LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.  
 
January 7, 2009
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read

Blagojevich vs. the Senate

Navel-Gazing in the Grand Old Party

Yukking It Up at the Blago Show

Israeli Voices for Peace

Gauging Obama’s Silence on Gaza

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Tragedy Repeats Itself

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101
Vetting Sarah Palin

Truthdig Bazaar
ENTER_ALT_TEXT

An Evening With Richard Nixon

by Gore Vidal
Very Fine, Collector's Copy $60 SOLD OUT

more items

 
Reports

‘Where Are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?’

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on Aug 11, 2008
AP photo / Bullit Marquez

A U.S. soldier checks the radiation level of a canister that was looted during the invasion from the nuclear facility in Tuwaitha, Iraq. A Harris poll released July 21, 2006, found that 50 percent of U.S. respondents said they believed Iraq had nuclear arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003.

By Scott Ritter

In the past two decades I have had the opportunity to participate in certain experiences pertaining to my work that fall into the category of “no one will ever believe this.” I usually file these away, calling on them only when events transpire that breathe new life into these extraordinary memories. Ron Suskind, a noted and accomplished journalist, has written a new book, “The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism,” in which he claims that the “White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush [Tahir Jalil Habbush, the director of the Mukhabarat], to Saddam [Hussein], backdated to July 1, 2001.” According to Suskind, the letter said that “9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq—thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the Vice President’s Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq.”

This is an extraordinary charge, which both the White House and the CIA vehemently deny. Suskind outlines a scenario which dates to the summer and fall of 2003, troubled times for the Bush administration as its case for invading Iraq was unraveling. I cannot independently confirm Suskind’s findings, but I, too, heard a similar story, from a source I trust implicitly. In my former line of work, intelligence, it was understood that establishing patterns of behavior was important. Past patterns of behavior tend to repeat themselves, and are thus of interest when assessing a set of seemingly separate circumstances around the same source. Of course, given the nature of the story line, it is better if I introduce this information within its proper context.

In the summer of 2003 I was approached by Harper’s Magazine to do a story on the work of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), a CIA-sponsored operation investigating Saddam’s weapons-of-mass-destruction programs in the aftermath of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. David Kay, a former International Atomic Energy Agency inspector who served briefly in Iraq in 1991 and 1992, was at that time the head of the ISG. By October 2003 the group had prepared a so-called interim report, which claimed to have eyewitness evidence of Iraqi WMD-related activities prior to the invasion in March. The key to the ISG’s interim report was the testimony of “cooperative sources,” Iraqis of unstated pedigree purportedly providing the ISG with unverifiable information. With one exception—an Iraqi nuclear scientist who had been killed by coalition forces—David Kay failed to provide the name or WMD association of any of the sources he used for his report, making any effort to verify their assertions impossible. Many of the senior Iraqis who had openly contradicted Kay’s report were, and still are to this day, muzzled behind the walls of an American prison in Baghdad. But there was another group of Iraqis, the former scientists and technicians involved in Iraq’s WMD programs who were known to have been interviewed by the ISG, and who were released back into Iraqi society. These scientists held the key to deciphering the vague pronouncements of the ISG interim report, and could help to distinguish between fact and fiction.

Many of these scientists remained intimidated by their ISG experience, which often involved lengthy imprisonment and harsh interrogation. Loath to run afoul of their American occupiers, and tethered financially to a monthly stipend designed to keep them from exporting their WMD know-how out of Iraq (and, it has been suggested, from talking too freely with the media), these Iraqi scientists possessed a wealth of data which was difficult to tap into. In my own effort to research the veracity of David Kay’s assertions, I made use of my connections within the community of former Iraqi WMD scientists to try to gain access to what they knew. One in particular, who, because of ongoing security concerns, will be identified only as Mohammed, worked to facilitate my visit, arranging for meetings with Iraqis who possessed firsthand knowledge about not only the past WMD programs but also the ongoing efforts of the ISG.

“You are welcome to Baghdad,” Mohammed wrote me in mid-October 2003, after I had informed him of my intent to travel there and what my purpose was. “You can have my full support.” After a back-and-forth exchange of e-mails with Mohammed on the subject of my visit, I finalized my agenda and reconfirmed the interviews I wanted arranged. I followed my e-mail to Mohammed on Nov. 5 with a detailed communication to the Coalition Provisional Authority, outlining both my proposed schedule in Iraq and requests for interviews with CPA and ISG officials and tours of related facilities.

My schedule had me departing the United States two days later. That morning, I did one final check of my e-mail and found a disturbing communication from Mohammed. In it, he reiterated how dangerous the situation had become in Baghdad. But he said more: “I understand that there are some people who wish to bury any new facts concerning the subject of WMD in Iraq. They are ready to liquidate any person or group who ventures into this subject.” Iraqi officials who had been involved with WMD, Mohammed said, ” ... are not ready to give interviews because that endangers their life. It would endanger your life as well. I am serious in my warning,” he wrote. “Nobody can guarantee your life. Nor the fate of the material you will be collecting in Baghdad.”

“I request that you adjourn your scheduled trip to Baghdad,” Mohammed pleaded. “If you decide to continue with your intention, then I am very sorry to tell you that taking the overall environment in my country I am not able to support your mission. The main reason would be to preserve my life during or after it is concluded.”

One does not view such a communication lightly. I immediately contacted Lewis Lapham at Harper’s Magazine, as well as some trusted colleagues with experience in journalism and intelligence affairs. All agreed that in this case, discretion was the better part of valor. My trip to Baghdad was called off, but not the pursuit of the fate of Iraq’s WMD. The journey of discovery had simply been re-routed, and instead of going to Mohammed, I brought Mohammed to me. Mohammed made his way to Amman, Jordan, where we met over a period of five days in December 2003 to discuss Iraq’s past proscribed weapons programs. Before we could move forward on that complex topic, however, I needed to clear up the canceled Baghdad trip and, in particular, Mohammed’s e-mail regarding a threat to his, and my, life.

Jump to Comments

Advertisement


Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By sohbet odaları, September 28, 2008 at 2:36 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

ThanK you my brother verry good

Report this

By sohbet, September 17, 2008 at 10:42 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

If they had withdrawn the cornerstone of the argument they had made describing Iraqi’s WMD arsenal, the Administraton’s public case for war would have fallen apart. So, regardless of contravailing expert opinion as found in the classified version of the November 2002 NIE, they stuck to the war party line. I don’t think that this necessarily indicates that they had any concrete plan to plant nukes in Iraq. They had Plan B to fall back on - the assumption that they’d find something else there—anthrax, for instance (note that was the most concrete element in Bush’s speech)—that could be used to justify the invasion.

