|
7/9 |
2006/6/22-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:43468 Activity:nil |
6/22 http://mediamatters.org/items/200606200008 O'Reilly on his radio show, describing how he would stabilize Iraq: "President O'Reilly, curfew in Ramadi, 7 o'clock at night. You're on the street, you're dead. I shoot you right between the eyes. OK? That's how I'd run that country -- just like Saddam ran it. Saddam didn't have explosions. He didn't have bombers, did he? ... you have to have that for a few months to stabilize the situation so the Iraqi government can get organized, can get security in place and get the structure going." \_ Ah, the right finally reveals its true colors: brownshirt. \_ O'Reilly isn't "the right". \_ So the WMD reason for going to war: kaput. The "we'll be rich off oil" reason: kaput. And now "we'll liberate the people": kaput. So why does papa bear say this is a good war again? \_ So what do you think of the recent partially released document revealing hundreds of wmd loaded shells were found mixed in with standard shells? I don't recall anyone saying we'd be rich off Iraqi oil. O'Reilly doesn't speak for the government. So, what are you talking about? More bashing on some random entertainer? Now if there was an actual elected official or highly placed appointee who said these things there'd be something to talk about. \_ The Iraq Survey Group, sent to Iraq by the administration in 2003, said "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter." Looks like the crap Santorium is talking about is the above. Anonymous motd pundit, how can you take anything Santorum says seriously? \_ This outlandish claim by Santorum et al has been widely debunked and disowned. The shells we have found were highly degraded and dated back to pre-'91 times (read Iran-Iraq war). As for rich off iraqi oil, we were told repeatedly that this war would cost next to nothing, and that oil revenues would cover the nominal cost: Iran-Iraq war. Y'know, the ones that we sold them?). As for rich off iraqi oil, we were told repeatedly that this war would cost next to nothing, and that oil revenues would cover the nominal cost: http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm \_ Missing point. This was a small part of a larger report he wants declassified. It isn't about 500 old shells, it is about "why are we not getting the rest of the report if there's nothing in it"? Santorum's claim is that there is more in the report we're not being told about. How can you know if there's anything more if the report remains classified? \_ Of course I can't know. But I do know Santorum is a sanctimonious, mendacious fool, and this doesn't pass the smell test. \_ Wait, are you suggesting that the Bush Admin is holding back evidence of WMD in Iraq? Why? What purpose would that serve? \_ Show me a report on the web that doesn't include a freeper URL. \_ So it was only discussed in an open session in Congress but it isn't true unless you see it on the web? Ooook. \_ Please. They discussed whether TWA800 was shot down by missiles in an open session in Congress. If you have docs, produce them. \_ So now you claim there was no such document much less the unclassified summary document? There were no shells at all? You're the only person I've seen to dispute that. What do you base that belief on? \_ You have yet to provide me with a non-freeper url linking to this report. Please to be doing so. \_ How strange. It wasn't that long ago (last week) that saying, "I read it on the net, it must be true" was considered sarcasm. And what does the freepers have to do with it? Everyone who disagree with you is not automatically your opposite number. I've read the freeper site exactly once. I'll bet you're a more avid freeper visitor than I am. \_ Was there a sale on red herrings? I'm asking for a source for op's point. A published, paper source would be fine, but op and I don't meet in RL, so there's no chance of that; I'll settle for a URL that is not freeper-based. If you can't provide it, say so. The Dem below found it, and further found that it was already debunked. And no, I don't visit freeper. That tree's already poisoned, so why test the fruit? \_ No red herrings here. You keep ignoring the point: WMD were found. They were supposed to have been destroyed. All of them. Not just from post GWI. Why would you not want to see a full accounting of everything found in Iraq? That's what the full document is. The point you studiously ignore is that Santorum wants the whole document released. The age or count of 500 shells is not the issue. It is in fact, a red herring. \_ See the URL below, then compare with this report from the Iraq Survey Group Final report: http://csua.org/u/ga6 Cf. also with Bush's admission that the WMDs we had been led to believe were in Iraq were not there. The red herring to which I refer is your attempt to derail my call for a source with a non sequitur about believing things you read on the Internet. \_ geez, it isn't that hard -Dem link:csua.org/u/ga0 (santorum.senate.gov) basically these weren't the WMDs the U.S. went to war for. \_ Thank you. -pp \_ Does O'Reilly say it was/is good? He says we have to stay and win, but that's not the same thing. \_ As a liberal, I