| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2005/10/17-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40138 Activity:high |
10/17 http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Meet-the-Press-Condi-Iraq-war-9-11.wmv http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Meet-the-Press-Condi-Iraq-war-9-11.mov http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9684807 What I got from Condi's interview: (1) al Qaeda attacked us (2) Don't get al Qaeda; Saddam is the bigger priority (3) Get Saddam while he's small (4) Build a democracy in Iraq to weaken dictator-led countries (and especially to enable a democratic-revolution in Iran) -- since democracies are more predictable / easier to deal with on WMDs (5) Don't tell the American people this is the strategy. Instead, focus on Iraqi WMDs to win required political support. This may or may not be the smoking gun, but it sure as hell tells me what Condi thought. \_ Don't forget (6) PROFIT!!!!! \_ nah, I don't believe that -op \_ Erm, we've seen the military-industrial complex at work before our eyes, and you just "don't believe it"? You think this was all just international dick waving? \_ I believe the administration did what it thought would protect America, even though both the overall strategy and \_ So did Joe McCarthy. You've read 7 Days in May? So does General Scott. That's no excuse. -John \_ It /is/ no excuse, and I'm in complete agreement with you. I was just answering the guy who was saying that profit was a big motive. -op \_ Why else give extended no-bid contracts? Why short change on things like armor? Non-rotted food? Why avoid at all costs anything resembling the Truman commission? Or are these things just afterthoughts in your opinion? The people in this administration have been in the _business_ of war for generations. \_ I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate here, but wouldn't good, expensive food and armor have brought even more profits to the military suppliers, especially in light of the no-bid contracts? It seems to me that whether this war was for preventing terrorism, spreading democracy, bringing peace to the middle east, maximizing American corporate profits, or spreading some kind of American Empire, it ends up looking like a clusterfuck run by morons. \_ No because if the contracts weren't no-bid the people fullfilling them would have to actually deliver decent services for their money, which would leave more money for things like armor and edible food. \_ Indeed. look up Bunnatine Greenhouse, \_ Indeed. look up Bunnington Greenhouse, formerly in charge of army (?) procurement. The no-bid contracts that came across her desk were for 5 year terms. no-bids are rarely for more than 1 year, because they're meant to be stop- gaps. she also says that the pentagon stopped asking for cost-justification reports, which are the only teeth the government has to keep an eye on cost-plus contracts \_ The desire to protect America came first. The clusterfuck and the war-profiteering came after we invaded. Sure there were people calculating how to make big bux prior to the invasion, but I think protecting America came first before big bux when Dubya decided to invade. -op we invaded. -op how to make big bux to capitalize on the coming war, but I think protecting America came first before big bux when Dubya decided to invade. -op \_ I think you're naive. I think if that was their first thought, the military would have had an actual war plan. They were pie-eyed. They had planned how they would restructure the economy, but not how they would keep the peace. These are crooks. \_ Don't forget that the miltary DID have very detailed plans of what would happen in various cases, and those who spoke out about insufficient forces were sacked by Donald Rumsfeld. We KNEW we getting into a mess and did it anyway. Future generations will ask \_ Exactly my point. In chaos it's easy to "lose" money (read "steal). They haven't changed their approach because they're perfectly happy with the situation. So a few soldiers die... big whup. So a few civilians die... Dude, they're, like, brown. why we didn't do anything about the neocons in the same naive tones that schoolchildren today ask about the Nazi party rise to power. \_ If you took a poll of informed observers, I think the majority would agree with me, and the majority would also say that while you have a noble interest in finding out the truth, you're overstating. I agree with the pie-eyed characterization though, and I think the lack of a realistic post-war rebuilding plan was Rummy's mistake, since there were plenty of generals who questioned why we didn't have more troops for that phase. -op \_ CNN already took this poll, and a plurailty of Americans believe you are wrong. \_ You fail on two points: (1) CNN did not ask Americans "Was the war to protect America or 'for profit'?", which is what we're arguing about. \_ You're setting up a false dichotomy. The question "is this war making us safer" has been polled for the duration. the yes side has steadily gone down as people have realized it will drag on forever, and is against the wrong "enemy". \_ Apparently you forgot the original topic. The original topic was "for profit" vs. "protecting America". You - forgot - the - original - topic. Follow the precise thread of conversation. I'll show you: CNN already took this poll .. If you took a poll ... I think you're naive ... The desire to protect ... [all the way to:] ... (6) PROFIT!!!!! -- And there you have it. Trust