When, in April and May 2003, nothing like that was found, did they hatch desperate, half-baked plans? Well, that’s not hard to imagine. But, was it ever anything more than crazy talk by committed partisans? Before I can accept that there was a real PLAN, I need to see good, hard evidence of a workable conspiracy—with means, motive and opportunity—along with proof that something was actually done to carry it out. And, that I haven’t seen yet.

Report this

By floydw, August 30, 2008 at 3:57 pm #

There is a considerable amount of speculation concerning the motives and sources of influence that factored into Georgia’s decision to provoke Russia by instigating hostilities within South Ossetia; induced in part by Putin’s recent accusation that the provocation was encouraged, possibly even supported, or at a minimum not overtly discouraged or prohibited, by the Bush administration in an attempt to tip the balance-of-favor in the election toward Republicans. The idea that a rapid thawing of “frozen hostilities” would also magnetize the news cycle away from the allegations in Suskind’s book, dampening the influence, mitigating the impact and diluting criticism or other ramifications (e.g. impeachment proceedings) seems consistent with the Bush administration’s modus operandi? It seems to me that only when such factors are considered can one resolve what otherwise appears a dull-witted, irrational decision on the part of Georgia?

In light of Suskind’s revelations, Speaker Pelosi’s insistence that, in the absence of credible evidence of a crime, impeachment is “off the table” is exposed as absolute and ultimate hypocrisy; destroys her credibility; and justifies speculation concerning the motives, integrity and complicity of the Speaker and other members of congress (excluding Rep. Waxman, Rep. Kucinich and a few others).  If the Speaker is unable to execute the affairs, marshal and administer the resources, or considers herself insufficient to the demands of her office, she should step down immediately!  Congress must not be permitted to abdicate their responsibilities, without suffering the severest consequences democracy can administer.  It is becoming perfectly clear that the duopoly that has historically dominated our political culture has deteriorated into oligarchy, and that group is defined by incumbency.

The suggestion that there is insufficient time to conduct impeachment proceeding strikes me as patently pathetic, absolutely incongruous, even deliberately negligent of congressional responsibilities as delineated in the Constitution. What is the guiding principle operative here? Do the right thing only when you have time and it is politically convenient? How frequently we hear of administration stonewalling inquiries and requests for information in an attempt to “run out the clock” on responsibility and accountability for their grievous, immoral, and criminal behavior.  Is this a game? If this is a game, will someone please explain that to Gold Star families, wounded veterans and the remainder of our brothers and sisters overseas in harms way?  Are we willing to pursue bin Laden to the “gates of hell” but come January 2009, the whistle blows, Dick and W. go home, and everyone else moves one chair to the right and the music starts again?

Please forgive any redundancy between the substance of this post and those previous in this forum, I am just looking for a way to articulate my frustration, and add my voice to the chorus of concerned Americans of every stripe demanding rectification of the wrongs done, and being done, to our civil liberties, citizen soldiers, professional men and women of our armed forces, national character, national treasure, and our inspired and beloved Constitution of these United States of America.

God help us! But not if we refuse, neglect or lack the courage, insight and wisdom to help ourselves.

Report this

By alicecbrown, August 24, 2008 at 8:47 am #

Scott is and has been right on target.  As he said at Wellesley in 2003, “I used to be the Golden Boy: a Republican, a physicist and a weapons inspector.  Now, when I don’t give them the lies they want, I can’t get arrested as far as the national media is concerned.”  Amen.
We as a nation are stupid, whether it is willful ignorance or as a result of the concentrated attacks of the Pravda-like media, jumping to the tune of their industrial giant owners, laying poison pills in so-called ‘OBJECTIVE” article.  The lying by omission that goes for news in the Boston Globe and New York Times, forget about Faux Fox news, never ceases to amaze me, and without a murmur from we, the sheep of the United States.
Thank God for Truthout and all the other blogs that help keep me sane, as I watch ‘black’ being turned into ‘white’ by the national media.

Report this

By Democrats also weaken the US, August 19, 2008 at 12:50 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

As for the last paragraph of this piece, Congress will only act responsibly when tougher, independent types of any Party are elected. Perfect example is Ohio’s Paul Hackett, who sought to be the Democrats’ Senate candidate in 2006. A smart, bold war veteran, he would have inspired others in the US Senate to act out of conviction. His nascent political career was destroyed by NY Dem. Senator Chuck Schumer, the walking bowel-movement, who again damaged our country by pushing-through approval of Bush’s Atty. Gen. nominee Mukasey.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/politics/14ohio.h tml?ex=1297573200&en=b43bc2c63e9bf9bd&ei=5090&p artner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Report this

By cann4ing, August 18, 2008 at 11:25 am #

When I am wrong, Rus, I will be the first to admit it.  When you are wrong, Rus, which is basically standard fair for everything you post, you not only refuse to admit it but blame the other guy for not admitting that which is not true. 

No matter how many times you repeat your circular logic and seek to project onto others that which is the lack of insight of your tiny little mind, you are not going to change the facts; you are not going to turn facts into opinion and, contrary to your suggestion, the fallacy of your position (not mine) is so blatantly obvious that none, except the other TD neocons, like Marshall, have ever shared your position.

There is one point in which I will admit error—my even bothering to respond to your absurd drivel.  So after this I will make amends by doing a better job of ignoring everything you have to say.

Report this

By cyrena, August 18, 2008 at 3:14 am #

Step back, take a breath, quell the ego and read your own posts. Everything I stated can be found right there.
•  Cyrena: “it’s pretty obvious to anyone who actually pays attention.”—In other words “anyone” means they agree with you.
No rus, it means exactly what I said. It means ANYONE WHO ACTUALLY PAYS ATTENTION.

There’s no prerequisite for ‘agreeing’ with me at all, since PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY PAY ATTENTION, don’t necessarily agree with me, or me with them. RATHER, if a critically (NON EMOTIONALLY) thinking person reads something that I or anyone else might write, and poses an opinion with information that supports his or her opinion, it’s not a matter of agreement or disagreement, since there are degrees to everything. So in reality, like the handful of other psychologically impaired people who post to this site, it’s really all about YOU, and YOUR opinion. And when you come across someone who might challenge it, or ask you to at least provide some relevant if only ‘circumstantial’ evidence for your opinion, you can’t do it, so you become frustrated, and then whomever asked you to do it becomes the bad guy.

And AGAIN, anyone actually paying attention can figure this out.

•  “…2. Cyrena: “You can’t find any legitimate fault with any of my own ideology”.—That is pure ego and it’s extremely ugly. You, Cyrena, are in the minority but you fail to see it because you spend your time on Web Sites where the majority agree with your radical and extremely dangerous views. I use the word myopic in describing you.

Here again rus, pure bullshit, and so you prove my point. I said that you could not find any LEGITIMATE fault with my own ideology, (which happens to be as far from RADICAL as it gets) and that’s where you stopped, but should have followed it out, because the rest of my statement was…

”so you take my own criticisms, which are obvious enough, and accuse *me* of having that same ideology.”