could agree that we've fucked it all up and that we shouldn't leave Iraq until there is some semblance of order. Also I want everyone who is part of this build up to invade Iraq to lose everything politically, financially, and physically, but that is not going to happen. \_ This is where the division among liberals comes in. There are many, myself included, don't think there is anyway we can restore order unless we reinstate the draft and flood Iraq with literally millions pairs of boots on the ground. \_ Whoa there cowboy! I thought dogma stated that the only answer was to *reduce* the number of American feet on the ground so the natives would have less to be upset about, now you're talking about a draft to put millions of people there who definitely don't want to be there? The correct answer is to reduce American troop count as Iraqi troop count and skill level goes up until they can deal with it on their own. I see no reason why Iraqis can't restore their own order given a fair chance which neither fleeing nor flooding will provide. \_ Given a level playing field and a restart of the clock, I agree that the Iraqis have a good chance of restoring order. I'm not convinced that they have that level playing field or the time required. That said, "dogma" is not something I would even begin to entertain in an environment as richly complex as Iraq. -!pp \_ So after the Iraqi government pulls the local militia types into the government, you think the foreign terrorist types will be anything more than pests? They're such psychos they attack other arabs (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia come to mind) who are now pissed off and helping the West find and kill them. Zarqawi was killed with information from Jordan, for example. \_ "after the Iraqi government pulls the local militia types into the government" may be a lot later than you think. In fact, I hear they've set the date for the 12th of Never. \_ cute but not reality based. pick up a newspaper. talks are on going and have been for a few weeks that we're aware of. \_ Cf. the inclusion of Afghan warlords as "governors" of certain areas of that country and the resurgence of the Taleban (not to mention in-fighting) between the warlords. I agree that there have been talks; I doubt the sanity of including more decentralized paramilitary forces as a solution to the insurgency. \_ The problem is the number of Sunni insurgents is going up as well as the number of Shiite militia. I don't believe we are making any progress in terms of creating "Iraqi" troops (who would fight for Iraq, not a faction). If on the other hand, you say we get out when we think the Sunnis and Shiites come to a power-sharing agreement with an acceptable level of car bombs and death squads, that makes more sense. \_ What is your source for the increasing numbers of insurgents and lack of any progress on the part of the new Iraqi government training their own? \_ EVERYTHING. Don't you get it? We're training Iraqi troops, but they're actually Shiite (police), Sunni (military), or outright insurgents. The goal is to give the Shiites/Sunnis/Kurds enough pieces until there is some kind of status quo, I mean, government. \_ Ok so you have no source. Shrug. I have no problem with you having a particular feeling about it but to come here and say there are more numbers of this or less numbers of that is insufficient to make a real point. I thought you might have actual real numbers for the Iraqi government side at least, which is public info. I don't think the other side does a quarterly public report on their recruiting efforts. \_ Okay, fine. There is no hard data on the number of insurgents, because insurgents by their nature don't want to be found (and eliminated). Most numbers are for hard-core fighters anyway, with the number of sympathizers in some reports going over 200,000 individuals. However, there is a public report delivered quarterly to Congress (google "iraq congressional report") which shows the number of insurgent attacks growing (note the graph doesn't show the ramp-up from March 2003 to April 2004, which would be embarrassing). Is the increase in attacks because the number of insurgents is increasing, or because the number is staying the same or decreasing but they're reacting fiercely because they're in their "last throes"? Who knows. It's my opinion that, while our goal is to create a national Iraqi identity and police/army force, what we're actually doing is feeding each faction until they can get into some sort of status quo, at which point we can significantly reduce the number of troops there. I completely agree that the number of "Iraqi" soldiers and police is increasing. However, it's my opinion that, while our goal is to create a national Iraqi identity and police/army force, what we're actually doing is feeding each faction (Sunni military and Shiite police) until they can get into some sort of status quo, at which point we can significantly reduce the number of troops there. In other words, what I'm doing is clarifying what "as they stand up" really means. |
7/9 |
|
