A Letter from General David Petraeus »
Posted by: rider87 12 months ago370 Comments Report this Story
In a letter to the troops, General David Petraeus writes: "We have achieved tactical momentum and wrested the initiative from our enemies in a number of areas of Iraq. The result has been progress in the security arena, although it has, as you know, been uneven.... We are, in short, a long way from the goal line, but we do have the ball and we are driving down the field."
Read Full Story at military.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 370
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.24 Replies
-
0%
Neophile12 months ago
Apparently there were some errors in the transcribing process on this website. Here's a PDF scan of the original letter courtesy Netscape user DavidHalko:
http://inteldump.powerblogs.com/files/inteldump...
Reply-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
-
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
-
0%
NoSpinDave12 months ago
great find. The Surge is WORKING. Lets just hope the Dems dont screw things up right when things are finally turning around.
Reply-
0%
white-pawn12 months ago
Yeah, right. The guy in charge of the surge says the surge is working. Well at least his job is safe for the foreseeable future. Even if the surge was working, the war isn't working, except for the profits made by Haliburton and Carlyle.
Reply-
0%
Antileft12 months ago
Dearest White Pawn,
What about the money made by the ever traitorous M Moore? How many millions did he pocket with his lie-u-mentaries? At least Haliburton et all provide a service for the money. You seem to understand little of the real world's need for large, capable companies and armed forces. Please for all our sakes leave the country. I hear Venezuela is lovely this time of year, and the death squads are just about to start the fall season. Wish you were there!
All my love,
Antileft
Reply-
0%
white-pawn12 months ago
Kind of like comparing apples to oranges. Michael Moore so far has been little more than a left-wing gatekeeper, who for some reason is afraid to ask the real questions behind 9/11. But at least he hasn't killed anyone.
And, although I recognize our need for national armed forces, I do not believe these troops should ever be used to advance the agenda of a very few greedy, evil old men.
That being said, it would be easy to pick up and move to another country, but I choose to fight for freedom here, because here is where it is most in jeopardy.
So now the only question remaining is why are you here and not kicking in doors in Iraq for the profit of Darth Cheney? Whatsa matter? You a coward? You believe in this stupid cause, don't you? Then enlist!
Your problem is you are stupid enough, just not brave enough.
Reply-
0%
Antileft12 months ago
No, Money made on this war is money made on this war. And let me guess. 9/11 was an inside job. Si or no?
As far as far as:
"So now the only question remaining is why are you here and not kicking in doors in Iraq for the profit of Darth Cheney? Whatsa matter? You a coward? You believe in this stupid cause, don't you? Then enlist!"
Been there, done that.
And what "fighting" are you doing? Keeping a fresh Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker on your bike?
Now get peddling! Hugo is waiting.
Love A/L
Reply-
0%
capecoralM12 months ago
When Factcheck.org checked the facts about allegations by Democrats that there was a scandal because of the "no-bid" contracts awarded to Halliburton they stated, "It is false to imply that Bush personally awarded a contract to Halliburton. The 'no-bid contract' in question is actually an extension of an earlier contract to support U.S. troops overseas that Halliburton won under open bidding. In fact, the notion that Halliburton benefited from any cronyism has been poo-poohed by a Harvard University professor, Steven Kelman, who was administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the Clinton administration. 'One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded...who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd,' Kelman wrote in the Washington Post. Reference "Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP)"
Reply -
0%
white-pawn12 months ago
Well you wern't done. Go back.
Money made on this war is money stolen by armed thugs like yourself. You committed a crime on behalf of greedy old men who won't even give you proper medical (and in your case psychiatric) attention when you return. Just like they ignore the first responders on 9/11 (except those guys were actually trying to save lives, not take them like you and your ilk). You steal and murder for them and they toss you aside when you can no longer serve them.
Congratulations, loser.
Reply-
0%
Sandbar_612 months ago
WP, some day you'll graduate from high school and (hopefully) gain, through personal experience, a more balanced view of the world. And for the record, I served in combat in Iraq also. Three tours. Considering the level of violence that sometimes occurs, violations of the rules of engagement (acts that constitute criminality), are remarkable infrequent due to the detailed training and professionalism of our forces. Why don't you enlist (once you graduate)? Then you could be critical of whatever you want to, but from an actual basis of information.
