IIS [or Saddam] even knew he was there.  There is not one word in the SSCI report that even hints that al-Zarqawi was treated by Saddam’s personal physician.

Despite these hard facts, during a 9/4/06 press conference, after admitting that Iraq had no WMD and no links to 9/11, Geo. W. Bush claimed that the invasion was still justified because Saddam “had relations with Zarqawi” and because Iraq had the “capacity” to develop WMD.

If it does not immediately strike you as “absurd” to argue that it is appropriate to invade a soverign nation on nothing more than the “capacity” to develop WMD, consider this.  Most women, before they reach the tender age of 18, possess the “capacity” to become prostitutes.  Does that mean that it would be appropriate for the government to stage pre-emptive arrests of all women before they reach the age of 18 so as to insure than none do?

The problem is that it is difficult to keep up with these “talking points” posters.  Blinded by their ideological predispositions, they accept on faith one piece of propaganda after another, then spew it out in bunches on web sites like Truthdig as if they were delivering the gospel from on high.  A lie makes it around the globe before truth can put its pants on.