"mikemckelvy" wrote in message ...

Heard it on the news. I'll wait awhile before making a decision on how to
interpret this news. Presently it really makes no difference to me since
there were and are likely to be other WMD's to be found and more than enough
reason to kick Saddam's ass.

Again this is a non-sequiter. The issue is whether Bush deliberately
misrepresented the classified data. He has now admitted that what he
said was false, and that he shouldn't have said it. He has yet to
acknowledge that he knew it was false.

This story today suggests that the IAEA asked the administration to
provide evidence of its accusations regarding Niger in December, but
it wasn't until February, a week after the State of the Union Address,
that Bush complied. When the State Department handed over the
documents the department said that they had doubts about them, and the
IAEA quickly concluded that they were forgeries.

http://nytimes.com/2003/07/09/intern...al/09INTE.html

Also in Saturday's times the diplomat Joseph Wilson explains that in
February of last year he was asked by Cheney's office via the CIA to
travel to Niger and confirm these reports. He concluded they were
false and reported his findings in March.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/op...l?pagewanted=1

According to this AP story issued today, Cheney denies having sent
Wilson.

http://nytimes.com/aponline/national...h-Iraq.html?hp

Also I wanted to ask why you have not admitted that your statements
that the Intelligence Committees aren't asking these questions are no
longer true, if they were at the time you made them, and why you are
not taking the questions seriously now that they are being asked, as
you said you would. It seems to me you are changing your position and
contradicting yourself.

"Bush Claim on Iraq Had Flawed Origin, White House Says
By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, July 7 - The White House acknowledged for the first
time
today that President Bush was relying on incomplete and perhaps
inaccurate information from American intelligence agencies when he
declared, in his State of the Union speech, that Saddam Hussein
had
tried to purchase uranium from Africa."



http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/08/in...08PREX.html?hp

Heard it on the news. I'll wait awhile before making a decision on
how to
interpret this news. Presently it really makes no difference to me
since
there were and are likely to be other WMD's to be found and more
than enough
reason to kick Saddam's ass.

That is a "justification" not a reason for the war. Justifications
can come either before or after the event; reasons have to come
before, and I've never heard one that makes any sense.

We have not found the WMD, nor have we found Saddam. That doesn't
mean that neither exist. In fact, it may be the case that Saddam AND
the WMD are in the same place. That would be the worst possible
outcome of our little war: a person with nothing left to lose, no
doubt desperately in need of money and in possession of something
that's worth a lot of it to a bunch of people who also feel they have
little to lose by using it against the US. Think about it.

The US has made some serious enemies since 9/11. If--or probably
when--we are next attacked, I'm guessing that a lot of countries that
were with us immediately after 9/11 will have an attitude best
described as schadenfreude. What a shame!

Norm Strong

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...

Heard it on the news. I'll wait awhile before making a decision on how
to
interpret this news. Presently it really makes no difference to me
since
there were and are likely to be other WMD's to be found and more than
enough
reason to kick Saddam's ass.

Again this is a non-sequiter. The issue is whether Bush deliberately
misrepresented the classified data. He has now admitted that what he
said was false, and that he shouldn't have said it. He has yet to
acknowledge that he knew it was false.

Is it possible he said it not knowing it was false?

This story today suggests that the IAEA asked the administration to
provide evidence of its accusations regarding Niger in December, but
it wasn't until February, a week after the State of the Union Address,
that Bush complied. When the State Department handed over the
documents the department said that they had doubts about them, and the
IAEA quickly concluded that they were forgeries.

Being President is a busy job.

http://nytimes.com/2003/07/09/intern...al/09INTE.html

Also in Saturday's times the diplomat Joseph Wilson explains that in
February of last year he was asked by Cheney's office via the CIA to
travel to Niger and confirm these reports. He concluded they were
false and reported his findings in March.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/op...l?pagewanted=1

According to this AP story issued today, Cheney denies having sent
Wilson.

I would tend to believe Cheney.

http://nytimes.com/aponline/national...h-Iraq.html?hp

Also I wanted to ask why you have not admitted that your statements
that the Intelligence Committees aren't asking these questions are no
longer true, if they were at the time you made them, and why you are
not taking the questions seriously now that they are being asked, as
you said you would. It seems to me you are changing your position and
contradicting yourself.