In other words, when I make criticisms of the current Dick Bush regime as being more RADICAL than any regime since the 18th Century, you claim it is *I* who is radical and dangerous.

You also assume this consistent arrogance and make these lies about HOW I SPEND MY TIME! You’ve ‘accused’ me of spending my time on Web Sites many times before, when first of all, YOU HAVE NO WAY TO KNOW THAT. (unless you’re stalking me). In reality, that is simply false, because while I do certainly *read* many other sources of information, I rarely if ever post to them. But more importantly, SO WHAT IF I DID? 

What is far more revealing is WHY this concerns you so much? Why would you be concerned about people ‘agreeing’ with me or not? And why is it so important for you and people like JBlack, to consistently claim that I’m in the ‘minority’? Whether I am or not, (and I don’t believe myself to be at all) what difference does it make, and why does it bring out such visceral hard-core hatred in you, to be directed at me? Why so very, very, PERSONAL Rus, on a very, very, public forum?

It goes completely beyond any comprehension on your part, that AGREEMENT or DISAGREEMENT with something that I write, is NOT what *I* am about, nor is it what my own idea of this public forum is about. I don’t read these articles and discuss them with others for the purposes of finding AGREEMENT with whatever my own interpretation happens to be. My opinion is my opinion on whatever the thing is. I find it very HELPFUL to hear other views, because generally speaking, there will always be others who can and will see things from a different view. Others may be able to provide ADDITIONAL and useful information, that wasn’t contained in the original work being commented upon.

Report this

By cyrena, August 18, 2008 at 3:11 am #

Part II

But, you’re all about FORCING your beliefs down somebody else’s throat, and then get pissed if they don’t find much validity to them. And, in your case at least, there’s NEVER any validity to anything you put forth. YOU rus, are the myopic one, having positioned yourself to defend the indefensible, which was an illegal attack by the Dick Bush regime on another sovereign country, WITHOUT international approval.

So yes, anyone who actually pays even 50% attention, knows that I have criticized the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, and that I criticized it even before it was launched, along with the other MILLIONS of people – WORLD WIDE- who did the same.


http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/15/on_third_anniver sary_of_global_protest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti -war_protest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sqr2dz7kPo

http://www.etan.org/lh/misc/irakdemo1.html


So I suspect it is THAT rus, that has your panties in such a wad, because of my truth telling in this regard. But here’s the thing rus, I’m HARDLY in a ‘minority’ on that issue. At least one third of US citizens have been fully aware of this since day one, and the rest of the world has known it as well. By now, at least three quarters of Americans are well aware that they were lied to, and as the MINORITY, you’re still trying to find a way to deny it.

But, being the cowardly person that you are, you won’t fling this hateful language at any of the others who have made it clear that they TOO, know that they were lied to. You won’t even go this far with cann4ing, since he’s a guy, and has posted his credentials. All you can do is repeat the same impotent BS accusing HIM of *your* childish behavior, unwilling to admit that YOU are wrong, and have been proven wrong, over and over and over again.

But with ME, you’ll fling hateful language and call me all of the things that you are yourself, without knowing a single thing about me. You LIE and you SLANDER rus, just like any other impotent person needing a target or a whipping post because of your own inability to accept the truth, and admit when you’re wrong. Psychologically or otherwise emotionally impaired people do this. You’re just worst than most.