mediamatters.org/items/200606200008 ran it," by establishing curfews and shooting violators "right between the eyes." O'Reilly added that what he proposed is "not the kind of country I want for Iraq," but reasoned that "you have to have that for a few months to stabilize the situation so the Iraqi government can get organized, can get security in place and get the structure going." Later in the broadcast, responding to a caller who identified himself as a former Marine who had been stationed in Tal Afar, Iraq, O'Reilly reiterated his plan for Iraq: O'REILLY: The curfews work. From the June 19 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly: O'REILLY: So because -- what you have here now is a tipping point in history. See, if I'm president, I've got probably another 50-60,000 with orders to shoot on sight anybody violating curfews. President O'Reilly, curfew in Ramadi, 7 o'clock at night. That's how I'd run that country -- just like Saddam ran it. But you have to have that for a few months to stabilize the situation so the Iraqi government can get organized, can get security in place and get the structure going. So, any area that is giving you trouble, you have a 7-to-7 curfew. Actually, I had a comment to say about when you -- talking about the curfew. CALLER: We did it up in Tal Afar, Iraq, and it -- and actually works. CALLER: I was in the Marines when we invaded, and then I got out and joined the National Guard. Flag this comment o There's No Business Like Show Business I recall this buffoon making that brilliant observation earlier, last week or the week before I think... the buffoon had been outlining some of the extraordinary strategic challenges that present themselves in the conduct of war; and he had noted that one of those challenges was getting the theatre, or the battlefield, right; that while it's easy to fight the right war (easiest still for those not fighting it at all), it's a hazard to be avoided, to fight it on the wrong battlefield... His context then (slightly abridged, but not mischaracterized): O'REILLY: OK. But there's a couple of problems with waging a war on terror like this. now, that being the context then, that in the "performance business" of war, you need to get the place right, I'd have agreed whole-heartedly with such obvious stuff. as for that buffoon's other observation, that it should be "a place where you can win", I whole-hearted disagree; it should be, in this particular case, the place where the terrorists who attacked the US on 9-11 are from; not the place where "you can win", but the place where they were from, and against those who financed and directed them; then, he told us that perhaps Iraq "isn't the right battlefield"; right place or wrong place, who gives a darn anymore, that seems the context this time; now, the "performance business" of war requires a shoot-on-sight curfew policy. And no doubt about it, in certain venues that's a policy maybe necessary at some or all times. But that just brings me back (as puzzled as ever at the buffoon's advice) to question "Is Iraq the right place? I mean, don't we have to be in the right place, before we institute curfews and a shoot-on-sight policy against those who violate them?" O'REILLY: Sometimes the battlefield isn't the right battlefield. Wouldn't you establish even that much first, before you go shooting any curfew violaters right between the eyes? This buffoon's advice, on the "performance business" of war, is a little bit ridiculous, and a whole lot confusing, to me anyway. Just what business is this buffoon in anyway, that he pretends to know so much about the "performance business" of war? Isn't this clown the former talking head on one of those Entertainment Business Gossip Shows, A Current Affair I think it was? Hardly a qualification to giving advice in these matters; hardly an expert on what he calls the "performance business" of war. While he was in the wrong place, it didn't matter, so what; knocked out three night janitors, and beat two security guards senseless; he didn't win the title that night, he didn't win the war; but who cares if you're not in the right place, kill 'em all anyway. How else should one interpret "if you got out of line, you're dead." business must be really slow, and conservative media bias can't be much of a problem. Btw, did you know that it now costs more than one cent to mint a penny? Flag this comment @ Happy to make it as clear as I can... This item to which we're posting comments, has the buffoon transcribed as saying "war is a performance business", in the context of explaining the necessity of a shoot-to-kill curfew in Iraq... O'REILLY: But you gotta get serious about this thing over there. that's the concluding thing said (as transcribed here) by the buffoon; and the context of the phrase "war is a performance" seems clear, and as I described it. But there's a couple of problems with waging a war on terror like this. That no matter how effective we are and how noble we are, because I do think that we are noble there, we might not be able to control this situation. O'REILLY: Well, it's not a matter of time, it's a matter of place. in which "war is a performance business" is used in the context of explaining the necessity of fighting on the right battlefield; " Sometimes the battlefield isn't the right battlefield. and without having taken anyone out of context in