Reply-
0%
Antileft12 months ago
Dear Sandbar,
3 tours. Very ballsy. (With respect, no sarcasm here). I think if people would try to appreciate the pressure the troops are under, the lack of support form the left, and the fact that they can't defend themselves under certain circumstances, they might consider that they act quite admirably and are less apt to commit crimes, on a per capita basis, in theater than the general population they defend.
Thank you, Sir, for you and your family's sacrifices.
PS I think W/P must be eating too much sugar and it's making him a bit "kookie". Hopefully he'll outgrow it.
A/L
Reply
-
-
0%
Antileft12 months ago
TO WHITE PAWN:
Just what kind of jerk are you? You run your mouth criticizing the people that give you freedoms and liberties like a drunk with turrets syndrome. Tell you what. If i can find one big enough I'll send you a pry bar to help you get your head out of your *ss. M'k? M'k! Oh, And before I forget, I served the all the people of America and, unfortunately, that includes you.
P.S. How's the bike runnin?
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
-
0%
white-pawn12 months ago
How about an independant auditor, who can provide an unbiased interpretation of the measure of success the surge has had.
Oh, right, I forgot that you neo-con types don't like independandt investigations. I suppose that's why you didn't listen to Hanz Blix when he said there weas no evidence of WMDs in Iraq, and why you fight so hard against an independant investigation into 9/11.
Reply-
0%
badnootka12 months ago
And this independent guy would have to be on the ground first hand to see what was or not working. He would have to be military, with military background and experience and training. He would have t owork hand in hand with the troops and could not be a politician, bureaucrat or really anything other than a general of the army. How could a CPA evaluate the surge. WHo could make that evaluation? ANd going back to 911, who are you? Rosie? Get real.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
hdthehn12 months ago
No spin and antileft - I'll bet you both bought Colin Powell's line of crap when he gave his invasion speach in front of the UN - swollowed it hook line and sinker, didn't you.
Now you buy this crap - and by the way the Bush admin and their deciples have already screwed this Iraq war up to the extreme and only Bush and Cheney could frick it up any worse - which they are doing each and every passing day with each and every lie they tell us through the Generals who's integrity will end up in the sewer with Colin's.
Reply -
0%
Raiderwall12 months ago
The surge is working. Of course, the U.S. military won't lose any battles. There isn't even another real army to fight, just rag-tag insurgents and militias.
The surge will have worked when the Iraqi Army and police are conducting raids and surges and operations without the U.S. military. That's the real result we're looking for. When Iraqi soldiers and police are loyal to the national government, instead of having the national government be loyal to the chieftans, shieks, mullahs, and militia commanders who currently control them. Let's not be declaring victory before it's actually been achieved. Let's not go down that road again. The mission is not yet accomplished.
Reply
-
-
0%
Silverghost12 months ago
Thanx, Alpha! Great to have the heads up that was given to the troops, before the General's report to Congress. : D
BTW, it is fairly clear that Fred Thompson would prosecute this war with decisiveness. Good to see him in the race! It seems that he won't put up with the petty & vicious nonsense in D.C., but will call America to come together in unity, which is what the terrorist network dreads. -Rev. S
Reply -
0%
Obaku12 months ago
You think that spreading this particular lie is a good use of your time?
Or do you just believe everything with a sports metaphor?
Bugger off.
Reply
-
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.6 Replies
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.5 Replies
-
-
0%
GLee12 months ago
Some would have us 'tuck our tail under our skirts' and hi-tail it back home......... like build a wall around all of the states and prepare for the battle here at home. It will come.
Let's get'em where they stand........ preferably over there! It is hard to understand that people just don't believe we are at war. Whether we like it or not, it is not going to dissappear because we pull out of Iraq. We are fighting, for the most part, the enemy there and Iran is putting itself in the middle as a supply man to al-Queda. Can't understand it at all.
Reply-
0%
white-pawn12 months ago
GLee,
I bet the G stands for Gaul.
Some would have us not interfere in the destruction and rebuilding of nations in the first place. We should never have put out meddlesome tails into Iraq on behalf of greedy criminals. Any one who, in the face of the crimes commited by this administration, can still support such a regime is totally bereft of a conscience. You should be ashamed.
