everything but the girl

You're absolutely right that people just don't know the truth. I try to reply, but it's like one person at a time. How reasonably effective can that be, when Katie Couric doesn't say, "But Dr Rice, didn't the 911 commission say that there was no link between Iraq and Osama?" How can she not even ask?

From:

bkdelong.livejournal.com

It's like mass media doesn't even care to ask tough questions anymore. "The Boston Globe? Well that's just some paper from liberal Massachusetts - John Kerry's home state."

Are they afraid to upset the US and loose readers? Do they have some command from on high to ignore such things?

I can't fathom it and if things don't change soon, we're in or another Bush administration. That really, really scares me.

From:

Oh, but wait. The 9-11 commission DID say there was (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html) "
Officials with the Sept. 11 commission yesterday tried to soften the impact of the staff's finding, noting that the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, agrees with the administration on key points. "Were there contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes," Thomas H. Kean (R), the panel's chairman, said at a news conference. "What our staff statement found is there is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein in any way were part of the attack on the United States.
"
Did Bush ever say that Saddam took part in the attacks? No. He did say that there was a "connection". Obviously "contacts" is a connection, is it not?

And as a note, I am still waiting to know if I am wrong in thinking Bush ever said "mission accomplished"...

From:

Of course, saying that there were contacts between Al-Qaeda and Iraq is not a particularly strong statement. There were contacts between Al-Qaeda and the CIA. There were contacts between Al-Qaeda and Bush. There were certainly contacts between Al-Qaeda and the U.S. (given that, y'know, we kinda armed them to kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan).

The mere fact that there were contacts is not all that remarkable in itself. The stronger implication is that Iraq was behind Al-Qaeda's attack on 9/11, and there's no evidence for that.

From:

>> The stronger implication is that Iraq was behind Al-Qaeda's attack on 9/11, and there's no evidence for that.

And I don't think anyone ever implied that. I certainly never heard Bush or his Administration say that Saddam and Iraq was behind September 11th. In fact, I've never heard anyone ever blame anyone but Osama and Al Qaeda.

From:

Then why are we going after Iraq?

From:

Well, because the U.S. intelligence agencies (therefore the US [US being not only Bush, but Congress as well]), the UN, and about 80 other countries believed that Saddam Hussein had not only illegal weapons in general, but "weapons of mass destruction" too.

Not because they took part in orchestrating 9-11, but because Saddam was a threat. Virtually everyone agreed that.

From:

I could swear that it was only U.S. and British intelligence. The UN weapons inspectors were all "Give us more time, we haven't found anything yet." And other countries were like "WMD? We don't see any..."

I'd hardly consider that "virtually everyone". If "virtually everyone" agreed with that, I doubt that we'd have the difficulties we're having now.

From:

When I said the UN, I meant the United nations themselves. There was a vote, resolution 1441, where all the members of the Security Council unanimously agreed that Iraq had illegal weapons.

Turns out, we were right.

From:

Resolution 1441 says nothing about whether Iraq had illegal weapons. Resolution 1441 says that Iraq "Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure ... of all aspects of its
programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles ... and of all holdings of such weapons" and that "Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect". In other words, it did not say that Iraq had WMDs, it said that Iraq was stonewalling the inspectors and had better shape up. Absense of evidence is not evidence of presence.

And I've yet to hear of any confirmed findings of WMDs in Iraq. Link?

From:

I never said WMD, but illegal weapons, yes. So, depending on your definition of WMD this may more may not be what you're looking for. I site this CIA report (http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/CIA/us-cia-duelfer-033004.htm) from March 30, '04
"
In addition to WMD technologies, the ISG has continued to uncover a very robust program for delivery systems that were not reported to the UN. New information has been discovered relating to long-range ballistic missile development and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Missiles and UAVs were flight tested that easily exceeded the UN limit of 150 kilometers. More than that, the Iraqi regime was developing technology to extend one of their ballistic missile’s range beyond 150 kilometers with changes to airframes and fuels. Discussions were underway with North Korea regarding technology associated with a 1,300 km system—presumably the No Dong. Other foreign support was being used or solicited.

Iraq was developing a variety of UAVs using inertial navigation systems and navigation using GPS. New information on the L-29 based UAV has also been developed.
"

There are also reports of Saddam moving other weapons to Syria (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040816-011235-4438r.htm) from the Washington Times:
"
Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries, U.S. investigators have discovered.
"

From:

Here's what Bush said back in his State of the Union Address in 2003:

Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.