the least. O'REILLY: Sometimes the battlefield isn't the right battlefield. And if it turns out not to be the right place, if that should "turn out to be the case", then shouldn't we perhaps be getting fewer US Troops and Iraqis killed over there, instead of more? O'REILLY: But you gotta get serious about this thing over there. Well, that's not as brief a repetition of my point as I'd have liked, but I was happy to say it again anyway. And the far more serious point I had made I repeat again (though not so happily): An awful lot of US troops have been killed, and it's the advocacy and the cheering on of all that death that this buffoon proudly stands for; war that he off-handedly refers to as a "perfomance business". This is what we get when we give a game show host buffoon a platform from which to advocate and cheer on the deaths of US Troops in Iraq. What he gets is in excess of $10 million dollars per year for doing it. He's laughing all the way to the bank, this game show host buffoon is. It's not near as funny to the majority of the American People though, me included. Flag this comment o It's like Rusty Shackleford says below For a couple of years now, BOR has been one of the Kewl Kidz accusing liberals of wishing Saddam was still in charge. Here's a rightwing pundit armchair-quarterbacking "keeping the peace" in a war zone, AS IF THERE IS A SIMPLE WAY TO STABILIZE IRAQ. For example: If you have a curfew, even with "shoot to kill" orders, you have to have people spread out on the streets at night to ENFORCE it. Troops spread out on the streets at night are a "target rich" environment for snipers. A previous poster pointed out the MISINFORMATION in O'Reilly's claim about war being a "performance business". That PERFORMANCE demands knowledge, expertise, and the proper tactics. O'Reilly claims PERFORMANCE, but can't even decide if Iraq is the "wrong battlefield". If you're asked to "performace test" an automobile, the FIRST thing to do is make sure you have the damned RIGHT CAR. If you're in the WRONG car, you're wasting your time for nothing. PERFORMACE is dependent on getting the particulars RIGHT in the first place. It's also MISINFORMATION, to tell the public that it would be acceptable for the USA to impose a curfew and a "shoot civilians on sight" rule in a nation that we are CLAIMING is "free" and "liberated". You can't have BOTH, yet the Bush supporters wish to play a PR misinformation game that tells us how much "progress" is being made, and meanwhile there is chaos in the streets to the point O'Reilly is advocating martial law (which is a tyrant's tactic). Tons of MISINFORMATION here, attempts to deceive the public, contradictory depictions of conditions, and the suggestion that there are easy answers. Flag this comment * War Is A Performance Bu... |
www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm Past Comments About How Much Iraq Would Cost Earlier this year, experts said the war and aftermath in Iraq would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, a fact the White House refused to acknowledge as valid, even going so far as to fire Lawrence Lindsey for his realistic projections. Paul Wolfowitz even told the Senate "no one said we would know anything other than this would be very bloody, it could be very long and by implication, it could be very expensive." Here's a record of what the administration, in fact, said: Budget Director Mitch Daniels O/ On September 15^th 2002, White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay estimated the high limit on the cost to be 1-2% of GNP, or about $100-$200 billion. Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget subsequently discounted this estimate as "very, very high" and stated that the costs would be between $50-$60 billion Source: WSJ, "Bush Economic Aide Says Cost Of Iraq War May Top $100 Billion," Davis 09/16/02; Reuters News, "Daniels sees US Iraq war cost below $200 billion," 09/18/02 O/ "When a reporter asked Daniels yesterday whether the administration was preparing to ask other countries to help defray possible Iraq war costs, as the United States did for the 1991 war, the budget director said he knew of no such plans. Other countries are having economic downturns of their own, he said." Pittsburgh-Post Gazette, "Byrd attacks cost of possible Iraq War, McFeatters, 9/25/02 O/ "There's just no reason that this can't be an affordable endeavor." Source: Reuters, "US Officials Play Down Iraq Reconstruction Needs," Entous, 4/11/03 O/ "The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld O/ "Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the US burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question." Media Stakeout, 1/19/03 O/ "I don't know that there is much reconstruction to do." Source: Reuters, "US Officials Play Down Iraq Reconstruction Needs," Entous, 4/11/03 Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz O/ "I think it's necessary to preserve some ambiguity of exactly where the numbers are." Congressional Testimony , 7/29/03 Past Comments About How Much Iraq Would Cost The Bush administration promised reconstruction of Iraq could be financed through oil revenue, which they said would provide tens of billions of dollars. However, according to the New York Times, devastated and decrepit production systems leave the country "unable to make any significant contribution." Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: "Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction." When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." State Department Official Alan Larson: "On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the responsibilities. and unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the development fund." Source: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Iraq Stabilization, 06/04/03 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense... funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it. |
