Man, there is no end to this stuff. Oldest game in Washington, the old "if you only knew what I know but unfortunately can't tell you." It's perfect because at once, it gives you supposedly greater knowledge and at the same time insulates you from rebuttal. Unlike the old sarge however, at least this guy was in the loop if he is even telling the truth. In fact, he was so in the loop I would hope he will be getting a visit from the FBI with some questions about revealing classified information.
This is a very distorted article. But still it contradicts itself and has some false statements. In any case, the text specifically states that the Iraqis DID use chemical weapons against the Kurds AND Iranian soldiers. So I really don't get your point. It is a FACT that Iraq used chemical weapons in the past, not speculation. And it doesn't matter how many biased and deceitful articles people will write. TM Trader
This war on terrorism is bogus The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination Michael Meacher Saturday September 6, 2003 Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier. We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia". The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool". Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways. First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested. It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House". Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001). --- full article at http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html
In the words of Gen. Douglas MacArthur..... âOur government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear â kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor â with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it...â â General Douglas MacArthur 1957
US approval for Bush falling Oliver Burkeman in Washington and Luke Harding in Berlin Monday September 22, 2003 For the first time since the war in Iraq began, less than half of Americans say they approve of the way President George Bush is handling the situation, according to a poll published today. The Newsweek poll, which also shows a 14-point fall in Mr Bush's overall approval ratings, comes at a critical point for the White House, as it girds for UN talks to win a new resolution followed, the president hopes, by offers of troops and money. In a week, the number of those supporting Mr Bush's Iraq policies fell five points to 46%, with 56% saying they believe too much money is being spent on the country. At home, meanwhile, those who disapprove of his economic policies has risen six points, to 57%. The two issues became further entwined last week after Senator Joseph Biden, a prominent pro-war Democrat, introduced a bill to force Mr Bush to fund his $87bn (£53bn) request for Iraq by scaling back tax cuts for the top 1% of US taxpayers. And there is worse, as the former Nato commander General Wesley Clark - who declared his candidacy last week - went to the top of the Democratic contenders, with 14% of the party's registered voters saying they would vote for him. Supporters of Gen Clark, a vocal critic of the Iraq war, believe his military credentials would panic the Bush administration in next year's race far more than Howard Dean, the previous frontrunner, or the uncharismatic Joe Lieberman. The duo came joint second in the poll, with 12% support. Gen Clark lacks any electoral experience - but 52% of Americans do not believe that matters, says the poll. Mr Bush would still win the race against Gen Clark if it were held now - by 48% to 43% - but much more narrowly than if he were running against Mr Dean (52% to 38%), the opinion poll found. Compounding the White House's domestic problems, there were doubts last night that the US can win support this week at the UN for its new resolution on Iraq. Both France and Germany indicated they want Iraq to be returned to domestic rule as soon as possible, and for the UN to get a far larger role. Speaking on Saturday after meeting Tony Blair and the German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, President Jacques Chirac of France insisted that the US should hand back sovereignty in Iraq in a "few months". The UN should play a "significant and operational role", he added. Mr Blair's attempts to mediate met with little success. Both Britain and the US believe the French demand is unrealistic. But after months of hostility, there are signs that Mr Bush would like to mend ties with France and Germany, his biggest critics in the war. Mr Bush will meet Mr Chirac tomorrow at the UN in New York, and will breakfast with Mr Schröder on Wednesday.
911 occured because Americans and the American Congress along with the Administration were too fat and happy enjoying their huge stockmarket gains and driving around in their gas-guzzling SUV's. There was a complacency going on that was at such a level as to give America a very false-sense of security. I mean, why couldn't the FAA have stepped-up to the plate and addressed the concerns of pilots from 20 years ago about people entering the cockpit??? Answer: COMPLACENCY Add to that the fact that there is very little "integration" and "communication" between intelligence and law enforcement agencies and you had the TOP 2 INGREDIENTS for a TRAGEDY that cost our country thousands of lives and an incredible amount of economic pain. When you don't have a VISION, you are COMPLACENT. And that is the root of our troubles.
YOUR BLAMING 9-11 On SUV's???? LMAO!!!! you always manage to stick some sort of environmental issue into the equation..... No one is to blame for 9-11.....except for these religious fundamentalist who took their lives in an effort to destroy....no matter what you say about clinton, bush ect...the bottom line is if you knew how many threats there were to the security of America you would never leave your house...There is only so much you can do....right now i could drive a car filled with plastic explosives and take out any bridge in america....or fill up a small cessna with the same and most likely get to many buildings in the biggest city....where there is an evil will there will always be a way...everyone is an armchair QB after the fact, ....we all ask why this or that happened and why it wasn't stopped AFTER the fact. ...yet i wonder, you are complaining of complaceny and lack of vision....but i'll bet you're agains the whoel patriot act and other invasions of privacy.
You have got to be without a doubt, the biggest MORON on this website. My comment regarding SUV's goes hand-in-hand with the average American who has bought an SUV because they believe that such a vehicle is much safer than a passenger car, even though statistics do not bear this out due to the ROLLOVER FACTOR! I forgot that the FAA and the cheap-ass "Oh We Are On The Verge of Bankruptcy" Airline Industry cannot be blamed for the lack of putting in SECURITY DOORS to prevent cockpit access. People have gained access into the cockputs of US Commercial Airliners with guns as early as 1978, and yet the FAA and the Airlines have done absolutely ZERO regarding this threat. GET REAL.
Do the world a favor, and suck on the exhaust of nice Expedition ok??? They crashed planes into the world trade center in the name of LAND ROVER!!! You really are clueless.....your really think that that would have worked????? Ok let me give you a hypothetical: They lock the door .....but the stewardess is taken hostage with a knife to her throat......" Open the door or else"...what do you think they would have done??? especially if they started cutting throats every minute or shooting people or windows out???? Please...they would have opened the door and they probably would do it today even with the knowledge that they may fly it into a building.