That's more than "contacts"; what he said 20 months ago was that Saddam was aiding and protecting al Qaeda members. There has been no evidence to indicate that this was the case.

Yesterday, for the first time, Bush explicitly said that there was "no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks." The only reason this was newsworthy to make it into papers around the world was because he had never said it before. As the BBC reported in that article, "As recently as last Sunday, Vice-President Dick Cheney, refused to rule out a link between Iraq and 11 September, saying 'we don't know'."

Now, as regards the whole "mission accomplished" thing - do you really see a difference in Bush saying it, and Bush's advance team arranging for those words to be placed on a banner hanging behind him while he declares major combat operations over? Or did you just not see my reply to you on my other post, where I detailed quotes from the White House and Bush's press secretary on the issue of the banner. You contended, in fact, that "the banner was put there by the crew". While it's possible that the crew put it up, Bush said the WH advance office orchestrated it. Do you really see a distinction between the words the President says ("major combat operations" are over) and the banner that his advance team arranges to have behind his head ("Mission accomplished")? Because I see the words generated by all members of the administration to reflect on the administration - that's what the executive branch is all about. He did say it, btw, right here, but as a matter of context, I don't think that's what you were looking for, is it?

Move On didn't say that Bush *said* Mission Accomplished. They wrote it cleverly, using the word *declared*, which means "to make known formally, officially, or explicitly". He did declare it - he and his team made "Mission Accomplished", as words and as a concept, known formally, officially and explicitly.

Didn't they?

From:

Right here: "
Q Mr. President, if I may take you back to May 1st when you stood on the USS Lincoln under a huge banner that said, "Mission Accomplished." At that time you declared major combat operations were over, but since that time there have been over 1,000 wounded, many of them amputees who are recovering at Walter Reed, 217 killed in action since that date. Will you acknowledge now that you were premature in making those remarks?

THE PRESIDENT: Nora, I think you ought to look at my speech. I said, Iraq is a dangerous place and we've still got hard work to do, there's still more to be done. And we had just come off a very successful military operation. I was there to thank the troops.
"

The President was there to congratulate a group of people in our military that had just completed THEIR specific mission in Iraq. I'm not a military commander, so I couldn't tell you what their mission was, but I'm quite sure one air craft carrier's goal was to win the whole war at one time.

The quote you linked said "SCOTT MCCLELLAN: The idea for the banner and the idea for the sign was suggested by those onboard the ship and we were pleased to help them with that." The idea was suggested by the crew! What's the big deal with a commander-n-chief saying "You're mission is done now, and thank you for that. Anyway?

It was never expressed what “mission” was accomplished. It was assumed by the liberal Tom Brokaw that it meant "We’re done with Iraq... we're coming home and pulling out". I don’t think that was the point, it was just misinterpreted.

Yes. I believe there is a clear difference in "Mission accomplished" and "major combat operations are over". I feel that President Bush was totally just in saying both. Because our first major goal was complete, we could say "look, the major operations are over". As Bush said, "we've still got hard work to do, there's still more to be done."

From:

So you think only the "liberal media", which is a fallacy generated by the conservative media in the first place, made this "assumption" that the "mission accomplished" banner referred to all "major combat", despite the fact that the White House's press release on that day said that "major combat operations" were over?

Well, how do you explain the Wall Street Journal's

The WSJ also quoted the president as saying, "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." Wheee, wrong! Right?

Look at the press release. Just look at it. It's on the White House's own site. It says, "President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended". Look what he said:

Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free.

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on.

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding.

Where do you see Bush doing something other than declaring that the mission he set the troops into in Iraq was accomplished? Where do you see Bush doing something other than declaring that major combat operations are over?

Can you provide me with a quote where Tom Brokaw said that the US was now pulling out of Iraq? I can't imagine anyone saying that when Bush said, "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous." But I also think it would be a dereliction of duty by the press for any journalist at a major network, newspaper or magazine to not report that the President, on that day, declared major combat operations over. He did. He said it.

Look at FOx News's online story about that day - it's here. The reason they say the President did not declare the war over was as follows:

The president's address aboard the aircraft carrier was specifically not a declaration of victory. The administration is trying to avoid triggering Geneva Convention rules that require the release of prisoners of war, the end of the pursuit of enemy leaders and the designation of the United States as an occupying power once victory is declared.