csua.org/u/ga6 -> www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw_key-findings.htm ab9a0ae2 Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Iraq Survey Group Final Report Key Findings Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable: * Saddam and many Iraqis regarded CW as a proven weapon against an enemy's superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already--during the Iran-Iraq war--and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad. While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered. Iraq'sCW program was crippled by the Gulf war and the legitimate chemical industry, which suffered under sanctions, only began to recover in the mid-1990s. Subsequent changes in the management of key military and civilian organizations, followed by an influx of funding and resources, provided Iraq with the ability to reinvigorate its industrial base. The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals, but ISG will not be able to resolve whether Iraq intended the system to underpin any CW-related efforts. Many of these projects, while not weapons-related, were designed to improve Iraq's infrastructure, which would have enhanced Iraq's ability to produce CW agents if the scaled-up production processes were implemented. ISG found no evidence that this system was used to acquire precursor chemicals in bulk; however documents indicate that dual-use laboratory equipment and chemicals were acquired through this system. Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure, although its overall industry had not fully recovered from the effects of sanctions, and had not regained pre-1991 technical sophistication or production capabilities prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). However, site visits and debriefs revealed that Iraq maintained its ability for reconfiguring and making-do' with available equipment as substitutes for sanctioned items. However, we have no credible indications that Iraq acquired or attempted to acquire large quantities of these chemicals through its existing procurement networks for sanctioned items. In addition to new investment in its industry, Iraq was able to monitor the location and use of all existing dual-use process equipment. This provided Iraq the ability to rapidly reallocate key equipment for proscribed activities, if required by the Regime. Iraq's historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose. Because of the risk of discovery and consequences for ending UN sanctions, Iraq would have significantly jeopardized its chances of having sanctions lifted or no longer enforced if the UN or foreign entity had discovered that Iraq had undertaken any weaponization activities. The available evidence is insufficient to determine the nature of the effort or the timeframe of activities. However, ISG has found ambiguous evidence of weaponization activities. Saddam's Leadership Defense Plan consisted of a tactical doctrine taught to all Iraqi officers and included the concept of a "red-line" or last line of defense. However, ISG has no information that the plan ever included a trigger for CW use. We believe these were mostly theoretical discussions and do not imply the existence of undiscovered CW munitions. Discussions concerning WMD, particularly leading up to OIF, would have been highly compartmentalized within the Regime. ISG found no credible evidence that any field elements knew about plans for CW use during Operation Iraqi Freedom. ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The network of laboratories could have provided an ideal, compartmented platform from which to continue CW agent R&D or small-scale production efforts, but we have no indications this was planned. However, sources indicate that M16 was planning to produce several CW agents including sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, and Sarin. Interviews with key IIS officials within and outside of M16 yielded very little information about the IIS' activities in this area. ISG investigated a series of key pre-OIF indicators involving the possible movement and storage of chemical weapons, focusing on 11 major depots assessed to have possible links to CW. A review of documents, interviews, available reporting, and site exploitations revealed alternate, plausible explanations for activities noted prior to OIF which, at the time, were believed to be CW-related. An extensive investigation of the facility revealed that there was no CW activity, unlike previously assessed. |