I haven't heard anyone asking them. The bit you posted the other day was
not such a question.
Asking a question means you don't have an answer, IOW you don't know.

Why are you so determined to have Bush being guilty of misrepresenting
something?

It's prety simple, actually.

(rant mode on - flak vest donned)

Bush wanted revenge for Sadam's attempt to kill his daddy, pure
and simple. He wanted a reason manufactured that he could use
against Iraq.

Oh - if you listen to the last couple of days' news, there
is disturbing news about 9/11. The lists of terrorists supposedly
on those flights? More than 3/4 were not on them. Several have
been found alive. Something is fishy. The lists our government
spat out over the TV and newspapers appear to be manufactured.

The real identies and countr(ies) of origin are likely our
allies and/or not our list of nations we'd like to occupy and
take over.

The biggest thing was the intelligence community's(CIA/FBI/etc)
knowledge of a credible threat of some sort of attack. Not
"I think there might be some atempt", but " They are moving on
something big NOW".

Two weeks later, when something is up, despite over 90 previous
scramblings of fighter jets in the U.S. for aircraft out of their
flight path, not ONE fighter was launched - despite there being
orders to do so in just such a case. Nada. For 90 minutes.

I fly 3 miles into the local military testing zone and I'd get
two escorts and a room with interigators for my mistake. If
I'm lucky and they don't decide to turn it into a video game
with live ammunition.

Also, there are now reports of several large transactions on
the NY stock market right before the attacks. Several orginizations
knew something was up the days right before - and are currently being
investigated.

And it goes on and on...

The current view that this evidence supports is that we did what we
did in Pearl Harbor - we didn't make it/let it happen so much as we
purposely left ourselves completely open to any attack - knowing
that if something did happen, we would have all the reason we
needed to engage on this militaristic course of action in the
Middle East.

It worked really well in in WWII as well - leave everything
open and exposed and a prime target and wait. Claim we were
ambushed when we had the ability to counter/stop it if we
had really applied ourselves. Technically, we were ambushed
and attacked, but we were also aware of the threat and didn't
warn anyone, which makes our government partially at fault.

Bush needed a reason. Leave ourselves exposed and wait for
one to invent itself. Note that this all happened a few weeks
after he started naming Sadam as our biggest threat.

I personally think they knew and figured the targets were
the White House(convinently both the President and Vice President
were oddly missing from that location that day) and the Pentagon.
Both are very visible and low-casualty targets, relatively speaking.
Perfect for getting the nation's ire up. No civilian targets,
either. All government and military. A few hundred killed, max.

I think they were caught by surprize at the towers and would have
not let it happen if they'd realized that the terroriest were going
for non-government targets.

Oops. It looks like they left themselves a bit too open.

Sadam suddenly a huge threat. Terrorists start organizing.
(possibly at our prompting - I'd not be surprized)
9/11 comes along - and they decide to go after other targets
than we expected(or told them to). Oops.

All in the course of two months. I don't think this is a
coincidence. I can fully imagine a few cells of CIA trained people
who we thought would attack "approved" targets planning this - and
then, surprize! - deciding to not do what their masters expected
and go after REAL terrorist targets.


....

OTOH, reguardless of what led up to it or the cost in humand lives,
Bush got his excuse, money, go-ahead to invade two countries(so far
- Iran looks to be next), AND the two "Patriot" Acts, the real prize.
The Patriot Act II is a facist control freak's wet-dream. It might
as well turn us into the U.K. if it and that survielance proposal passes.

Oh - one last tidbit -
We were duped. There are no weapons. I heard a talk by the
head inspector we had over there at the time - and he said that
VX has a shelf-life of maybe a week or two. Anthrax? Three years.
Anything they had hidden when we stopped "looking" - mostly because
they were ****ed that we were using the inspections to paint bombing
targets - it has long since been rendered inactive or worthless as
a weapon. I suppose if you dug up the remnants and ATE them, you'd
get sick and die, but as a weapon? No threat at all. Viabliity
as a weapon and viability at point-blank range(digging around in it)
are two very different things.

No threat. No weapons. No reason other than Bush wanting revenge.

Meanwhile - they are doctoring the figures of casualties to only
count deaths. They are not telling us of the thousands of injured
U.S. soldiers. On average, there are over a dozen attacks in
Bhagdad alone every day on U.S. forces. The media doesn't want
this to be big news, so it gets buried back in the papers.

They hate us because we are occupying their country and not
allowing them to choose what to do - plus telling them that
our version of "democracy"(coming from your recent invaders,
no less!) is their only option. At the point of a gun.

Currently the Iraqi people want a return to the old religous
laws and government for before Sadam. Simmilar to Jordan
and many other peaceful middle-eastern countries. Of course,
BUSH/etc see this as the same as rabid fundamentalists storming
the U.S. positions wielding AK-47s and RPGs. The concept of
a peaceful Islamic state is foriegn to them.
(the reality is that a truly religous and peaceful Islamic
state is very close to their views of a "Christian" nation)

Sigh.

We want one thing, and they all want another. Personally, I thought
the *stated* goal was to free them. Freedom implies choice and
free-will, which we are not letting them have.

It's going to get bad. Very bad. Very soon.

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, George M. Middius wrote:

[...]

Vocab words for your next lesson in simulating a regular person:

-- anonymous
-- remailer

The blind leading the blind. Public remailers are probably the most tightly run servers
on Earth. No, I doubt very much you can forge using a public remailer these days. OTOH,
remailers are routinely forged for reasons all too well known. (Which of my 2 previous
posts was forged? Hard to tell, eh? Yet, it is a botched loading by forgery standards.)
I know for sure you cannot detect a forgery, Votre Middiotie. In the strictest sense of
the word. Oui, je sais, l'auto-flatterie ne me va pas bien mais la dérision vous va
encore moins bien.

[...]

--
Anon E. Mouse

[Playing] "Subterraneans" - David Bowie

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...
It's prety simple, actually.

(rant mode on - flak vest donned)

Bush wanted revenge for Sadam's attempt to kill his daddy, pure
and simple. He wanted a reason manufactured that he could use
against Iraq.

A blank assertion.

Oh - if you listen to the last couple of days' news, there
is disturbing news about 9/11. The lists of terrorists supposedly
on those flights? More than 3/4 were not on them. Several have
been found alive. Something is fishy. The lists our government
spat out over the TV and newspapers appear to be manufactured.

The real identies and countr(ies) of origin are likely our
allies and/or not our list of nations we'd like to occupy and
take over.

The biggest thing was the intelligence community's(CIA/FBI/etc)
knowledge of a credible threat of some sort of attack. Not
"I think there might be some atempt", but " They are moving on
something big NOW".

Two weeks later, when something is up, despite over 90 previous
scramblings of fighter jets in the U.S. for aircraft out of their
flight path, not ONE fighter was launched - despite there being
orders to do so in just such a case. Nada. For 90 minutes.

I fly 3 miles into the local military testing zone and I'd get
two escorts and a room with interigators for my mistake. If
I'm lucky and they don't decide to turn it into a video game
with live ammunition.

Also, there are now reports of several large transactions on
the NY stock market right before the attacks. Several orginizations
knew something was up the days right before - and are currently being
investigated.

And it goes on and on...

The current view that this evidence supports is that we did what we
did in Pearl Harbor - we didn't make it/let it happen so much as we
purposely left ourselves completely open to any attack - knowing
that if something did happen, we would have all the reason we
needed to engage on this militaristic course of action in the
Middle East.

It worked really well in in WWII as well - leave everything
open and exposed and a prime target and wait. Claim we were
ambushed when we had the ability to counter/stop it if we
had really applied ourselves. Technically, we were ambushed
and attacked, but we were also aware of the threat and didn't
warn anyone, which makes our government partially at fault.

Bush needed a reason. Leave ourselves exposed and wait for
one to invent itself. Note that this all happened a few weeks
after he started naming Sadam as our biggest threat.

I personally think they knew and figured the targets were
the White House(convinently both the President and Vice President
were oddly missing from that location that day) and the Pentagon.
Both are very visible and low-casualty targets, relatively speaking.
Perfect for getting the nation's ire up. No civilian targets,
either. All government and military. A few hundred killed, max.

I think they were caught by surprize at the towers and would have
not let it happen if they'd realized that the terroriest were going
for non-government targets.

Oops. It looks like they left themselves a bit too open.

Sadam suddenly a huge threat. Terrorists start organizing.
(possibly at our prompting - I'd not be surprized)
9/11 comes along - and they decide to go after other targets
than we expected(or told them to). Oops.

All in the course of two months. I don't think this is a
coincidence. I can fully imagine a few cells of CIA trained people
who we thought would attack "approved" targets planning this - and
then, surprize! - deciding to not do what their masters expected
and go after REAL terrorist targets.


...

OTOH, reguardless of what led up to it or the cost in humand lives,
Bush got his excuse, money, go-ahead to invade two countries(so far
- Iran looks to be next), AND the two "Patriot" Acts, the real prize.
The Patriot Act II is a facist control freak's wet-dream. It might
as well turn us into the U.K. if it and that survielance proposal passes.

Oh - one last tidbit -
We were duped. There are no weapons. I heard a talk by the
head inspector we had over there at the time - and he said that
VX has a shelf-life of maybe a week or two. Anthrax? Three years.
Anything they had hidden when we stopped "looking" - mostly because
they were ****ed that we were using the inspections to paint bombing
targets - it has long since been rendered inactive or worthless as
a weapon. I suppose if you dug up the remnants and ATE them, you'd
get sick and die, but as a weapon? No threat at all. Viabliity
as a weapon and viability at point-blank range(digging around in it)
are two very different things.

No threat. No weapons. No reason other than Bush wanting revenge.

Meanwhile - they are doctoring the figures of casualties to only
count deaths. They are not telling us of the thousands of injured
U.S. soldiers. On average, there are over a dozen attacks in
Bhagdad alone every day on U.S. forces. The media doesn't want
this to be big news, so it gets buried back in the papers.

They hate us because we are occupying their country and not
allowing them to choose what to do - plus telling them that
our version of "democracy"(coming from your recent invaders,
no less!) is their only option. At the point of a gun.

Currently the Iraqi people want a return to the old religous
laws and government for before Sadam. Simmilar to Jordan
and many other peaceful middle-eastern countries. Of course,
BUSH/etc see this as the same as rabid fundamentalists storming
the U.S. positions wielding AK-47s and RPGs. The concept of
a peaceful Islamic state is foriegn to them.
(the reality is that a truly religous and peaceful Islamic
state is very close to their views of a "Christian" nation)

Sigh.

We want one thing, and they all want another. Personally, I thought
the *stated* goal was to free them. Freedom implies choice and
free-will, which we are not letting them have.

It's going to get bad. Very bad. Very soon.

I listen to a lot of news and have heard nothing of this.

please supply a web site I can use to verify this.

mikemckelvy wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...

It's prety simple, actually.

(rant mode on - flak vest donned)

Bush wanted revenge for Sadam's attempt to kill his daddy, pure
and simple. He wanted a reason manufactured that he could use
against Iraq.


A blank assertion.

No, actually, a pretty well known one. He is not a complex thinker
and works off of simple emotions like this.

Cheney, otoh, was the mastermind behind this whole affair - the
oil and the destabilization of the middle east.

Oh - if you listen to the last couple of days' news, there
is disturbing news about 9/11. The lists of terrorists supposedly
on those flights? More than 3/4 were not on them. Several have
been found alive. Something is fishy. The lists our government
spat out over the TV and newspapers appear to be manufactured.

NPR and several other news sources. Recently came out this week
that the lists are not what we have actual records for. The mess
in Iraq is finally making reporters start to analyze the data
for other lies and they are coming in fast.

The biggest thing was the intelligence community's(CIA/FBI/etc)
knowledge of a credible threat of some sort of attack. Not
"I think there might be some atempt", but " They are moving on
something big NOW".