Do you see the difference yet?~

From:

>>Where do you see Bush doing something other than declaring that the mission he set the troops into in Iraq was accomplished?

Well maybe when he said "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes." Or maybe when he said "The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq." And when he said "Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike." also. There are more quotes from just that speech I could put here, but I won't.

>>The WSJ also quoted the president as saying, "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." Wheee, wrong! Right?"

Do you not believe that a BRUTAL DICTATOR has been taken out of power? If that's not a path to victory, I don't know what is!

From:

Nothing you quoted from Bush has anything to do with the mission of the troops, except possibly, arguably, "pursuing and finding leaders" from the old regime. Transitioning to democracy is not the work of troops. It cannot be accomplished in combat. Same for bringing order and rebuilding the country. Yes, some of that work can be, and is done by, soldiers - they've done a lot in rebuilding schools and buildings in Baghdad and points north - but it's not a part of the combat mission.

Do you not believe that a BRUTAL DICTATOR has been taken out of power? If that's not a path to victory, I don't know what is!

Bush didn't mention any path to victory on that day, in that speech. He said the "battle in Iraq is one victory." (italics mine). That means we already had accomplished victory on that day, not that we were on our way to it.

And to be honest, I didn't think it was our obligation to remove brutal dictators from power if all they were doing was brutalizing their own people. They attack other countries who are our allies? We attack. They attack us, even overseas? We attack. If it were in America’s interest to remove cruel dictators from power, we’d be doing it in a lot of other places. If it were in America’s interest to save people from mass graves, why aren’t we doing anything in the Congo (for example), where millions have died due to genocide?

Anyhow, one reason Saddam was such a brutal dictator is because we provided him with the weaponry to brutalize his own people. Read a bit of history about Rumsfeld's relationship with Saddam. Back in 1992, comedian/musician Bill Hicks wrote a skit about Saddam (Hicks, btw, died in 1994 according to a review of an album of his). One line in the skit said that of course the US knew Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. "We have the receipt!" The line has been a bit of a running gag for the past two and a half years. We supported him in office, even when he gassed the Kurds, in much the same way that we supported, and armed, the "freedom fighters" who became the Taliban. Bin Laden himself was among the first Arab volunteers recruited by the US to fight against the Soviet Union. And one of the reasons he was reportedly recruited was because of his family's longstanding relationship with the ruling family in Saudi Arabia, who were, at that point, close personal friends of the then-vice president of the US, George Bush.

It's a terrible circle, really it is, and there've been a number of bad decisions made on all ends of the spectrum. But what on earth gives the US the right to engage in preemtive strikes and to occupy another country?

From:

>>And to be honest, I didn't think it was our obligation to remove brutal dictators from power if all they were doing was brutalizing their own people.

Well, when we're dealing with people in the Middle East, I think we should. This way, we let the people in the Middle East see what its like and want it. The more Arab people see democracy, the better.

>>Anyhow, one reason Saddam was such a brutal dictator is because we provided him with the weaponry to brutalize his own people.

Hmm... Now that's interesting. We provide someone with weapons, and that gives them rights to use them to murder millions of innocent people?

>>It's a terrible circle, really it is, and there've been a number of bad decisions made on all ends of the spectrum.

I agree. We've probably made a bunch of bad discussions in hind-sight, but that's all past. The important thing is to learn from that, and that we now know it was the wrong choice.

>> But what on earth gives the US the right to engage in preemptive strikes and to occupy another country?

Some people think that getting rid of bad people before they become to big of a problem. If you don't share their views, don't vote for Bush. Bush, and a large portion of Americans, believe that Saddam was a gathering threat and should have been dealt with. Especially with his location.

From:

Well, when we're dealing with people in the Middle East, I think we should. This way, we let the people in the Middle East see what its like and want it. The more Arab people see democracy, the better.

You know, I don't even know how to address a reply to this, and I've been thinking about it for a few days. So I'll just simply state that given the really close relationship between the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the Bush family, the world might be just a little better off if they tried to convince the Saudis to not be so dictatorial and repressive of women and foreigners. It's one of those "catch more flies with honey than vinegar" things, isn't it?

Hmm... Now that's interesting. We provide someone with weapons, and that gives them rights to use them to murder millions of innocent people?