And this from YOU, PROVES IT, to anyone paying any attention
•  “You are foolish, extremely dangerous, and a self centered ugly American that believes the universe revolves around the United States. You are the type that start wars. 6. You ARE a racist and politicaly narrow minded bigot!! “You…..Are….Dangerous…. To…. Everyone!

~~~~
Real nice rus. You’ve just proved my point. You accuse me of making the point, (while I’m clearly NOT alone), that Iran is not now, and never has been, a threat to the US or it’s neighbors, UNLESS we attack THEM, (which has been Cheney’s plan since before the election that was stolen, along with our government) and then you claim that I’M the ‘type who starts wars’?

You’re not ‘ugly’ rus, you’re out of your fucking mind!

FIND ANOTHER WHIPPING POST rus. Your time has run out with me, and you are a danger to society at large. You should be institutionalized.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 17, 2008 at 3:15 pm #

Sorry, Rus but repeating baseless accusations about me, Cyrena or any other poster does not lend an air of credibility to anything you have to say.  Why don’t you do us all a favor and go back to grade school where you belong.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 17, 2008 at 10:29 am #

Cyrena:  Here is how absurd the discussion has become.

On a separate article, Marshall challenged my statement that the Bush regime had taken this nation to the brink of economic disaster, claiming I was an “alarmist.”

I then listed a series of economic “facts”—e.g. greatest gap between rich and poor since 1928, largest number of home foreclosures and bank failures since the Great Depression, that 18,000 Americans die each year for no other reason than that they can’t afford health insurance; that, for the first time since the Great Depression, a majority of Americans are experiencing negative savings—that is they spend more than they earn resulting in a depletion of whatever they had set aside as savings.

Now any thinking person would understand that these are “factual” claims that are either “accurate” or “inaccurate” as these factual claims all entail analysis of statistics—but not in the minds of Marshall & Rus.  Because these “facts” are inconvenient to the Fixed Noise party line, both made the nonsensical claim that I had merely stated “opinion.”  When I provided sources from multiple books, they claimed that the authors of books merely provide opinions and that the only sources for “facts” are government institutions.

Aside from the fact that one of my listed sources was the Center for Disease Control (a government agency), the posture taken by Marshall & Rus was so absurd, one scarcely knows where to begin in responding to it.  Suppose a man dies in Iraq today, but his death is not recorded by the U.S. or Iraqi governments.  Does this mean the man didn’t die?  If non-fiction books only provide opinions, why do publishing houses employ fact checkers?

The remarkable thing about Rus is that the guy is not just stupid but despicably dishonest.  He will deny he said something even when you quote his own words back to him, using the chiseling excuse that since I had utilized your anti-war credentials as a basis for demonstrating the absurdity of his charge that you think the U.S. is the center of the universe as a basis for claiming that he never said that you are an egocentric American who thinks the U.S. is the center of the universe.

Caught in his little charade, his only defense is to then ask “me” to admit that I am wrong, when, of course, I had accurately quoted him and it was “he” who was wrong, first in making the ridiculous charge that you believe the U.S. is the center of the universe and then by refusing to even admit that he made the charge.

(Note how Rus never answered your question to come up with the factual basis for his leveling that charge against you in the first instance.  Since the guy can’t distinguish fact from opinion, should that failure surprise anyone?)

Report this

By cann4ing, August 16, 2008 at 8:03 pm #

Rus, is that an admission of error on your part or are you intentionally being obtuse?

Cyrena, isn’t it amusing that Rus is one of the very few at TD who will claim that people like you and I “hate America” because we disagree with waging wars of choice on other peoples of this planet for the benefit of Exxon-Mobil, KBR, Blackwater and the other war profiteers; he has continually defended Bush’s assertion that he has the right to tell people in other countries what type of government or economic system they must have, and then turns around and accuses “you” of being an egocentric American who believes that the U.S. is the center of the universe.

“Projection” anyone?

Report this

By cyrena, August 16, 2008 at 6:46 pm #

So rus, foget my anti-war ideology, and simply explain why *you* wrote this viscous and patently FALSE accusation to me, which is what Ernest called you on.

•  “You then wrote, of Cyrena, “You are exactly what most people in the world complain about. An ugly ego-centric American who believe the U.S. is the center of the universe.”

This is not the first time that you have accused me of being what I DO in fact abhor about a major mentality that my fellow Americans share. In fact, you do this CONSTANTLY. It’s your standard and lame MO, to accuse others of your own behavior, or to suggest that others maintain the same ideology that you do. This is a ‘template’ for people like you, and one that has been so practiced by the neocons (and their ilk) for so long now, that it’s pretty obvious to anyone who actually pays attention.

AND…it’s a lie. It’s a patent lie, slander, and unoriginal. You can’t find any legitimate fault with any of my own ideology, so you take my own criticisms, which are obvious enough, and accuse *me* of having that same ideology. Pissywise does the same thing. All of you trolls do it. And not just with me, but with anyone else likely to expose you. You make claims that are totally ridiculous and tell blatant lies with the hope that if you throw enough of it out there, people will be fooled.

So, you think you can make these kinds of statements, and nobody is going to call you on them. When they do, you twist it around even more, by zeroing in on some specific verbiage, and always out of context.

So, I ask you *again* to point to any specifics in anything that I’ve written, that would verify this accusation that you’ve leveled against me:

•  “You are exactly what most people in the world complain about. An ugly ego-centric American who believe the U.S. is the center of the universe.”


In other words rus7355, POINT OUT in whichever posts you choose, that I am an ugly ego-centrice American who believes the U.S. is the center of the Universe.

You’ll be looking long and hand, and fruitlessly rus, because you know damn well it’s a LIE. Your tricks are so unoriginal that even a grade-schooler can figure them out.

It’s a lie. You know it’s a lie. And there’s nothing you can produce to validate such a lie.

Report this

By Tony Wicher, August 16, 2008 at 12:39 pm #

By David, August 13 at 1:07 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Ended on January 20, 2000.  Congress has abandonded it’s role in government for it’s role as a lobbyist training camp.  The president and vice president have dictatorial power and most of the population can’t name the Speaker of the House.  This country is over.  The GOP has won.  America is no more.  Long live Amerika.
————————& #8212;———————R 12;———————— -
Not yet, you pusillanimous defeatist! Obama for President!!!!

Freedom fights on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Report this

By cann4ing, August 16, 2008 at 12:08 pm #

Rus writes, “Petulant children stammer for excuses. Adults admit when they’re wrong.”

Since so many posters have demonstrated in so many different ways how you are flat out wrong about almost every word you have ever posted at Truthdig, I await your admission of error.  But sadly, one suspects that just as Ambassador Adlai Stevenson, awaiting an answer from his Soviet counterpart at the UN on the question of the presence of Russian-made missiles in Cuba, I suspect I will have to wait “until Hell freezes over” to hear your admission.

By the way, Rus, if you are interested on a recitation of the “facts” supporting the conclusion that what Bush has done to the economy resembles a train wreck—especially for the shrinking middle class, link to

http://meetthebloggers.org/?htm_source=rgemail

Report this

By cyrena, August 16, 2008 at 10:50 am #

By Rus7355, August 15 at 3:11 am


•  “My many problems with Cyrena have nothing, whatsoever, to do with her being anti-war.”

~~~~

Since you’re such an expert at straw arguments, hair splitting, and word parsing rus, let’s examine this one.

First *WHAT* are those ‘many problems’ that you have with me? (sounds personal)

Second, *WHY* do you have ‘many problems’ with me? (again, sounds like a personal bias)

Explain THOSE things rus, and use specific FACTS, such as citations of things I’ve written, and use them in context. I’m sure that if you are forced to explain YOUR OWN ‘selected’ *problems* with me, we’ll all see it for what it is…YOUR OPINION, and your biased reaction, based on my exposure of the truths that you would rather not have exposed.

Yes, THAT would be the ‘very clear pattern’ that we’d all get to see.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 16, 2008 at 8:11 am #

Rus, you are parsing words like a criminal defendant trying to escape a fraud count. 

You have read many, many posts by Cyrena that reveal her anti-war credentials.  You, on the other hand, have repeatedly defended the Bush regime for taking this nation to war on a lie.  You then wrote, of Cyrena, “You are exactly what most people in the world complain about. An ugly ego-centric American who believe the U.S. is the center of the universe.”  And when I called you on that remark, you claimed you never said it.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 15, 2008 at 8:44 pm #

correction to my last post, Rus demonstrates an “inability” to separate fact from opinion.  For example, he claims that when I say that, for the first time since the Great Depression, a majority of Americans are experiencing a negative savings, Rus claimed that this was “opinion” even though it is a “factual” assertion which can either be shown to be true or false by mathematical calculation.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 15, 2008 at 8:41 pm #

Sad, Rus.  You claim to have a master’s degree but you not only demonstrate an ability to separate fact from an opinion but you even display an inability to recall what you wrote just one day ago.  One has to be concerned about what our educational institutions are producing if you are a reflection of what passes through them.

Report this

By samosamo, August 15, 2008 at 6:07 pm #

By Rus7355, August 14 at 4:11 am #

Hate to bust your bubble but the ego-centric mother fuckas puttin the USofCorporations at the center of the universe are many of the leaders(i hate that label, make it the ‘elected’ pricks) of our government and unremovable upper ranks of the military.(Actually neocons is a good generic label)
And believe it or not, there are a lot of americans that know what is being done to this country and would like to stop it so as to maybe do something unheard of like, be able to join in with the other countries on this small planet to address problems and try to work them out together instead of just blasting country after country to hell and gone just to keep that chip on its shoulder that sure as shootin someone is going to knock off our shoulder, unless our leaders don’t drive this country into the ground first.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 15, 2008 at 4:57 pm #

Rus posted on 8/14 at 4:11 a.m.

“You [Cyrena] are exactly what most people in the world complain about. An ugly ego-centric American who believe the U.S. is the center of the universe.”

Rus on 8/15 at 3:11 a.m. said:

“Your write: ‘[T]elling us that an anti-war protesting poster like Cyrena is ‘an ugly egocentric American who believe [sic.] the US is the center of the universe.’

“Again, you have never read such a posting from me.”

Report this

By leveymg, August 15, 2008 at 5:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Why did Bush-Cheney persist in claiming that Saddam posed a nuclear threat, when the weight of informed opinion ridiculed that notion?  The answer is simple. They were fully invested in the idea of Iraqi nukes. If the Administration had withdrawn from it, the whole public case for going to war would have collapsed.

That fact can be clearly seen in a word-count of one of the most important pre-invasion speeches given by Bush at Cincinatti, OH in October 2002. In describing the alleged threat posed by Iraq, he used a variation of the term nuclear 20 times, chemical 13 times, biological 11 times, and weapons of mass destruction 7 times within that speech. See, http://www.sanjhb.com/writing/clarification.html .


President Bush used a form of the word nuclear 20 times in this October speech regarding Iraq. Recent intelligence and current events prove Iraq was not capable of nuclear weapons nor were they actively seeking nuclear materials. George mentioned, “Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don’t know exactly, and that’s the problem.” You don’t know exactly? Perhaps this is a problem you should solve before going to war? I’m sure that would be too complicated for Mr. Bush, hence the inclusion of my favorite line within his speech, “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” What clear evidence of peril is he referring to? Clear evidence of peril is a very strong statement. It suggests that the U.S. faced an imminent devastating attack from Iraq. However, after several months of occupying Iraq there has been no evidence to verify that the U.S. faced peril. The inclusion of the mushroom cloud line is a blatant attempt to scare people. Intelligence reports in October of 2002 and now, both show this statement to be highly irresponsible and false.

In a deliberate rhetorical maneuver, he used the word chemical 13 times, biological 11 times, and weapons of mass destruction 7 times within his speech. As previously mentioned, to this date we have yet to find any chemical or biological weapons that could be considered weapons of mass destruction. President Bush claimed Iraq at one time possessed “30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.” This alleged stockpile has still not been accounted for, perhaps because it never existed. . .

. . . .

If they had withdrawn the cornerstone of the argument they had made describing Iraqi’s WMD arsenal, the Administraton’s public case for war would have fallen apart. So, regardless of contravailing expert opinion as found in the classified version of the November 2002 NIE, they stuck to the war party line. I don’t think that this necessarily indicates that they had any concrete plan to plant nukes in Iraq. They had Plan B to fall back on - the assumption that they’d find something else there—anthrax, for instance (note that was the most concrete element in Bush’s speech)—that could be used to justify the invasion.

When, in April and May 2003, nothing like that was found, did they hatch desperate, half-baked plans? Well, that’s not hard to imagine. But, was it ever anything more than crazy talk by committed partisans? Before I can accept that there was a real PLAN, I need to see good, hard evidence of a workable conspiracy—with means, motive and opportunity—along with proof that something was actually done to carry it out. And, that I haven’t seen yet.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 14, 2008 at 7:21 am #

Oh, my.  Here comes the uneducated dupe, Rus, who buys into neocon propaganda and an agenda that which asserts hegemony of U.S. corporate global power, including the right to impose our will on other nations, by invasion if necessary, telling us that an anti-war protesting poster like Cyrena is “an ugly egocentric American who believe [sic.] the US is the center of the universe.”

Ever heard of the psychological concept of “projection,” Rus?

Report this

By leveymg, August 14, 2008 at 5:04 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Why was Val outed? As I’ve explained before, Plame and Wilson were casualties in the battle that had been waging between elements within CIA Counter-Proliferation Division (CIA/CPD) and the circle around Cheney and Rummy (OVP-OSP) for control over WMD intelligence.

The Cheney faction wanted to make war on the “Axis of Evil” countries using WMDs as the justification, but first they had to destroy the legacy CIA counter-proliferation programs that were in place. The eye of the deadly whirlwind that took Kelly and others was this attempt by Cheney to dismantle the existing WMD control regime.

Through the ‘nineties, the centerpiece of the CIA’s program to deny Iraq, Iran, North Korea and some others a working bomb was a deception program using the AQ Khan network as cover. The newly installed Bush Administration lost little time in doing that. On June 1, 2001, Richard Armitage outed the Khan network in an interview with Rupert Murdoch’s Times newspaper. That blew the CIA’s cover, but allowed the Bushies to selectively reveal the fact that Khan had been peddling nuclear technology to the countries the Cheney circle wanted to attack. See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.p hp?az=view_oet&address=358x4659

Iraq was under an intensive UN inspection regime, and NoKo a considerably less intrusive one. The UN inspectors (and the CIA) knew where Iraq’s previous nuclear, chemical, and biological production facilities had been, and that they had been dismantled. But, the Cheney circle tried to make a plausible case that Saddam was “reconstituting” a new program using Khan designs received in the late 1980s. The problem was, Iraq lacked basic components and materials to make new centrifuges for enriching the stocks of uranium yellowcake under UN seal it already had on hand from the same era.

Richard Grenier, head of the CIA Iraq Task Force, testified during the Plame case that yellowcake uranium was not a real issue before the invasion. Aluminum tubes were.

In 2001, US intelligence picked up on a shipment of Chinese aluminum tubes, and intercepted them before they reached Iraq. A CIA/CPD team was dispatched to Jordan to inspect the goods. Among that group was Valerie Plame. The conclusion sent back to Washington was the tubes had an apparent dual-use as bodies for conventional short-range artillery rockets, allowed under the sanctions regime, and would not serve as sound evidence that Saddam was trying to build a bomb.

The CIA/CPD people dug in their heels that there was no real evidence Saddam was reconstituting a nuclear program, while all around them bent to the line being handed down from the White House. The outing of Plame by Cheney’s gang was meant to be both payback and a final deathblow to CIA/CPD, not just Brewster Jennings, a process of smashing US intelligence that had commenced with Armitage’s outing of AQ Khan.

That’s the reason the Administration couldn’t use nukes as an excuse to invade Iraq. But, out of blind ambition and avarice, they tried anyway.

By May 31, 2003, when the Iraq Survey Group interim report was circulated, it was obvious to everyone in Washington what had happened. Cheney had lied and undermined US intelligence to justify the invasion, committing treason in the process. Unearthing a Russian nuke in the desert would have just forced that ugly fact out into the public eye.

Report this

By 1984, August 13, 2008 at 11:49 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

“Since Saddam is still dead, why are they even talking about this? There was no yellowcake there, and it isn’t now. “

Since the truth is needed. We’re hearing pretty much the same bogus talk about Iran’s supposed nuclear weapons program. But the inpection people are there now and have been for a long time and this time too there is evidence of weapons program that we need to worry about. If you accept yesterdays lies you accept them today and tomorrow.

Why Iran Won’t Budge on Nukes (please read it all)
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1829750, 00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-full-world

And don’t read nukes as = nuclear weapons as many would like you to. Do not allow yourselves to be deceived once again. Demand the truth, nothing less.

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2008 at 11:26 pm #

Part 1 of 2 reply to Jon,

I almost passed on the links you provided, as soon as I saw, nysun. I know that publication to be pure propaganda. But, just to maintain my academic integrity, I read it, and I see that nothing has changed.


•  “Here’s a story you may have missed over the long holiday weekend: 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium worth tens of millions of dollars were shipped out of Iraq to Canada. The material was transported in 37 military flights in 3,500 secure barrels, according to the Associated Press.”

A link to the associated press piece would have been helpful here. Otherwise, what they follow this with just leads me to see it as more propaganda..

“..there hasn’t been much of a fuss about this material because it had been discovered already by United Nations inspectors after the first Gulf War. But it took a second American war in Iraq to move the material out of the Middle East. For all the talk about America’s failure to discover Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, this is a big deal. We’ve reported on claims by top Israeli officials speaking on the record that Iraq smuggled its chemical weapons to Syria before America invaded in 2003.

~~~~

Basically, this is bullshit. This wants us to believe that the stuff has been sitting around since 1991, and KNOWN to the UN inspectors. That’s preposterous.

Then they give themselves a stawman ‘out’ by suggesting that even though the UN inspectors knew it was there in 1991, it didn’t show when the inspectors were literally ALL OVER Iraq between Sept 2002, and March 2003, when Bush told them to get out.

Just this much of the propaganda then suggests (or wants us to believe) that Saddam must have stashed it in Syria before the Inspectors gained full access in Sept 2002, and now…it’s SHOWN BACK UP IN IRAQ, in time for it to be moved to Canada over the 4th of July weekend?

Let’s go back over this. The UN inspectors knew it was there at the end of the first Gulf War. (according to this…I don’t believe it myself)

Then, we KNOW that the UN inspectors found NOTHING when they had full access to everything in Iraq during the 6 months prior to the US invasion.

We also KNOW that the US hasn’t found any WMD (including yellowcake) in the 5 plus years since the invasion/occupation, despite the fact that they were desperate enough to ‘plant’ something, and had been desperate enough to FORGE documents claiming that Saddam had attempted to acquire the stuff from Nigeria.

So, first it was supposedly there in 1991, and the UN inspectors knew about it. Then it wasn’t there in 2002-03 when the UN looked all over. The US was never able to find anything after they invaded.

Now it’s 2008, and we’re supposed to believe that it showed back up again, and was then transported to Canada?

Please!!

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2008 at 11:26 pm #

Part 2 of 2

Then, as if we needed any more proof that this is just another excuse for covering for the lying Dick Bush regime, it goes on:

•  “..The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power. Saddam Hussein had already invaded Kuwait, launched missiles into Israeli cities, and harbored a terrorist group, the PKK, hostile to America’s NATO ally, Turkey. To leave this nuclear material sitting around the Middle East in the hands of Saddam and the same corrupt United Nations that failed to stop the genocide in Darfur and was guilty of the oil-for-food scandal would have been too big a risk.”..

Just more of the same stuff that rus and rowman and other liars for the thugs like to indulge in, and it’s the same arrogant and presumptuous mentality that is now being directed at Iran. “They” already have so much oil, so ‘they’ don’t need nuclear power for peaceful means.

Who the hell is the US to determine who needs what? Iran has a rapidly growing population, and OIL is their main EXPORT, as their economy depends mostly on their SELLING their natural resources to other nations. And energy isn’t the ONLY thing that nuclear TECHNOLOGY is used for. WE use it for other things, (like medicine) so why wouldn’t Iraq, Iran, or any other nation state use it for similar and PEACEFUL purposes, knowing full well that OIL isn’t necessarily going to last forever?

And they’re stuck on the past. Saddam is dead, and the genocide in Darfur continues, NOT because the UN is corrupt, but because the US political influence under the Dick Bush regime has totally de-legitimized it.

Since Saddam is still dead, why are they even talking about this? There was no yellowcake there, and it isn’t now.

And, the ny sun is still just a right wing propaganda rag waging a disinformation, red herring, wag the dog campaign to confuse already misinformed people, who are desperate to find excuses for the barbaric destruction of another sovereign nation state, just to steal their natural resources, and maintain global hegemony via military force.

Report this

By yellowbird2525, August 13, 2008 at 5:13 pm #

The GOP have NOT won: BOTH PARTIES are united with Corps AGAINST the people of the USA; read :don’t cage dissent” in this paper; UNDERSTAND when Geraldo Rivera promoting his book “hispanic” on Jay Leno said: the immigrants won’t stop coming; “they” meaning Reps & Dem’s have NOT YET DECIDED whether the blacks or the browns will have the roofing jobs; doesn’t matter WHO is elected; the AGENDA has been going on for years: FIGURE THIS OUT! THIS is the reason for the “media” black out started by Clinton’s for such a time as this; READ independent news media or LISTEN to it; blacklistednews; truthout.com; join GROUPS such as paranoidtimes on Yahoo cuz if you are NOT paranoid, you are NOT paying attention!

Report this

By lester ness, August 13, 2008 at 4:24 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Nothing will be done to punish Bush et al.  Too many Americans think “He goes to my church! He’s in my party! He’s on my team! He can do no wrong!  It’s the evil liberals who are lying!”

Anyway, lots of liberals are arab-haters, too, and don’t want to stop slaughtering Iraqis.

Report this

By Jon, August 13, 2008 at 3:58 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

I know Bush lied and there wasn’t any WMDs in Iraq, but I remember a story back in June about over 500 tons of nuclear material called yellow cake being removed from Iraq this summer. My question is this, if Iraq didnot have any WMDs what were they doing with all of this material used to build nuclear weapons? Here is a link to one of teh articles about the removal of this material to Canada.

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/iraqs-yellowcake/81328/

I also remember reading several different articles about Saddam sending WMDs to Syria. Here is a link to one of the more recent articles:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71076

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2008 at 3:36 pm #

Felicity,

I remember reading about those meters, (can’t recall where now) but at the time, I remember that the speculation was exactly what samosamo has presented. The oil theft, (from multiple sources) was astounding, but the bottom line was that as long as there were no meters, there was no accounting for the amount of oil being stolen, or who was stealing it. I’m sure the *other* bad guys were getting a fraction of it, and selling it on the black market. BUT, as long as it wasn’t more than a trickle against what the US was stealing, it still benefited Bremer, Wolfie, Cheney, all the rest…to just leave them broken.

What absolutely floored me at the time, (in reference to the protection of the oil) was a small news blurb in USA today, some weeks BEFORE the invasion on Iraq was actually launched. It was just a mention (and unrelated to anything else) that KBR, (formerly of Halliburton) was situated at the Kuwaiti-Iraqi boarder with their huge fleet of oil fire fighting equipment. They were prepared, (or so the insinuation goes) to respond to any actions by Saddam, that would have set those oil fields aflame. If memory serves, he’d done that before. Kinda like, “fine, you wanna steal or repossess my house? I’ll burn the sucker down first.” Since it takes one to know one, (Cheney, Saddam) they (KBR) were in place long before, to make sure that didn’t happen.

As for Bremer, I have a paper around here somewhere on his antics, and the rules and laws he put together for the CPA. I DIDN’T know about the flag though. (guess it didn’t stay up long enough, eh?)

I had to chuckle a here:

•  “Not only do we indirectly arm Iraqis who want us the hell out of their country, we also make concerted efforts to piss them off.”

Yep…that’s exactly what we do best…piss off the rest of the world, and in the case of arming the Iraqis, that was intentional as well. (which isn’t the least bit funny). Still, that’s always the plan. Divide and conquer, and divide and rule. Initiating a civil war or other civil conflict, (which is nearly a given in any society under attack from an outside force) and providing the participants with the weapons to fight (and kill) each other, is such an old tactic that I admit I don’t understand how it continues to work so effectively. Human nature I presume.

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2008 at 3:35 pm #

•  “Yes, Cyrena, I did read the part about the threats.  I also read the part about Ritter traveling to Iraq in spite of those threats.  Your suggestion that he delayed these five years because of the threats is speculation.”