Two weeks later, when something is up, despite over 90 previous
scramblings of fighter jets in the U.S. for aircraft out of their
flight path, not ONE fighter was launched - despite there being
orders to do so in just such a case. Nada. For 90 minutes.

Proven by several sources and a general following of the timeline
of what actually happened.

The CIA saying "They are planning a major attack in the immediate
future" being all but ignored.

Also, there are now reports of several large transactions on
the NY stock market right before the attacks. Several orginizations
knew something was up the days right before - and are currently being
investigated.

Verified. The SECC is investigating right now. Probably they were
foriegn companies or ones that had insider access to the CIA reports
about a possible imminent attack, so no real foul, since the data
was there - just we purposely left our selves open and vulnerable.

The current view that this evidence supports is that we did what we
did in Pearl Harbor - we didn't make it/let it happen so much as we
purposely left ourselves completely open to any attack - knowing
that if something did happen, we would have all the reason we
needed to engage on this militaristic course of action in the
Middle East.

It worked really well in in WWII as well - leave everything
open and exposed and a prime target and wait. Claim we were
ambushed when we had the ability to counter/stop it if we
had really applied ourselves. Technically, we were ambushed
and attacked, but we were also aware of the threat and didn't
warn anyone, which makes our government partially at fault.

This actually did happen. We didn't MAKE it or LET it happen
so much as knew it was likely and laid down on the job to be
able to play the role of the victim. Before Pearl Harbor,
anti-war movements were huge - almost half of the population
was solidly against entering any war or conflict. Our allies
were being bombed into the stone age and our leaders needed
an excuse to get involved, so they started shipping munitions
on passenger ships and baiting the Japanese and so forth.

They knew if they sat and made themselves a big enough target,
someone would take advantage of it.

Now, today, they did the same thing - the CIA *KNEW* that
Bin Laden was moving against us and someone decided to
not pass on that information AND not scramble jets, despite
standing orders to all but shoot down anything that flew
near the Pentagon or White House without permission.
The military didn't follow its own orders and rules for
90 minutes. Nothing. That never happened once in the
entire year leading up to this incident, but this time -
nothing.

I think they were caught by surprize at the towers and would have
not let it happen if they'd realized that the terroriest were going
for non-government targets.

I think they knew.
I can see the following happeningno proof, but it seems very
CIA-ish) Bear with me.

- the CIA tells people in Afganistan that they can win freedom
from the Taliban by doing a job for them. Hijack a plane or
two and threaten a few places a bit and get forced down.
Thrown in jail - yada yada - small price to pay for freedom.

Possibly they are told to target two places - the Pentagon -
(reinforced in the new sections) a military target, and one
thing near Manhattan. One target comes to mind - few people,
high U.S. symbolism. Most likely the Statue of Liberty.

Two planes and two U.S. symbolic targets destroyed and we
get all the angst we need to give the government and military
the go-ahead to steamroll over the entire Middle East. Oil,
Democracy, instability in enemy governments - all great stuff
and exactly what Cheney and the rest wanted back then.

I thought about it and wondered:
1: Why was nothing done? No planes? no anything?
2: Why was the plane way up north delayed so long?

The only thing I could come up with at all was:
There were two groups of planes. A main and a backup for each.
The original plan looks like it was one crashes and the other
is a backup and/or is forced down and the hijackers are taken
prisoner.

Apparently the upper two were to hit the Pentagon and
the lower two - something near Manhattan. The plane that
was forced down by the passengers - my guess is it would have
landed safely/typical hostage situation - but the passengers
forced the situation. We may never know. So far, it's pretty
logical.

Getting back to the scenario:
- The terrorists do exactly that and go on their mission, but
what our goverment doesn't know is that they don't plan to hit the
two "suggested"(or suspected) targets, but others.

Think about it - no response. The first two hit the Pentagon
like planned(and the backup we don't know about) Our government
deos NOTHING about the other three planes. It is as if they
knew what was going to happen - up to a point.

....

The other two were flying over Manhattan at low altitudes and
the Statue of Liberty was right in a line with their flight
path. My guess is that one said - screw this - if I'm going
to die, I'm going to kill some American slime/infadels and hit
the building instead. The second said - look! Cool idea! and
followed the first. Note how the first plane hit up high
and dropped at the last minute - as if they pilot was looking
for a juicy target beforehand. The second, OTOH, barreled right
in for the other tower and hit much lower down. He was clearly
impressed with the other terrorist's choice - how could he not be?

No time to react - everything went FUBAR. Our government
is ****ed and shocked as the damage goes from a few hundred
and collateral damage to a few thousand and half of Manhattan
in shambles.

In any case, even if they were not planning it, they knew the
potential targets and decided that we could accept such
casualties. We did in in WWII and Vietnam - made ourselves
vulnerable and in the right place to get attacked.

The terrorists saw a better target and made the decision
to up the damage. That's not surprizing.

Anyways - that's my theory. I don't trust our government
very much and this is exactly like the kind of stuff that
they have done in the past to start wars.

The other stuff - it is all verifiable. Given the mass of lies
and backpeddling and covering up that we are becoming aware of
in the last few weeks, I wouldn;t put anything past these cretins.

Now the CIA is stating that THEY made the mistake - covering for
Bush. As if. He knew the data was flawed and didn't change
his State of the Union Address.

The Government's story convinently changes every few weeks to
cover up the truth that they lied to everyone.

....

OTOH, reguardless of what led up to it or the cost in humand lives,
Bush got his excuse, money, go-ahead to invade two countries(so far
- Iran looks to be next), AND the two "Patriot" Acts, the real prize.
The Patriot Act II is a facist control freak's wet-dream. It might
as well turn us into the U.K. if it and that survielance proposal passes.

Our government was famous for doing this sort of thing during the
last 200 years, so why think they would not let us get a bloody nose
on purpose to make the rabid conservatives and warmongers and "new world
order" freaks' wet dreams come true?

Oh - one last tidbit -
We were duped. There are no weapons. I heard a talk by the
head inspector we had over there at the time - and he said that
VX has a shelf-life of maybe a week or two. Anthrax? Three years.
Anything they had hidden when we stopped "looking" - mostly because
they were ****ed that we were using the inspections to paint bombing
targets - it has long since been rendered inactive or worthless as
a weapon. I suppose if you dug up the remnants and ATE them, you'd
get sick and die, but as a weapon? No threat at all. Viabliity
as a weapon and viability at point-blank range(digging around in it)
are two very different things.

This comes from the U.N. inspectors themselves. I heard the interviews
on the radio myself, unedited. Now that Bush is suddenly no longer
untouchable, the media is all but falling over themselves digging up
reports and interviews and such that they were squashing in the last
few months while they were trying to wave a bigger flag than the next
station.

Meanwhile - they are doctoring the figures of casualties to only
count deaths. They are not telling us of the thousands of injured
U.S. soldiers. On average, there are over a dozen attacks in
Bhagdad alone every day on U.S. forces. The media doesn't want
this to be big news, so it gets buried back in the papers.

Absolutely true. Wounded are not told on the news. Only dead.

Our generals are stating that we are coming under attack at least a
dozen times a day in Bhagdad alone. This is easy to verify. They
gripe incessantly about the number of attack on our troops. They
only mention dead, though. It isn't hard to figure based upon
past urban conflicts, than the number of wounded is 2-4 ties that.

They hate us because we are occupying their country and not
allowing them to choose what to do - plus telling them that
our version of "democracy"(coming from your recent invaders,
no less!) is their only option. At the point of a gun.

There is a fundamental flaw in our view of the situation.

********
The Iraqis have NO CONCEPT of seperation of Mosque and State. Their
religion will never make it a reality. As long as they believe in
their religion, they will NEVER adopt a western style of democracy.

Period.
********

Currently the Iraqi people want a return to the old religous
laws and government for before Sadam. Simmilar to Jordan
and many other peaceful middle-eastern countries.

Their laws are reverting to the 1969 pre-Sadam ones as that's
all they have as a framework. They want a return to the old
religous courts.

You really need to listen to the reports and media coming
out of Iraq from independant journalists. They really just want
to find out what's happening and how the people are doing and
the results are amazing.