Reply-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
catstevensComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
kedirian12 months ago
I wonder, would he say the same things to his fellow Americans, who - he must know - feel increasingly betrayed by a duplicitous administration...
Reply-
0%
1-2-Oscar12 months ago
We criticize the Iraqis for their failure to achieve a consensus on national goals and responsibilities, but the American people must also wonder why our own politicians cannot reach such a consensus.
In response to your wonder, I can assure you that General Petraus expected his comments to be published and read by a substantial number of his fellow Americans. I interpret his message as a call for a renewed resolve on their part as well.
Reply -
0%
GWHayduke12 months ago
Please expound on your statement - "People can dislike the administration without politicizing the war effort and get other people killed"
Who is politicizing this "war"? Is it the Democrats or is it the Republican Presidential candidates, or is it the administration that unilaterally, preemptively invaded Iraq?
Who are the " far-left terrorist sympethizers who have been manipulating public opinion to get his people & the Iraqi's he is defending killed"? Manipulating public opinion?! Face it, your myopic thinking is in in the vast MINORITY.
This post is so full of specious rhetoric I cant seem to make heads or tails of it.
You levy broad allegations with no supporting evidence and wrap yourself in the flag chanting your ultra nationalist USA! USA! USA!....
But I guess you have God on your side, so maybe all of the terra-ist sympathizers in the majority are also satanists in need of a good old fashioned hanging, right David?
Reply-
0%
GWHayduke12 months ago
The decision was a unilateral one. Citing 5 medic troops from Armenia hardly qualifies as a ringing endorsement. You can extract data to support your political ideology any way you want, however I dont remember anyone standing aside W at the podium as he made his final warning to Saddam.
Preemptive - are you talking about resoultion 687 or the non-existent no-fly-zone agrression pact that Iraq never signed? Either way, the strongarm tactics used by the administration to get to the oil were NOT going to fail if the flip-flopping Cheney had his way about it. Somehow 2003 was a better time to go to Baghdad than in 1991 when they were even less prepared. Hell, Bush even gave the months to prepare for the invasion-THATS strategy.
Or are you just insistent on bombing and hanging people in disagreement so you can drive your SUV?
Reply-
0%
amesburyroad12 months ago
David Halko's America...kill Americans who do not support Bush's war.
David Halko, in his mind, is a real American, the best....
David Halko, in his mind, supports freedom of speech, freedom of the press, Democracy.
David Halko just wants to kill Americans who do not support Bush's war.
Reply -
-
0%
Spinward12 months ago
A critical thinking liberal without knee-jerk criticism... is a conservative.
Reply -
0%
AmericanIdiot12 months ago
jimdoze: Oil is not only a commodity, it is a cartel. OPEC. By invading Iraq, the US became; a member of OPEC. Also protected flank of Saudi Arabia, increased presence in Arabian Gulf to three warships. Many land bases in Arabia and Central Asia. I know gas costs more at the pu,mp. I am hurting too, man. But the war was not about redcuing our costs for gasoline, it is all for big biz...
Reply -
0%
CaptainLucid12 months ago
Jimdoze you are an idiot who has no critical thinking skills. Let me explain it to you like the kindergardener you are. Iraq has lots of oil. Oil gets sold for lots of money. In most cases when the oil gets sold the big oil company and the government that owns the oil agree to a certain split of the procedes. Now here is where we come in. If we were not in Iraq the government there might decide to sign a deal to send OUR oil to China. There is also the royalty fee. The Iraqi's might want to keep a lot of the revenue for themselves to build useless crap like power plants and water treatment centers instead of giving it away to American oil companies to further swell their record profits. By being in Iraq we can manipulate the supply to raise and lower the price as well as cut off shipments to countries that do not bow down before us. Learn some reality jim.
Reply-
0%
jimdoze12 months ago
Lucid, my friend, you are anything but. You really do need to keep thinking... but, a little more deeply on this matter.
Oil companies all over the world buy oil and sell oil. Some are producers, some are traders, some are both. There are some of all kinds, from virtually every nation on the planet, who line up at Iraqi ports (and every other oil port) to load the stuff. Glencore, for example, is a monumentally profitable (probably top 10 profitable in the world) private Swiss company that trades oil... as well as other commodities. Royal Dutch Shell is second only to ExxonMobil in size and is HQ in The Hague.
While it can't be denied that oil producing nations have cartel-like influence over pricing at times, that influence is not total and absolute.
Oil did factor into the decision to go in, but not to take it for ourselves nor our corporations. The biggest issue in Iraqi politics today is the division of their oil profits amongst their competing ethnic entities. Go figure!
Reply-
0%
HannibalBarca12 months ago
You are only partially right, oil is the reason USA went in, not only control for Iraq oil but a control factor for the region. The Persian Gulf has most of the worlds oil traffic there. Many of proposed pipelines from the Caspian oil fields are proposed to go there and as stated to also keep China from getting at oil as she will soon rival USA for consumption and there is only a set amount available.
Reply-
0%
Christalline12 months ago
No longer are the days that matter why we went in there to begin with, and as long as you people keep being stuck on this one aspect of this, no viable resolution will ever come.
This is not about oil for our troops, it is not about oil for our security...this is about the future of this country as we know it now, and we need to stop letting hate spewing individuals with high profiles influence our opinions and actions. As far as this being a politicized war...Every individual in our congress ran with the war as part of their platform to get elected...Everyone of them...Fire them all and get people who actually think about more than their own pocket books in congress...then we might see something happen in a positive direction.
Reply -
0%
jimdoze12 months ago
Wrong about keeping oil from China. China gets plenty of oil from Iraq... and from every other oil producing country, including Russia.
The importance of China is that its oil consumption has increased dramatically over the last decade and, as such, it has had a huge influence on the marginal price of oil. By the way, every multinational oil company sells oil to China.
Reply-
0%
HannibalBarca12 months ago
Not totally true as China lost over a billion dollars in contracts with Saddam due to the invasion, that is why they are heavy in Africa, especially Sudan.
And Christalline, the reason you went there is very important, it is about control of a very valuable resource which 70% is in the ME and N.Africa, and the two biggest consumers that want it
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
spkguy12 months ago
IS OIL OR BIG BUSINESS AN UNDISCLOSED MOTIVE FOR THE WAR ON IRAQ?
There is substantial evidence that America's interest in Iraq is motivated by oil, not just national security. Is the U.S. government being open and honest about their reasons for declaring war on Iraq? Read the evience and decide for yourself.
"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary."
http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp
Reply
-
-
0%
Spinward12 months ago
Revisionist history serves you well.
Over 40 broken U.N. (not U.S.) resolutions.
British Intelligence regarding nuclear acquisitions (Clinton gutted our CIA).
Majority of DEMOCRATS supporting invasion.
Chemical WMDs used to slaughter thousands...
And you're saying it's all Bush wanting oil?
I may not always agree with Bush, but rewriting history because you hate his guts out is not exactly honest, is it?
Reply-
0%
GWHayduke12 months ago
Are you implying that the US has ever been obliged to comply with UN resolutions? Only when they support US objective.
By the way.......what was the UN's opinion of the invasion? I believe Anan referred to the invasion as a "violation of International Law". And "..the responsibility of the great states is to serve and not dominate the peoples of the world."
To conclude that the invasion had any other objective other than CONTROLLING the mass reserves of oil is unconscionable.
Reply-
0%
Spinward12 months ago
The only obvious problem with your conclusion is that the Iraqi government is in control of the oil, not the U.S.
I know you're going to say that they are only a puppet regime doing the bidding of their evil American masters, but when we buy oil (from Iraq or anyone else), it's purchased by the barrel at market rates.
To say we are in Iraq for oil is completely out-of-touch.
Reply-
0%
GWHayduke12 months ago
MArket rates are dictated by oil production - how much is coming from the ground & available to be refined.
If Saddam controls his own oil - some of the largest reserves on the planet, market rates are reflected in the way that oil is manipulated.
Put him at the end of a noose and install an incompetent leader (hey, they're twins!) and reap the benefits of cheap and very readily available oil.
Reply-
-
0%
Ratskii12 months ago
Spinward, read this. The idea is to provide high profit oil contracts to the oil industry (not necessarily to the U.S. as a nation).
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/c...
Reply
-
-
-
0%
spkguy12 months ago
Mystery of the Missing Meters:
Accounting for Iraq's Oil Revenue
by Pratap Chatterjee, Special to CorpWatch
March 22nd, 2007
Heavily armed soldiers spend their days at the oil terminals scanning the horizon looking for suicide bombers and stray fishing dhows (boats). Meanwhile, right under their noses, smugglers are suspected to be diverting an estimated billions of dollars worth of crude onto tankers because the oil metering system that is supposed monitor how much crude flows into and out of ABOT and KAAOT - has not worked since the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14427
Reply
-
-
-
0%
rightfromwrong12 months ago
yes...those WMD were given to Saddam by the Americans & British so he could gas the Iranians who no doubt were whipping the Iraqis in the end. After the Gulf war these weapons were dismantled and did not exist before the latest Iraq war....this is well documented and the intelligence report given to Bush & Cheney who did not divulge this before the vote. I can't believe there are so many idiots in this country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
tkyrchncs12 months ago
David if we had been at home where we belong instead of interfering where we can accomplish nothing positive with our military, we would not have been fired on. If there were foreign troops in the US you can bet your aqq I would be firing on them until I was caught or out of ammo, and it wouldn't make one whit of difference how many nations endorsed their presence.
All this does not address my basic contention that we need to MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS and let the Middle East sort itself out without our troops, our arms, our foreign aid.
Our only real interest in the region is oil, and we can just buy that from whoever controls the wells. Let them bless eachother or blast eachother, it's all one to us.
Reply-
0%
Spinward12 months ago
The problem:
We are attacked while we AREN'T in the Middle East. Does anyone remember 9/11? Not here.
We believe (Democrats included) that these lunatics are getting their hands on nuclear weapons. Does anyone remember Hillary's speech? Not here.
Our congress votes (Democrats included) to solve the problem before it kills us. Does anyone remember the vote? Not here.
Why do idiots keep claiming that Bush lied, took us to war for oil, and that nobody would be firing on us if we didn't fight back?
Reply-
0%
ModernDemocrat12 months ago
Quit posting lies.
We are in Iraq because Bush wants us there, no other reason.
He's upset about his daddy's encounter with Saddam before and wanted oil-coated revenge.
Reply -
0%
Silverghost12 months ago
It amazes me that the Bush-wackers have nothing concrete or substantive to say, yet continue to claim that our Prex lied. If they could prove that in a court of law, without revising & manipulating the facts that clearly exist, then they would have a leg on which to stand. Right now they are hacked off at the knees, but insist on running the race.
They can't change the fact that our former Prex lied under oath, yet they trust him implicitly on all other matters, in all his "Arkancides," Little Rock to D.C.,from Waco to Ft. Worth, Ruby Ridge, Kosovo, Croatia, China & beyond.
Is this not acid politicizing? -Rev. S
Reply-
0%
Antileft12 months ago
You are an idiot and you basically have no argument. We are in Iraq "because Bush wants us there, no other reason" is absurd. And his "daddy" was a sitting American President when sadam tried to kill him. The WMDs are in Syria and Russia. Thank God none of the women in your family wound up in one of Iraq's many "rape rooms" (BTW where does N.O.W. stand on that subject?) Why don't you get in your fn Prius, drive to the worst neighborhood you can reach in that s-box and walk around with a shirt that says "I'm a p***y and won't fight back". Have your estate let us know how long you lasted. At least President G. W. Bush is taking some defensive action. I believe Kyle from South Park said it best "If you can't cheer for the home team get the f out of the stadium." Wise up.
Reply -
-
-
0%
CaptainLucid12 months ago
"We are attacked while we AREN'T in the Middle East. Does anyone remember 9/11? Not here."
Dumbass liar. The republicraps accuse Saddamn of firing missles at our planes patroling the no fly zones. I say that is impossible though because according to you we were not there. Are you going to contradict the president and most news sources by saying we were not patroling the no fly zones in Iraq? I don't think so bitch. Go home loser.
"We believe (Democrats included) that these lunatics are getting their hands on nuclear weapons. "
Not me, I was never fooled at all.
"Why do idiots keep claiming that Bush lied"
Because he did. Show me the WMDs or shut the hell up.
"took us to war for oil"
Well they did have a map of the oil fields drawn up before the war with the names of US companies hand written on diferent parts of the fields. Not to mention that the only thing saved from the looting was the oil ministry.
Reply-
0%
spkguy12 months ago
Right, Pesidents don't lie, yea right!
While Richard Nixon set the standard on presidential lying, it was Ronald Reagan who seemed to blur the lines between fiction and reality, as when he told anecdotes from movie plots as if they had really happened.
Listen to President Bush in December 2001 explaining publicly how he learned about the terrorist attacks three months before: "I was in Florida. And ... I was sitting outside [an elementary school] classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on, and I used to fly myself, and I said, 'There's one terrible pilot.'"
This account is obviously false since network cameras were not trained on the towers at the time the first airliner hit; it was only later that amateur video of this event was broadcast.
Continued:
Reply-
0%
spkguy12 months ago
The president also said to the father of twins, "I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war." Mr. Bush was a member of the Texas Air National Guard between 1968 and 1973 and never left the country in pursuit of his duties.
It's too facile to say that all politicians lie and that leaders commonly deceive in pursuit of their goals. We are entitled to expect more from someone who campaigned on a pledge to "restore integrity to the White House."
Is he senile or a lier?
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0602-04.htm
Reply-
0%
spkguy12 months ago
10 Minute Rice: Three Lies And No Apology
Condi Rice, Bush's National Security Adviser, appeared on 60 Minutes Sunday evening, but, unlike Bush anti-terrorism adviser Dick Clarke at the 9/11 Probe, she did not swear on the Bible that what she would say would be the truth. While Clarke on 60 Minutes last Sunday allowed himself to be probed and turned inside and out for nearly the entire program, the edited tape of the Rice interview with Ed Bradley lasted around 10 minutes, and she said nothing new. The short episode came across as political spin to control the bleeding, and nothing more.
Rice's Lie #1 (transcript)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/28/60min...
Continued:
Reply-
0%
spkguy12 months ago
DICK CLARKE (video):
I said 'Mr. President, we've done this before. We - we've been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind, there's no connection.' He came back at me and said, 'Iraq, Saddam - find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean, that we should come back with that answer....
CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
I - I have never seen the president say an - anything to an - people in an intimidating way, to try to get a particular answer out of them. I know this president very well. And the president doesn't talk to his staff in an intimidating way to ask them to produce information - that is false.
OUR RESPONSE:
Clarke and two others were in the room with Bush. The others have gone on record as agreeing with Clarke's description of the meeting. Condi was not present.
Reply-
0%
spkguy12 months ago
Rice's Lie #2
VOICE OVER:
All week long, the White House said it had no recollection that the September 12 meeting ever took place, and that it had no record that President Bush was even in the situation room that day. But two days ago, they changed their story, saying the meeting did happen.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
"None of us recall the specific - conversation....
OUR RESPONSE:
Actually, two lies here. First, the White House said the meeting didn't happen, then they changed their story. Second, Condi misleads Bradley by saying "us" did not recall the specific conversation. Of course "us" didn't since it has already been established that "us" was not in the room at the time of the conversation.
Continued:
Reply-
0%
spkguy12 months ago
Rice's Lie #3
ED BRADLEY:
Clarke has alleged that the Bush administration underestimated the threat from - from al Qaeda, didn't act as if terrorism was an imminent and urgent problem. Was it?
CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
Of course it was an urgent - problem....
ED BRADLEY: :
But even the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Hugh Shelton, has said that the Bush administration pushed terrorism, and I'm quoting here, farther to the back burner.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
I just don't agree....
ED BRADLEY:
After 9/11, Bob Woodward wrote a book in which he had incredible access and interviewed the president of the United States. He quotes President Bush as saying that he didn't feel a sense of urgency about Osama bin Laden. Woodward wrote that bin Laden was not the president's focus or that of his nationally security team. You're saying that the administration says fighting terrorism and al-Qaeda has been a top priority since the beginning.
Continued:
Reply-
0%
spkguy12 months ago
CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
I'm saying that the administration took seriously the threat - let's talk about what we did....
ED BRADLEY: :
You'd listed the things that you'd done. But here is the perception. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff at that time says you pushed it to the back burner. The former Secretary of the Treasury says it was not a priority. Mr. Clarke says it was not a priority. And at least, according to Bob Woodward, who talked with the president, he is saying that for the president, it wasn't urgent. He didn't have a sense of urgency about al Qaeda. That's the perception here.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
Ed, I don't know what a sense of urgency - any greater than the one that we had, would have caused us to do differently.
Continued:
Reply-
0%
spkguy12 months ago
OUR RESPONSE:
It's clear that Bradley wants to discuss the Clarke charge that the Bush administration changed terrorism from the top priority to one of secondary concern, and Rice attepts to twist the question of giving terrorism "top priority" to taking terrorism "seriously," which are two different things. Then Bush is quoted as saying terrorism was not "urgent." Rice ignores this documented quote and goes on to disagree with Bush. As such, she is attempting to mislead by changing the terms from "top priority" to "seriously," and to simply ignore the evidence presented that Bush disagrees with her. As such, she is on auto-pilot as she lies, spinning the implicit scenario she wants Bradley to accept.
Continued:
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
tkyrchncs12 months ago
spinward, the Iraqis had nothing to do with it. The majority of those involved with 9/11 were SAUDIS and AQ gets most of its money from them, our putative allies to whom, morally bankrupt as we are, we have just agreed to sell $20B in high-tech arms. We need to just quit this. All of this. No troops, no money, no arms. Not for ANY of them, Israel included. And if a military response should be required somewhere in the Middle East (I have trouble thinking of a reason why it should be), use ICBMs, not troops.
Reply-
0%
Spinward12 months ago
ICBMs are neat, but can't be relied on for everything or we could simply dismiss our military and use the "button". A little naive.
Your other concepts of isolationism from the Mid-East are tempting, but I'm not sure they are well thought-out. Honestly, I'm not sure what would happen if we followed that course, but the fall of Israel to an organization like Hamas or Hezbollah (sp?) might not be a safe thing for us.
Reply-
0%
tkyrchncs12 months ago
No finess is required in the Middle East. Why would it be any danger to us if Jerusalem fell (again)? Who cares? Let Iran take over Iraq, who cares? We manage to deal with the Saudis and the Syrians, so we obviously don't really give a sh1t about freedom or democracy there, and we'll obviously buy oil from any kind of crook or despot. We need to just leave them all alone. Let them sort themselves out. Who rules in Baghdad is not worth one American life. No American troops. No American arms. No American money except for goods recieved. It is a brutal and fractious population and has been for 3000 yrs and we cannot solve it.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM12 months ago
Your explanation as to why the US and the UK were patrolling the no-fly zone indicates that you are totally ignorant to the facts of the matter or you are/were not opposed to Saddam invading Kuwait, and potentially Saudi Arabia in 1990, have no qualms about Saddam using Chemical weapons on the Kurds or the mass Murder of Iraqi citizens in the South Some believe in the range of 400,000 children, women and men. It gives a full indication that you are/were against enforcing UN resolution 660 which condemned Saddam's Invasion of Kuwait and 678 authorizing member states to use any all means necessary to remove Saddam from Kuwait and 687 which outlined the terms of Cease fire and Saddam's responsibilities under such to disarm and not EVER pursue WMDs. Your response indicates that you choose to ignore the breach of 687 when in 1994 it was discovered by UNSCOM Saddam had a massive secret nuclear program. You expose your ignorance or are turning a blind eye to history with your statements.
Reply-
ML2007Comment removed: User banned.13 Replies
-
0%
deathray12 months ago
I don't know where CCM got the idea that UNSCOM found a "massive secret nuclear program" in Iraq. The UNSCOM chronology doesn't mention it:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chron...
Reply-
0%
capecoralM12 months ago
Between 1991 and 1998 the IAEA conducted more than 1500 inspections. IAEA released a report in 1997, with updates in 1998 and 1999, which it believes offers a technically coherent picture of Iraq's nuclear program.
The IAEA inspections revealed seven nuclear-related sites in Iraq.
* an industrial scale complex for Electromagnetic Isotope Separation (EMIS), a process for producing enriched uranium. The complex was designed for the installation of 90 separators; before the Gulf War, eight were functional. If all separators had been installed, the plant could have produced 15 kg of highly enriched uranium per year, possibly enough for one nuclear weapon.
* a large scale manufacturing and testing facility--the Al Furat Project--designed for the production of centrifuges, used in another method of uranium enrichment.
* facilities and equipment for the production of weapons components.
* storage of large quantities of HMX high explosive used in nuclear weapons.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM12 months ago
Al Furat
Al Furat, located 27-30 km SW of Baghdad [according to UNSCOM], was intended for the design, assembly, and testing of gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Iraq construction of an industrial-scale plant to manufacture centrifuges was conducted under the code-name Al Furat Project. The nomenclature "Al Furat" is evidently the name of the entity or facility rather than the location, since "Al Furat" is the Arabic term for the Euphrates River, entirely appropriate for the task at hand. The exact location of this facility remains obscure, but the location reported by UNSCOM appears to correlate with an area enclosed by a security perimeter noted on the Tactical Pilotage Chart for Baghdad, located on the west bank of the Euphrates River.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM12 months ago
3 December 1997
Major Sites Associated With Iraq's Past WMD Programs
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/...
Reply
-
-
0%
capecoralM12 months ago
A track record of deception and denial
SUNDAY TIMES INSIGHT (LONDON), 1/8/92, BY DAVID LEPPARD, NICK RUFFOR
Iraq successfully smuggled 10 tons of natural uranium to Algeria via Jordan before UN inspection teams arrived in 5/91. Iraq also sent scientists to Algeria to work on a reactor which could provide material for nuclear weapons. Western officials fear a possible Iraqi-Algerian security threat. Some experts believe the shipment may be recognition of Algerian support of Iraq during the Gulf War. Experts believe that Algeria will have enough plutonium to build a primitive bomb by 1995...Algeria already possesses large amounts of uranium dioxide which it imported from Argentina. The additional Iraqi material has ensured that Algerian nuclear production will continue into the next century... Algeria is the only nuclear-capable Arab nation not to have signed the NPT.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM12 months ago
Anaysis. By Gregory R. Copley, Editor, GIS. Discussion and analysis of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs relating to the former Iraqi Administration...By focusing entirely on Iraqi WMD programs within the physical borders of Iraq...the arguments missed the point that the bulk of the Iraqi WMD work since 1991 was conducted outside the borders of the country...
There is a very substantial, historical chain of intelligence รข;; much of which has been cited and verified by Global Information System (GIS)a subsiderary of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
1. Documents Moved to Syria: In essence, documentation of that small portion of the WMD program which was administered directly in Iraq was moved, along with other sensitive material and resources, to the Hshishi Compound at al-Qamishli (Kamishli) in Syria, just near the Iraqi border, in August-September 2002. This was noted by GIS at that time.1
Reply-
0%
capecoralM12 months ago
Continued...
2. R&D Conducted in Libya: The great bulk of the work on WMD and on associated missile delivery systems, however, was conducted since 1991 in a partnership with Libya, and also with Egypt, at facilities in Libya, in order to keep the programs away from US and United Nations (UN) probes. That, too, was noted by GIS.2
Saddam utilized his best efforts and international contacts and alliances to limit the scope of debate and UN inspections...
However, there were numerous failures to maintain the total secrecy of his actions at an operational intelligence level. This may have been inevitable, given the scope of the WMD programs being conducted in Libya, where an estimated Iraqi workforce of up to 20,000 scientists, engineers and workers were engaged in WMD and missile development, and in other countries, such as Mauritania (intended as a launch site for ballistic missiles to threaten the US), where Iraqi intelligence officials were conducting aspects of the strategy.3
Reply -
0%
capecoralM12 months ago
Mistake. GIS is a subgroup of ISSA The International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA) is based in the Washington DC area in the United States, and is a worldwide membership Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) of professionals involved in national management, particularly in national and international security and strategic policy.
ISSA is registered with the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a tax-exempt, non-profit educational foundation under 501(c)(3) status.
The Association, founded in 1982, has as one of its key objectives the creation of forums at which professionals in these areas can meet, or exchange information and views, in informal circumstances to discuss issues of mutual concern.
http://128.121.186.47/ISSA/reports/Libya/Oct010...
Reply-
0%
capecoralM12 months ago
GIS content is issued as "Unclassified". However, it is based on GIS' own worldwide collection (HUMINT) and analysis team, which has been operating in the field for more than three decades. As a result, it has a strong record of major intelligence "firsts", including the accurate forecasting of, for example, the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. This was only one of hundreds of major successes by GIS.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-