~~~

Indeed Ernest, I accept this, as you are absolutely correct that my suggestion is SPECULATION. I cannot deny it, and I really wasn’t trying to be flip or any of that. I was just indulging in a bit of empathy or assumption based on personal experience, and I admit that can lead to problems, unless one is clearly aware that it IS speculation, and one of many things to be considered. But, therein lies the paradox. Everything remains speculation until it can be absolutely proven, and it’s impossible to prove a negative.

In fact, I have had the very same questions for so many of my former colleagues in reference to 9/11. Like me, there must be several hundred former and current career aviation people, from across the spectrum, -  commercial, military, and government civilians, who know as well as I do, that what the public has been fed is a pack of lies, because they are impossibilities. Yet it’s been 7 years, and how many of them have come forward? A handful of pilots, mechanics, and other operations people. But, ONLY a handful, and they are 99% FORMER experts. In other words, they are no longer employed, and they don’t have access to any of the information that would prove, inconclusively, what they know, because what they know INDIVIDUALLY, is not enough. Were they to attempt to collaborate with others to share information, they would no longer be employed. Or worse, they would no longer be alive. If it sounds melodramatic, it’s probably because it is, and it Scott’s case, he’s got some ‘back up’ and a platform. In the case of the little people who either ‘know too much’, or are even SUSPECTED of ‘knowing something’ it’s a far more serious concern. (especially if they wanna keep breathing, let alone remain employed)

I remember that Scott Ritter has responded to other questions put to him in the past, here on this and other forums, so maybe he will in fact respond to your question here. For now, I’m hoping that he is feeling some vindication for much of the smearing, slander, etc that he has been subjected to over the years, for taking the risks that he has in getting as much as he has to the light of day.

Still, for the rest of us, it’s so difficult to be sure of anything we believe, and that really is the point; maintain chaos and instability of the masses by way of disinformation. Nobody knows what to believe or not believe. By the time the Nazis were well into their campaign, they had children spying on parents, and spouses spying on each other, and that’s the result of disrupting a society to the point of total control.

Report this

By David, August 13, 2008 at 1:07 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Ended on January 20, 2000.  Congress has abandonded it’s role in government for it’s role as a lobbyist training camp.  The president and vice president have dictatorial power and most of the population can’t name the Speaker of the House.  This country is over.  The GOP has won.  America is no more.  Long live Amerika.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 13, 2008 at 11:07 am #

From the Democratic underground.com link provided by leveymg:

”• 1998 - McCain was a co-sponsor of the Iraq Liberation Act that led to the creation of a false intelligence factory that replaced CIA Iraq reporting. He led charges in the Senate about Iraqi WMD programs that U.S. intelligence was reporting didn’t exist.

”• 2001-2003 - Using $100 million allocated by the Act cosponsored by McCain, Ahmed Chalabi’s I.N.C. generated the false intelligence about nonexistent mobile bioweapons labs cited as part of the case for the Iraq invasion. I.N.C. Chalabi’s group was paid $335,000 a month in the lead-up to the Iraq war to gather intelligence.

”• 2003 - McCain and four other Republican Senators made an appeal to Bush to “personally clear the bureaucratic roadblocks within the State Department” that stood in the way of even more funding for the I.N.C. McCain acted as a character witness for Chalabi, stating “He’s a patriot who has the best interests of his country at heart.”

Report this

By beaks, August 13, 2008 at 11:05 am #

cann4ings: You defend Keith Olbermann, and rightfully so. He is one of the best truth seekers in the media. I actually did send this article to him and I feel like
he would put the info on his show if NBC doesn’t stop it. I feel like he has quite a lot of control, considering his news coverage and his special comments. Considering he writes on Daily Kos, he probably reads a lot of alternative sites and already knows about this. If enough of us write to him, it will increase the odds that he hears the story, as he is definitely our best chance.

Good idea to write to Scott Ritter.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 13, 2008 at 10:27 am #

Beak & Cyrena:  I am no fan of the corporate media and the extent to which it acts as a propaganda shill for those in power, but the fact is that Olbermann was the first to have Suskind on; that Olbermann has repeatedly slammed the FBI’s case against Ivins.  We don’t know if Scott Ritter ever contacted Olbermann with the story, and we don’t know why Scott Ritter failed to bring this story out until now. 

Yes, Cyrena, I did read the part about the threats.  I also read the part about Ritter traveling to Iraq in spite of those threats.  Your suggestion that he delayed these five years because of the threats is speculation.

The only person who can tell us why he waiting five years before revealing this story is Scott Ritter.  I know he reads comments on his posts at TD, because he has responded to them in the past, and, I, for one, would like to hear it directly from him, especially since the events he refers to appear to have taken place prior to the 2004 election.  The information contained in this piece could have impacted that event.  (Note: I said “could.”  I am well aware of the massive fraud through computerized vote-flipping that suggests that it would not have made a difference regardless).

Report this

By yellowbird2525, August 13, 2008 at 10:27 am #

everyone now knows that Iraq was preplanned including the “training” which our Gov is well documented in; it consists of telling them WHAT to say; and then having them “practice” it before going on TV; also, Iran has been predesignated to be invaded; the USA got involved with Suddam to arm him, & help him overthrow the Gov in Iran to set up the “dictatorship” of the Shah of Iran; since HE was overthrown it has been a matter of time to come up with the “reason” to deceive the citizens of the USA as to WHY we are NOW going to go to war there. We are “led to believe” that there are “secret” things that citizens don’t need to know about; horse pucky; the only “shadowy secret things” that are extremely harmful to Americans are it’s leaders. If you think for 1 second that the “energy” crisis, the “housing” crisis, the “financial” crisis in the USA today were NOT preplanned with premeditated with a great deal of malice in their hearts towards the citizens of the USA you need to get a brain scan to see if you have one. We are People of Worth in an anti American citizen Gov & have been for a number of years, escalating for the past 30, getting worse & worse & worse; the REASON they keep saying things like “russia invaded Georgia just like the Nazi’s did; is because the WHOLE WORLD is talking Nazi; how Hitler did it, and how it is being carried out today in the USA; WAKE UP AMERICANS!