me: I am completely aware that more Americans than not feel that the war may not have been worth it, nor made us safer. \_ Seriously, discussing this with you is like discussing ID with a true believer. I'll dub this the "incompetent intent" theory on the Bush presidency. (2) I said "informed observers". \_ Then why haven't they made any moves to FIX their mistakes. I can only conclude that they're happy with the situation. Stay the course, beeyotch \_ We're not sending (a lot) more troops because the generals are saying sending (a lot) more troops would make things worse. \_ sourceP overstating. -op \_ #t \_ just google for "send more troops iraq worse" \_ Fuck off. \_ what's the problem? most informed observers already know this, and the search works. \_ It's hard sometimes to figure out where Bush admin desire for "crusades" in the middle east to install compliant, pro-Western "democracies" ends and where the desire to shovel as much $$$ to Halliburton, et al begins. It's all a dangerous mix of corruption & incompetence. execution were bungled. Jury's still out on whether "Bush lied" or not, but at least I now know what Condi thinks about the reason for toppling Saddam. \_ We toppled Iran in 1950s and it didn't get us anywhere. Don't you see the pattern now? all the "enemy" of the middle east *HAPPENS* to be those country whose oil is not in few monarch's hand. Get real. \_ We kicked Saddam out of Kuwait because Kuwait had oil. We haven't done much about Rwanda and Darfur. I'm keeping this discussion very real. Is it oil "for profit" as point 6, or is it oil for "protecting America", like I've said? -op \_ The oil "for profit" explanation doesn't make much sense to me, at least to the extent that it's just oil company profits that they're concerned about. Tightening oil supply leads to high prices, which puts money in the pockets of oilmen. I.e., I agree with you. -!pp \_ Actually the ultimate goal is to control this area of the world so that when oil is no longer a fungible commodity, the US economy still has a supply. It's unlikely to work since people in the region hate us with a passion. \_ You have the right idea, but not quite. The ultimate goal is to protect America. Re oil, the target is to have a predictable and significant share of oil supplies, in such a way that oil- producing countries can't easily blackmail us or turn off the spigot in times of war, and we know how much is left. If this target can be maintained (and it has been for a couple decades), then the availability of oil should then the availabitily of oil should decrease gradually and predictably. Market forces will encourage the steady development of alternative and more energy-efficient technologies. Key words efficient-energy technologies. Key words are "gradual" and "predictable". -liberal/moderate \_ posting 3 url's is reason enough to change the motd into a bbs forum. cutting and pasting these links... gawd!! - napoleon |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9684807 Transcript for October 16 Condoleezza Rice, Carl Levin & Louis Freeh NBC News MR TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: Ballots in Iraq are being coun ted as millions turned out yesterday to vote on a new constitution. Wha t will this mean for violence and bloodshed and US troop levels? And for the Democrats, t he ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin of Michigan. Then, the former director of the FBI makes very serious allegations about former President Bill Clinton and the Saudis. And the September 11th C ommission is very critical of the FBI. Our guest, the author of "My FBI : Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Fighting the War on Terror," Louis Freeh. Are you confident the Iraqi people adopted a n ew constitution yesterday? SEC'Y CONDOLEEZZA RICE: I'm confident, Tim, that the Iraqi people went t o the polls in large numbers, apparently perhaps as much as a million mo re than they did in January. I'm confident that Sunnis participated in large numbers, which means that the base of politics has expanded in Ira q I think we have to wait to see what the results of the referendum wi ll be, but the fact of the matter is that they had a democratic process. They were told that they had a chance to vote yes or no, and they went to the polls in large numbers. And by the way, the Iraqi forces perfor med very well in protecting the election process, and we think there may have been fewer attacks this time, too, than in January. MR RUSSERT: But you said a few hours ago you thought it probably passed . SEC'Y RICE: There were some early reports from the ground that the numbe rs looked that way, but I think--I underscored when I made that statemen t that we would not know until we know. And I just want to be very clea r, the key here is that the Iraqi people have expressed their views and we'll wait to see what their views are. MR RUSSERT: If it did go down, it would set the political process back significantly. If, for some reason it does not, then demo cracy has been served. It would be like saying that a referendum in the United States, because it didn't pass, that it somehow was against the democratic process. The key here is the Sunnis have voted in large numb ers. That means they're casting their lot now with the democratic proce ss, and one way or another, the Iraqis are going to be in a position to move forward. SEC'Y RICE: They'll have elections in December one way or another. MR RUSSERT: Let me share an article from the Los Angeles Times with you and get your reaction. The headline: "A Central Pillar of Iraq Policy Crumbling. It does on, "Senior US officials have begun to question a key presumption of American strategy in Iraq, that establishing democrac y there can erode and ultimately eradicate the insurgency gripping the c ountry. The expectation that political process would bring stability ha s been fundamental to the Bush administration's approach to rebuilding I raq, as well a central theme of White House rhetoric to convince the Ame rican public that its policy in Iraq remains on course. But within the last two months, US analysts with access to classified information hav e-- intelligence have started to challenge this precept, noting signifi cant and disturbing disconnect' between apparent advances on the politic al front and efforts to reduce insurgent attacks." SEC'Y RICE: No, I don't agree with that, because you defeat an insurgenc y politically as well as militarily. And, of course, there are a few, a nd they are not the majority of the Iraqi population by any stretch of t he imagination. Indeed, some of them are foreigners, like those who wor k for Zarqawi. You are looking at a situation in which a few people can pull off spectacular attacks, can make life miserable for Iraqis, can c owardly--in a cowardly fashion kill schoolteachers and Iraqi children an d attack police stations or attack, as was the case a few days ago, the headquarters of the Iraqi Islamic Party which is a Sunni party that came out in favor of the constitution, but where they have not been able to derail the political process, and where Iraqis still have gone out in hu ge numbers to vote despite their threats. And, in fact, Tim, one of the facts that we're getting from the ground is that the number of attacks surrounding this referendum process were fewer than in the January 30 el ections, so that's good news. You defeat an insurgency politically as well as militarily. As the Iraqi security forces are better, they will have a role. But the Iraqi people are casting their lot with the political process, and that will sap the energy from this insurgency because an insurgency cannot ultimately survive without a political base. MR RUSSERT: Let me share with you some attitudes of Americans towards t he war in Iraq, and here's our latest Wall Street Journal-NBC poll: 51 percent say removing Saddam Hussein was not worth it; Majorities now raising huge anxieties, exp ressing huge anxieties over the war in Iraq. SEC'Y RICE: I'm quite certain, Tim, that when the American people see ev ery day what they see on their screens, which is violence and, of course , the deaths of Americans and coalition forces, it's very difficult to t ake. But the fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could de cide that the proximate cause was al-Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al-Qaeda and pe rhaps after the Taliban and then our work would be done and we would try to defend ourselves. Or we could take a bolder approach, which was to say that we had to go af ter the root causes of the kind of terrorism that was produced there, an d that meant a different kind of Middle East. And there is no one who c ould have imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein s till in power. I know it's difficult, but we have ahead of us the prospe ct, and I think the very good prospect of a foundation for a democratic and prosperous Iraq that can solve its differences by politics and compr omise, that becomes an anchor for a Middle East that is changing. If you look at Lebanon and you look at the Palestinian territories and yo u look at what is going on in Egypt, this is a Middle East that is in tr ansformation to something far better than we have experienced for the la st 60 years when we thought that we could ignore democracy and get stabi lity and, in fact, we got neither. So yes, it's long, and yes, it's har d, but if we quit now, we are not only going to condemn generations of p eople of the Middle East to despair, we are going to condemn generations of Americans to continued fear and insecurity. MR RUSSERT: Syria--there are reports of increased activity on the borde rs of Syria between US troops and Syrian troops, covert operations of US operatives in Syria. Would you like to see a regime change in Syri a, and will we help bring that about? SEC'Y RICE: What we are focused on is getting the Syrian regime to chang e its behavior. The Syrian regime is out of step with what is going on in the region, and, Tim, this is not a problem between the United States and Syria. This is a problem in which the Syrians have caused destabili zation in Lebanon through their presence there for 30 years, and they fi nally now are out. But the question is are they fully living up to thei r obligations under Resolution 1559, which we co-sponsored with the Fren ch, to not destabilize Lebanon, to not sanction assassinations in that r egion. They are stirring up difficulties in the Palestinian camps in Lebanon, wh ich is a problem for the Palestinian territories and the work that Mahmo ud Abbas is trying to do in bringing a Palestinian state to bear. And, yes, they are permitting the use of Syrian territory for terrorists to c ross Syrian territory. And by the way, in many cases they're coming thr ough Damascus airport. This isn't crawling across the border as they do in Pakistan or Afghanistan. And so, yes, they're using--that territory is being used to kill innocent Iraqis, innocent men, women and children , because suicide bombers are coming throug... |