No, it doesn't, but it also doesn't allow the same people who *sold* him the weapons to act all innoncent and OHMYGODHEHADSCARYGUNS'S! when they *sold* him said weaponry. Look at this picture. Rumsfeld made 22 visits to Iraq, and met with Saddam multiple times. Look over the National Security Archives, which is a centralized repository for materials collected by journalists from U.S. government under the Freedom of Information Act. It is the world's largest non-governmental library of declassified documents. We provided him with weapons, we can't be surprised that, at one time, he *had* said weapons.

I wrote:
>> But what on earth gives the US the right to engage in preemptive strikes and to occupy another country?

You replied
Some people think that getting rid of bad people before they become to big of a problem. If you don't share their views, don't vote for Bush. Bush, and a large portion of Americans, believe that Saddam was a gathering threat and should have been dealt with. Especially with his location.

Well, as of this summer, a majority of Americans are stupid enough to have believed Iraq was either ''directly involved'' in carrying out the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon or had provided ''substantial support'' to al-Qaeda. And you and I both know that's not true. However, a majority of the people who believed that falsity said, in the same survey, that they planned to vote for Bush. Who would get their vote if they knew that Iraq was neither directly involved, or had provided substantial support to al Qaeda?

Well, we can look to the flip-result in the same poll. Among the 40 percent of respondents, who said they believed there was no connection at all between Saddam and al-Qaeda or that ties consisted only of minor contacts or visits, on the other hand, only 28 percent said they intended to vote for Bush, while 68 percent said their ballots would go to Kerry. So only 28% of the people who know that there were no contacts, or at a maximum, nothing more than minor contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, are willing to vote for Bush - and I am sure they have their reasons, like conservativism on social issues. But doesn't it look like something is a little skewed here in what people believe?

Look at those numbers again. Those who know the true state of affairs are not voting for Bush. Simple as that.

From:

>>So I'll just simply state that given the really close relationship between the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the Bush family, the world might be just a little better off if they tried to convince the Saudis to not be so dictatorial and repressive of women and foreigners. It's one of those "catch more flies with honey than vinegar" things, isn't it?

Umm... as I said, I think the MORE the better. I feel the only way to make Iraq a democracy, and in the end, a much better place was to remove Saddam Hussein.

>> Rumsfeld made 22 visits to Iraq, and met with Saddam multiple times. [...] We provided him with weapons, we can't be surprised that, at one time, he *had* said weapons.

As I also said, the important thing is that we realize that our previous actions were wrong. Thats why we teach history. The world recognized this fault and corrected it by removing Saddam.

>>Look at those numbers again. Those who know the true state of affairs are not voting for Bush. Simple as that.

I'm just wondering what their reasons are for not liking Bush's approach to Iraq...Is it that they don't see a reason? All I can say is that I guess you can count me with the 28%... (I have to give you credit here, btw You're starting to change my opinions; little by little, I think. :-D ...you really got me reconsidering who I think will win this election. I really don't think Kerry would be as bad as most conservatives are saying though. It might be good for a change for the next four years. The only thing I really don't like about Kerry is that I feel he just says what's right for the occasion. And I still stand by my thoughts that Democrats should just hang tight for four years and let Hillary Clinton run (and win) in '08. :)

From:

Umm... as I said, I think the MORE the better. I feel the only way to make Iraq a democracy, and in the end, a much better place was to remove Saddam Hussein.

But I wasn't talking about Iraq. I was talking about a totalitarian regime where we have potentially more influence, influence that we could have used a dozen times in the Bush administrations in support of freedoms in Saudi Arabia, and we haven't done it. It's sort of a "clean up your own front yard before getting on your neighbor's case" situation. I don't think it's been worth thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and given the CIA's lack of focus on al Qaeda, in part because of their diversion to Iraq, I don't think it's made us safer.

As I also said, the important thing is that we realize that our previous actions were wrong. Thats why we teach history. The world recognized this fault and corrected it by removing Saddam.

But the potential ramifications of preemtive war are just huge. Why should we get to do it when other countries don't? Why should we get to strike at Iraq, and criticize Putin for striking in Chechnya, which is a lot closer to home for the Russians, being a part of their country and all.

I'm just wondering what their reasons are for not liking Bush's approach to Iraq

I don't think the survey looked at their dislike for his approach to Iraq; I think it looked only to what they believe is the state of affairs regarding links or lack thereof between al Qaeda and Iraq. And that's a misinformaitonal issue, not a pure opinion one.