Report this

By samosamo, August 13, 2008 at 9:48 am #

By felicity, August 13 at 9:28 am

“most of Iraq’s oil pipelines were not even equipped with working meters.  Earlier in the occupation Bremer had refused to install new ones.  I don’t have the imagination to figure out what that was all about, maybe someone else does. “

That should be easy, no meters, no accounting, no knowing how much oil has been stolen. The only way oil is not the main reason for invading Iraq is that the US hegemony wants the whole area to dominate and influence who gets what and how much of the oil meaning the control of china, india, maybe russia too but just about anyone needing oil for energy needs and plastics and etc. If the US dominates the region we control the oil and easier done with no meters to show HOW MUCH. Oh, and just like drilling here in america and off shore, the price of oil and gas will not come down because of drilling.

Report this

By felicity, August 13, 2008 at 9:28 am #

Cyrena - “But the US troops and contractors weren’t guarding or securing anything other than the OIL…”

I wrote this tidbit down maybe a year ago because it blew my mind.  Until the middle of ‘06 most of Iraq’s oil pipelines were not even equipped with working meters.  Earlier in the occupation Bremer had refused to install new ones.  I don’t have the imagination to figure out what that was all about, maybe someone else does.

Speaking of which, Bremer was a real case study. In 2004 he OK’d a newly designed Iraqi flag, blue and white which just happen to be the colors the state of Israel flies.  The finished ‘product’ flew one day before it was unceremoniously torn down and ripped to shreds by Iraqis.

Not only do we indirectly arm Iraqis who want us the hell out of their country, we also make concerted efforts to piss them off.

Report this

By samosamo, August 13, 2008 at 8:41 am #

By beaks, August 13 at 8:24 am

And what better way than to play up to those dumbed down people who have been led to look at it as a Southern Cal vs UCLA, Texas vs Oklahoma Mich. vs Mich. State type rivalries. Perfect description of how to control the pure black and white, yes-no, democrat/republican or with us or against us view of the world. Lower the IQs much more and there would not be enough mental wards to accomodate all the guests.

Report this

By leveymg, August 13, 2008 at 8:31 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

The claim being made by the White House was that Saddam had “reconstituted his WMD programs”. In order to verify that claim, which was the casus belli for the invasion of Iraq, coalition forces would have had to unearth evidence of recent (post-1991) operational facilities for manufacturing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Recall that at the conclusion of the Gulf War, as part of terms imposed by the Americans, Saddam ordered the Iraqi WMD program dismantled. That resulted in Saddam’s “bonfire of the vanities”, a mass destruction of equipment used to manufacture WMDs. This was observed and duly reported back to Washington, but kept classified because the details would have revealed the extent to which the Reagan-Bush Administrations had provided the WMD production infrastructure used by Iraq in its 1981-88 war against Iran.

After the defeat of George H.W. Bush in the election of 1992, rumours of Saddam’s WMD program reemerged from several sources in the Middle East. This became a rallying cry to push the Clinton Administration to more actively intervene in Iraq, which continued providing support to the Palestinians, and as a way to undermine Clinton’s peace talks. This culminated in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. The main co-sponsors in the Senate were Joe Lieberman and John McCain. The Act set aside up to $90 million for Iraqi regime change pursued by a group of exile groups led by Ahmed Chalabi’s INC, and handed an intelligence gathering role to those same groups.  See, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/360

Back in the mid-1990s, the UN inspectors were perplexed as to why they were still receiving intelligence about such Iraqi programs, but could not find operating manufacturing plants or facilities. Some speculated that maybe Saddam had built mobile biowarfare labs, which were moved around, and thus avoided detection. The US even built “replica” biowarfare labs at Ft. Detrick, MD to demonstrate that anthrax could be produced in a trailer. The CIA/DIA/SAIC contractor in charge of that project was a South African named Steve Hatfill.

In 1997, a US weapons inspector met with an Iraqi exile group leader at his apartment in Paris. During that visit, the American brought up the theory that Saddam was making anthrax in mobile biowarfare labs. Some months later, an Iraqi defector emerged in Germany, claiming he had been part of Saddam’s WMD program that had built underground laboratories and, you guessed it, anthrax production trailers. He was dubbed “Curveball” by his German hosts, passed on to the CIA, and the rest is history.

By the way, the American and the Iraqi who met in Paris were named, Scott Ritter and Ahmed Chalabi. See, Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, “The Manipulator”, (June 7, 2004), http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/06/07/040607/fa_fact1

Report this

By beaks, August 13, 2008 at 8:24 am #

Misdt: You say:  “Now of course you may ask what I mean by “un-American”… well, maybe it’s that I don’t like that red-blue trench warfare that you guys seem to be engaged in.”

Our press creates these phony paradigms, period. They created a really stupid one, here. It’s really just black and white, altho they try to add THEIR shades of gray. You’re right, it’s now an institution for identifying how Americans feel. It has nothing to do with the truth. The agenda is to create and solidify a determined division among us.

It’s just another example of our propaganda press as we lost a free press a long time ago.

Report this

By samosamo, August 13, 2008 at 8:15 am #

By Purple Girl, August 13 at 7:52 am

I believe Nemesis is here and though it will not happen in any foreseeable way, revenge will be extracted. And now with the russia/georgia debacle and a brand new spector of nuclear exchange….crap.

Report this

By samosamo, August 13, 2008 at 8:09 am #

By misdt, August 13 at 1:29 am

There are enough neocons than there EVER needs to be and I appreciate your claim against being one, but trying to put ritter as an over-eager w hater, well at this point I don’t see a such thing, more pressure than ever needs to be applied to this traitorous fool since the complicit pelosi traitorously removed impeachment from the table.
It is very sad that the world will get to see w & dick and their cabal escape any accountability for their crimes and the probable realization if the transfer of power takes place 1/20/2009 that the corporations and the ‘elites’ that run them will still control congress and the president. So it’s not over yet.

Report this

By Purple Girl, August 13, 2008 at 7:52 am #

If any public servant has Knowledge (evidence0 regarding this admins, it’s Corp and foreign sponsors criminal activities they must come forward NOW- or be Prosecuted as Accomplices.
If Pelosi has any intentiona of not being implicated as such she should come out and expalin that the reason they have held off relates to ‘chian of com