Huge frustration. Very prideful people with a history where
they remember their occupation 2000 *YEARS* ago as vividly as
we do our Civil War. We act like they are simpletons and they
have three thousand years of history to teach them that they
are getting the shaft again.

We want one thing, and they all want another. Personally, I thought
the *stated* goal was to free them. Freedom implies choice and
free-will, which we are not letting them have.

It's all over the non-U.S. media, NPR and other independant
sources.

This I heard on KPFK on Monday, July 1 at 4PM, PST. Scanning
stations, bored - ran across a segment from a reporter in Iraq.
He was trying to see how we were doing at bridging the gap and
trying to make the Iraqii people trust us. HE was honestly
trying to be pro-U.S. and point out how we were making progress.

He came out at the end shaking his head and wondering what
we were doing wrong. Just amazed at how we were dropping the
ball.

The interview with the U.S. soldiers in Iraq and the tribal
leaders was completely real - when you hear(live recording) the
leaders of 80% of the Iraqi population all screaming at the U.S.
representatives in an official U.S. government sponsored meeting
and being told to "trust us - two MORE months", then the leader
of the largest faction(5 million people!) saying afterwards to
the reporter that he LOVES Bush and democracy, but he's angry
and will only give it another month before siding with those who
want war to take their nation back and into their own hands -
that means something.

When you hear their leaders and citizens voicing such frustration
in official meetings and going on record saying such things, it
can't be ignored or discounted as a bunch of "rebels" or "terrorists".

The interview with the soldier - a 20-something woman guarding the
palace gate where people go to voice concerns and ask for help and
information - it was more enlightneing than anything else.

She was trying to do her best, but was being besieged by Iraqis
wanting aid, information, to file claims for lost property, and
on and on - in 120 degree heat. 300 people a day. She really
was trying her best, but was under strict orders to not let
ANYONE talk to the officials inside and tell them to either go
to other agencies for aid or if it was a case where the U.S.
forces caused damage and there was a legitimate claim - to
come back in two months. She wasn't lying or putting on a show
or anyting - it was just a reality of how bad things are over there
and how we are not getting involved with solving problems.

This was two weeks ago. Not much has changed since then. It
still is chaos for most of the country.

I have been trying to get a recording of it to post to my
website or something - it was the most enlightening thing I've
heard in a year. It was in your face undeniable proof that the
story we are being told and the choas on the ground are two
different realities. No bias. Real soldiers and U.S. government
leaders over there and their Iraqi counterparts going at it.

Things are BAD over there and we aren't getting the real story in
our mainstream media about how awful it really is.

I give it 6-8 weeks until civil war breaks out. Our media will
of course scream that we are being attacked by "Sadam Loyalists"
and "Terrorists" when the reality is that the people just want
us the hell out so that they can make their own democracy
of their own choosing.

Last I checked, that's what WE did 227 years ago. Our
Declaration of Independance states that WE decided to make
our own government and way of life outside of foriegn
influences - and that we are guaranteed the right to do
so as human beings.

And we find it surprizing that THEY want the same thing?
Watch in the next few months - our media will scream about
ambushes and rebels and terrorists and the rest.

We will have become the Red Coats. Funny how history repeats
itself.

Checked Reuters, Drudge, Fox News, and the NY Times nothing on any of the
crap below.


"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...
It's prety simple, actually.

(rant mode on - flak vest donned)

Bush wanted revenge for Sadam's attempt to kill his daddy, pure
and simple. He wanted a reason manufactured that he could use
against Iraq.

Oh - if you listen to the last couple of days' news, there
is disturbing news about 9/11. The lists of terrorists supposedly
on those flights? More than 3/4 were not on them. Several have
been found alive. Something is fishy. The lists our government
spat out over the TV and newspapers appear to be manufactured.

The real identies and countr(ies) of origin are likely our
allies and/or not our list of nations we'd like to occupy and
take over.

The biggest thing was the intelligence community's(CIA/FBI/etc)
knowledge of a credible threat of some sort of attack. Not
"I think there might be some atempt", but " They are moving on
something big NOW".

Two weeks later, when something is up, despite over 90 previous
scramblings of fighter jets in the U.S. for aircraft out of their
flight path, not ONE fighter was launched - despite there being
orders to do so in just such a case. Nada. For 90 minutes.

I fly 3 miles into the local military testing zone and I'd get
two escorts and a room with interigators for my mistake. If
I'm lucky and they don't decide to turn it into a video game
with live ammunition.

Also, there are now reports of several large transactions on
the NY stock market right before the attacks. Several orginizations
knew something was up the days right before - and are currently being
investigated.

And it goes on and on...

The current view that this evidence supports is that we did what we
did in Pearl Harbor - we didn't make it/let it happen so much as we
purposely left ourselves completely open to any attack - knowing
that if something did happen, we would have all the reason we
needed to engage on this militaristic course of action in the
Middle East.

It worked really well in in WWII as well - leave everything
open and exposed and a prime target and wait. Claim we were
ambushed when we had the ability to counter/stop it if we
had really applied ourselves. Technically, we were ambushed
and attacked, but we were also aware of the threat and didn't
warn anyone, which makes our government partially at fault.

Bush needed a reason. Leave ourselves exposed and wait for
one to invent itself. Note that this all happened a few weeks
after he started naming Sadam as our biggest threat.

I personally think they knew and figured the targets were
the White House(convinently both the President and Vice President
were oddly missing from that location that day) and the Pentagon.
Both are very visible and low-casualty targets, relatively speaking.
Perfect for getting the nation's ire up. No civilian targets,
either. All government and military. A few hundred killed, max.

I think they were caught by surprize at the towers and would have
not let it happen if they'd realized that the terroriest were going
for non-government targets.

Oops. It looks like they left themselves a bit too open.

Sadam suddenly a huge threat. Terrorists start organizing.
(possibly at our prompting - I'd not be surprized)
9/11 comes along - and they decide to go after other targets
than we expected(or told them to). Oops.

All in the course of two months. I don't think this is a
coincidence. I can fully imagine a few cells of CIA trained people
who we thought would attack "approved" targets planning this - and
then, surprize! - deciding to not do what their masters expected
and go after REAL terrorist targets.


...

OTOH, reguardless of what led up to it or the cost in humand lives,
Bush got his excuse, money, go-ahead to invade two countries(so far
- Iran looks to be next), AND the two "Patriot" Acts, the real prize.
The Patriot Act II is a facist control freak's wet-dream. It might
as well turn us into the U.K. if it and that survielance proposal passes.

Oh - one last tidbit -
We were duped. There are no weapons. I heard a talk by the
head inspector we had over there at the time - and he said that
VX has a shelf-life of maybe a week or two. Anthrax? Three years.
Anything they had hidden when we stopped "looking" - mostly because
they were ****ed that we were using the inspections to paint bombing
targets - it has long since been rendered inactive or worthless as
a weapon. I suppose if you dug up the remnants and ATE them, you'd
get sick and die, but as a weapon? No threat at all. Viabliity
as a weapon and viability at point-blank range(digging around in it)
are two very different things.

No threat. No weapons. No reason other than Bush wanting revenge.

Meanwhile - they are doctoring the figures of casualties to only
count deaths. They are not telling us of the thousands of injured
U.S. soldiers. On average, there are over a dozen attacks in
Bhagdad alone every day on U.S. forces. The media doesn't want
this to be big news, so it gets buried back in the papers.

They hate us because we are occupying their country and not
allowing them to choose what to do - plus telling them that
our version of "democracy"(coming from your recent invaders,
no less!) is their only option. At the point of a gun.

Currently the Iraqi people want a return to the old religous
laws and government for before Sadam. Simmilar to Jordan
and many other peaceful middle-eastern countries. Of course,
BUSH/etc see this as the same as rabid fundamentalists storming
the U.S. positions wielding AK-47s and RPGs. The concept of
a peaceful Islamic state is foriegn to them.
(the reality is that a truly religous and peaceful Islamic
state is very close to their views of a "Christian" nation)

Sigh.

We want one thing, and they all want another. Personally, I thought
the *stated* goal was to free them. Freedom implies choice and
free-will, which we are not letting them have.

It's going to get bad. Very bad. Very soon.