...Is it that they don't see a reason? All I can say is that I guess you can count me with the 28%... (I have to give you credit here, btw You're starting to change my opinions; little by little, I think. :-D ...you really got me reconsidering who I think will win this election.

Hm, interesting. And yeah, I think there are reasons that people have to vote for Bush separate and apart from Iraq and his (IMHO disasterous) decision-making there. While I can disagree with such reasoning, I don't think it's illegitimate, or violative of the constitution or anything. And to paraphrase Zell Miller and turn what he said on its head, I don't think it's a deranged obsession with creating a monarchy or dictatorship in the American presidency.

I really don't think Kerry would be as bad as most conservatives are saying though.

A lot of conservatives really do think that Bush would be bad for the country if he remains in office for four more years. His regime does not adhere to the concepts and precepts of conservativism that I learned from growing up under Reagan, or reading dozens of biographies of Teddy Roosevelt, or what I've been told and read about Eisenhower. He's a radical, and that's why people like Bill Buckley don't support the war in Iraq and Andrew Sullivan don't support his efforts to make government encroach further into personal lives. Senators Richard Lugar of Indiana and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska have said that the efforts in Iraq show we are not winning, and that we're in deep trouble. We need a change, because with Bush, we will never be able to change course and rescue Iraq and our own country.

From:

metallumai.livejournal.com

(late: by the way-- congratulations! :D)

From:

rachet.livejournal.com

Good BYYYEEEEE, Eisner! Don't let the door bang you in the ass on the way out.

...on second thought....yeah, let it slam into you good!

From:

DO you think he gets a permanent annual pass to the parks?

From:

rachet.livejournal.com

HAHAHAHAHAAHAA! He walks in as normal Joe-Schmoe and immediately gets assualted by Tigger, Goofy and Chip (or is that Dale?).

Hmmm...might be worth your job to say "Yeah, I decked Eisner the other day."

From:

siyahsaclikiz.livejournal.com

Who exactly is Michael Eisner?

From:

conversant.livejournal.com

I'm less curious about what the administration is smoking (actually, I think they're all popping Ritalin): I want to know what's being smoked by those folks who are leaning toward maybe possibly voting and if they do it will maybe be for Bush. I understand (though I don't approve of) the committed Republican (like my father) who votes his pocketbook and has always voted for Republicans and always will, but how can you be undecided, think it through and then conclude that a vote for Bush is a good idea? Mind-altering substances. Inhaled.

From:

ashesofautumn.livejournal.com

Backstory (since I don't know if you've heard of him): CBFTW (http://cbftw.blogspot.com) is the penname of a military blogger. He's located in Mosul, Iraq.

http://www.agtiger.com/~agtiger/weblogs/CBFTW/2004_08_05_Men_in_Black.html
http://www.agtiger.com/~agtiger/weblogs/CBFTW/2004_08_06_AL_QAEDA.html

Quote from the second: "He also informed us that the people that were wearing all black were actually insurgents from Iran, members of Al Qaeda. He said the Army estimated that there were at least 100 of them out there attacking us the other day."

So maybe Iraq had no connection to 9/11, but al-Qaeda seems to be going into Iraq and attacking coalition soldiers.

From:

no-remorse.livejournal.com

That Al Qaeda would be welcomed with open arms by the Iraqi population the moment the collateral damage of an American-Iraqi war would become substantial, was a no-brainer even two years ago. Colour me utterly unsurprised.

From:

no_remorse said. The pictures from Abu Graeb have been a wonderful recruiting tool for al Qaeda. Look at this Newsweek article from last December:

These repressive, pro-American warlords have been our best recruiting tool,” says Rahman Hotaki, a former Transport Ministry official and now a Taliban operative in Waziristan. “Warlords are pushing people to leave the warmth of their blankets at home and join us in our caves.”

And that article predates the release of the photos from Abu Ghraib. Of all the random places, an article in China Daily notes concerns in the US government that those images could prove to be a solid recruiting tool for al Qaeda in Iraq.

From:

nekiko27.livejournal.com

Something that they claim is illegal for everyone else... crack most likely.

I fear for the election as well. The uneducated masses are going to vote because they're ignorant enough to believe the government >_

From:

hermione-like.livejournal.com

1. Michael Eisner is retiring from Disney in 2006! Yay and whew!

I agree. Thank the lord.

From: