Interesting.
WALLACE, FOX NEWS REPORTER: When we announced that you were going to be on fox news Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I got to say I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question. Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President. There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called the Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops. Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole.
CLINTON: OK..
WALLACE: …may I just finish the question sir. And after the attack, the book says, Bin Laden separated his leaders because he expected an attack and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is 20 20.
CLINTON: No let’s talk about…
WALLACE: …but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?
CLINTON: OK, let’s talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits but I want to talk about the context of which this…arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network…ABC just had a right wing conservative on the Path to 9/11 falsely claim that it was based on the 911 commission report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 commission report. I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much. Same people.
They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in black hawk down and I refused to do it and stayed 6 months and had an orderly transfer to the UN.
Ok, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Bin laden had anything to do with black hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of 1993.
WALLACE: …I understand…
CLINTON: No wait…no wait…Don’t tell me. You asked me why I didn’t do more to Bin Laden. There was not a living soul…all the people who criticized me wanted to leave the next day. You brought this up so you get an answer.
WALLACE: I’m perfectly happy to. Bin Laden says…
CLINTON: And secondly…
WALLACE: Bin Laden says…
CLINTON: Bin laden may have said that…
WALLACE: Bin Laden says it showed the weakness of the US…
CLINTON: It would have shown the weakness if we left right away but he wasn’t involved in that. That’s just a bunch of bull. That was about Mohammed Adid, a Muslim war lord murdering..thousands of Pakistani Muslim troops. We were all there on a humanitarian mission. We had not one mission — none — to establish a certain kind of Somali government or to keep anybody out. He was not a religious fanatic.
WALLACE: But Mr. President…
CLINTON: There was no Al Qaeda…
WALLACE: …with respect if I may. Instead of going through 93.
CLINTON: You asked you. It you brought it up.
WALLACE: May I ask a general question that you can answer. The 9/11 Commission, which you talk about, and this is what they did say, not what ABC pretended they said…
CLINTON: Wait, Wait…
WALLACE: …they said about you and 43 and I quote, “The US government took the threat seriously, not in the sense of mustering anything like that would be….to confront an enemy of the first, second or third rank”
CLINTON: That’s not true with us and Bin Laden…
WALLACE: …the 9/11 commission says…
CLINTON: Let’s look at what Richard Clarke says. You think Richard Clarke has a vigorous attitude about Bin Laden?
WALLACE: Yes I do
CLINTON: You do?
WALLACE: I think he has a variety of opinions and loyalties but yes.
CLINTON: He has a variety of opinion and loyalties now but let’s look at the facts. He worked for Ronald Regan. He was loyal to him. He worked for George Herbert Walker Bush and he was loyal to him. He worked for me and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush; he was loyal to him. They downgraded him and the terrorist operation. Now, look what he said, read his book and read his factual assertions — not opinions, assertions. He said we took vigorous action after the African embassies. We probably nearly got Bin Laden.
WALLACE: …
CLINTON: Now wait a minute…
WALLACE: ..cruise missiles..
CLINTON: I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him. The CIA was run by George Tenet who President Bush gave the medal of freedom to and said he did a good job.. The country never had a comprehensive anti terror operation until I came to office. If you can criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this, after the Cole I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full scale attack search for Bin Laden. But we needed baseing rights in Uzbekistan which we got after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred special forces in helicopters and refuel at night. Even the 9/11 Commission didn’t do that. Now the 9/11 Commission was a political document too. All I’m asking is if anybody wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book.
WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?
CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him
WALLACE: Right…
CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t….. I tired. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke… So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..
WALLACE: Now wait a minute sir…
CLINTON:..
WALLACE: I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?
CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked why didn’t you do anything about the Cole. I want to know how many you asked why did you fire Dick Clarke. I want to know…
WALLACE: We asked..
CLINTON:..
WALLACE: Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday sir?
CLINTON: I don’t believe you ask them that.
WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of…
CLINTON: You didn’t ask that did you? Tell the truth
WALLACE: About the USS Cole?
CLINTON: tell the truth.
WALLACE: I…with Iraq and Afghanistan there’s plenty of stuff to ask.
CLINTON: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about…
WALLACE: [laughs]
CLINTON: You said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion dollars plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.
WALLACE: But President Clinton…
CLINTON:
WALLACE: We were going to ask half the question about it. I didn’t think this was going to set you off on such a tear .
CLINTON: It set me off on such a tear because you didn’t formulate it in an honest way and you people ask me questions you don’t ask the other side.
WALLACE: Sir that is not true…
CLINTON: …and Richard Clarke…
WALLACE: That is not true…
CLINTON: Richard Clarke made it clear in his testimony…
WALLACE: Would you like to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative?
CLINTON: No I want to finish this.
WALLACE: Alright
CLINTON: All I’m saying is you falsely accuse me of giving aid and comfort to Bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew al Qaeda existed then…
WALLACE: Did they know in 1996 when he declared war on the US? Did no one know in 1998…
CLINTON: Absolutely they did
WALLACE: When they bombed the two embassies…
CLINTON:…
WALLACE: Or in 2000 when they hit the Cole.
CLINTON: What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now I never criticized President Bush and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that think Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…
WALLACE: [Laughs]
CLINTON: I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin laden. I regret it but I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending special forces in to Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise…We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. Until I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that’s strange.
WALLACE: Can I ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative?
CLINTON: You can.
WALLACE: I always intended to sir.
CLINTON: No you intended to move your bones by doing this first. But I don’t mind people asking me. I actually talked o the 9/11 commission for four hours and I told them the mistakes I thought I made. And I urged them to make those mistakes public because I thought none of us had been perfect. But instead of anybody talking about those things. I always get these clever little political…where they ask me one sided questions… It always comes from one source. And so…
WALLACE:…
CLINTON: And so…
WALLACE: I just want to ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative but what’s the source? You seem upset?
CLINTON: I am upset because..
WALLACE: …and all I can say is I’m asking you in good faith because it’s on people’s minds sir. And I wasn’t…
CLINTON: There’s a reason it’s on people’s minds. That’s the point I’m trying to make. There’s a reason it’s on people’s minds because they’ve done a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression. This country only has one person who has worked…against terror…under Regan…only one, Richard Clarke. And all I’d say anybody who wonders whether we did wrong or right. Anybody who wants to see what everybody else did, read his book. The people on my political right who say I didn’t do enough spent the whole time I was president saying why is he so obsessed with Bin Laden. And that was wag the dog when he tried to kill him. My Republican sec of defense — and I think I’m the only person since World War II to have a Secretary of Defense from the opposite party — Richard Clarke, and all the intelligence people said that I ordered a vigorous attempt to get Osama Bin Laden and came closer apparently than anybody has since.
WALLACE: alright…
CLINTON: And you guys try to create the opposite impression when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s findings and you know it’s not true. It’s just not true. And all this business about Somalia — the same people who criticized me about Somalia were demanding I leave the next day. Same exact crowd..
WALLACE: one of the…
CLINTON: …So if you’re going to do this for gods sake follow the same standards for everybody.
WALLACE: I think we do sir
CLINTON: …be fair.
WALLACE: I think we do.
New Developments II
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Interesting.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006....apology
Keith Olbermann: Finally tonight, a Special Comment about the Rose Garden news conference last Friday.
The President of the United States owes this country an apology. It will not be offered, of course. He does not realize its necessity.
There are now none around him who would tell him - or could. The last of them, it appears, was the very man whose letter provoked the President into the conduct, for which the apology is essential. An apology is this President’s only hope of regaining the slightest measure of confidence, of what has been, for nearly two years, a clear majority of his people.
Not "confidence" in his policies nor in his designs nor even in something as narrowly focused as which vision of torture shall prevail — his, or that of the man who has sent him into apoplexy, Colin Powell. In a larger sense, the President needs to regain our confidence, that he has some basic understanding of what this country represents — of what it must maintain if we are to defeat not only terrorists, but if we are also to defeat what is ever more increasingly apparent, as an attempt to re-define the way we live here, and what we mean, when we say the word "freedom."
Because it is evident now that, if not its architect, this President intends to be the contractor, for this narrowing of the definition of freedom. The President revealed this last Friday, as he fairly spat through his teeth, words of unrestrained fury…
…directed at the man who was once the very symbol of his administration, who was once an ambassador from this administration to its critics, as he had once been an ambassador from the military to its critics. The former Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, had written, simply and candidly and without anger, that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."
This President’s response included not merely what is apparently the Presidential equivalent of threatening to hold one’s breath, but — within — it contained one particularly chilling phrase. Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don’t you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you’re following a flawed strategy? BUSH: If there’s any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it’s flawed logic. It’s just — I simply can’t accept that. It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.
Of course** it’s acceptable to think that there’s "any kind of comparison." And in this particular debate, it is not only acceptable, it is obviously necessary. Some will think that our actions at Abu Ghraib, or in Guantanamo, or in secret prisons in Eastern Europe, are all too comparable to the actions of the extremists. Some will think that there is no similarity, or, if there is one, it is to the slightest and most unavoidable of degrees.
What all of us will agree on, is that we have the right — we have the duty — to think about the comparison. And, most importantly, that the other guy, whose opinion about this we cannot fathom, has exactly the same right as we do: to think — and say — what his mind and his heart and his conscience tell him, is right.
All of us agree about that.
Except, it seems, this President.
With increasing rage, he and his administration have begun to tell us, we are not permitted to disagree with them, that we cannot be right. That Colin Powell cannot be right.And then there was that one, most awful phrase.
In four simple words last Friday, the President brought into sharp focus what has been only vaguely clear these past five-and-a-half years - the way the terrain at night is perceptible only during an angry flash of lightning, and then, a second later, all again is dark.
"It’s unacceptable to think…" he said. It is never unacceptable… to think.
And when a President says thinking is unacceptable, even on one topic, even in the heat of the moment, even in the turning of a phrase extracted from its context… he takes us toward a new and fearful path — one heretofore the realm of science fiction authors and apocalyptic visionaries.
That flash of lightning freezes at the distant horizon, and we can just make out a world in which authority can actually suggest it has become unacceptable to think. hus the lightning flash reveals not merely a President we have already seen, the one who believes he has a monopoly on current truth.
It now shows us a President who has decided that of all our commanders-in-chief, ever… he, alone, has had the knowledge necessary to alter and re-shape our inalienable rights. This is a frightening, and a dangerous, delusion, Mr. President.
If Mr. Powell’s letter - cautionary, concerned, predominantly supportive — can induce from you such wrath and such intolerance — what would you say were this statement to be shouted to you by a reporter, or written to you by a colleague?
"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government…"
Those incendiary thoughts came, of course, from a prior holder of your job, Mr. Bush. They were the words of Thomas Jefferson.
He put them in the Declaration of Independence. Mr. Bush, what would you say to something that annti-thetical to the status quo just now? Would you call it "unacceptable" for Jefferson to think such things, or to write them?
Between your confidence in your infallibility, sir, and your demonizing of dissent, and now these rages better suited to a thwarted three-year old, you have left the unnerving sense of a White House coming unglued - a chilling suspicion that perhaps we have not seen the peak of the anger; that we can no longer forecast what next will be said to, or about, anyone… who disagrees.
Or what will next be done to them. On this newscast last Friday night, Constitiutional law Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, suggested that at some point in the near future…some of the "detainees" transferred from secret CIA cells to Guantanamo, will finally get to tell the Red Cross that they have indeed been tortured.
Thus the debate over the Geneva Conventions, might not be about further interrogations of detainees, but about those already conducted, and the possible liability of the administration, for them. That, certainly, could explain Mr. Bush’s fury.
That, at this point, is speculative. But at least it provides an alternative possibility as to why the President’s words were at such variance from the entire history of this country. For, there needs to be some other explanation, Mr. Bush, than that you truly believe we should live in a United States of America in which a thought is unacceptable.
There needs to be a delegation of responsible leaders — Republicans or otherwise — who can sit you down as Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott once sat Richard Nixon down - and explain the **reality** of the situation you have created.
There needs to be… an apology from the President of the United States.
And more than one.
But, Mr. Bush, the others — for warnings unheeded five years ago, for war unjustified four years ago, for battle unprepared three years ago — they are not weighted with the urgency and necessity of this one. We must know that, to you…thought with which you disagree — and even voice with which you disagree - and even action with which you disagree — are still sacrosanct to you.
The philosopher Voltaire once insisted to another author, "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Since the nation’s birth, Mr. Bush, we have misquoted and even embellished that statement, but we have served ourselves well, by subscribing to its essence.
Oddly, there are other words of Voltaire’s that are more pertinent still, just now. "Think for yourselves," he wrote, "and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too." Apologize, sir, for even hinting at an America where a few have that privilege to think — and the rest of us get yelled at by the President.
Anything else, Mr. Bush, is truly… unacceptable.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006....apology
Keith Olbermann: Finally tonight, a Special Comment about the Rose Garden news conference last Friday.
The President of the United States owes this country an apology. It will not be offered, of course. He does not realize its necessity.
There are now none around him who would tell him - or could. The last of them, it appears, was the very man whose letter provoked the President into the conduct, for which the apology is essential. An apology is this President’s only hope of regaining the slightest measure of confidence, of what has been, for nearly two years, a clear majority of his people.
Not "confidence" in his policies nor in his designs nor even in something as narrowly focused as which vision of torture shall prevail — his, or that of the man who has sent him into apoplexy, Colin Powell. In a larger sense, the President needs to regain our confidence, that he has some basic understanding of what this country represents — of what it must maintain if we are to defeat not only terrorists, but if we are also to defeat what is ever more increasingly apparent, as an attempt to re-define the way we live here, and what we mean, when we say the word "freedom."
Because it is evident now that, if not its architect, this President intends to be the contractor, for this narrowing of the definition of freedom. The President revealed this last Friday, as he fairly spat through his teeth, words of unrestrained fury…
…directed at the man who was once the very symbol of his administration, who was once an ambassador from this administration to its critics, as he had once been an ambassador from the military to its critics. The former Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, had written, simply and candidly and without anger, that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."
This President’s response included not merely what is apparently the Presidential equivalent of threatening to hold one’s breath, but — within — it contained one particularly chilling phrase. Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don’t you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you’re following a flawed strategy? BUSH: If there’s any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it’s flawed logic. It’s just — I simply can’t accept that. It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.
Of course** it’s acceptable to think that there’s "any kind of comparison." And in this particular debate, it is not only acceptable, it is obviously necessary. Some will think that our actions at Abu Ghraib, or in Guantanamo, or in secret prisons in Eastern Europe, are all too comparable to the actions of the extremists. Some will think that there is no similarity, or, if there is one, it is to the slightest and most unavoidable of degrees.
What all of us will agree on, is that we have the right — we have the duty — to think about the comparison. And, most importantly, that the other guy, whose opinion about this we cannot fathom, has exactly the same right as we do: to think — and say — what his mind and his heart and his conscience tell him, is right.
All of us agree about that.
Except, it seems, this President.
With increasing rage, he and his administration have begun to tell us, we are not permitted to disagree with them, that we cannot be right. That Colin Powell cannot be right.And then there was that one, most awful phrase.
In four simple words last Friday, the President brought into sharp focus what has been only vaguely clear these past five-and-a-half years - the way the terrain at night is perceptible only during an angry flash of lightning, and then, a second later, all again is dark.
"It’s unacceptable to think…" he said. It is never unacceptable… to think.
And when a President says thinking is unacceptable, even on one topic, even in the heat of the moment, even in the turning of a phrase extracted from its context… he takes us toward a new and fearful path — one heretofore the realm of science fiction authors and apocalyptic visionaries.
That flash of lightning freezes at the distant horizon, and we can just make out a world in which authority can actually suggest it has become unacceptable to think. hus the lightning flash reveals not merely a President we have already seen, the one who believes he has a monopoly on current truth.
It now shows us a President who has decided that of all our commanders-in-chief, ever… he, alone, has had the knowledge necessary to alter and re-shape our inalienable rights. This is a frightening, and a dangerous, delusion, Mr. President.
If Mr. Powell’s letter - cautionary, concerned, predominantly supportive — can induce from you such wrath and such intolerance — what would you say were this statement to be shouted to you by a reporter, or written to you by a colleague?
"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government…"
Those incendiary thoughts came, of course, from a prior holder of your job, Mr. Bush. They were the words of Thomas Jefferson.
He put them in the Declaration of Independence. Mr. Bush, what would you say to something that annti-thetical to the status quo just now? Would you call it "unacceptable" for Jefferson to think such things, or to write them?
Between your confidence in your infallibility, sir, and your demonizing of dissent, and now these rages better suited to a thwarted three-year old, you have left the unnerving sense of a White House coming unglued - a chilling suspicion that perhaps we have not seen the peak of the anger; that we can no longer forecast what next will be said to, or about, anyone… who disagrees.
Or what will next be done to them. On this newscast last Friday night, Constitiutional law Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, suggested that at some point in the near future…some of the "detainees" transferred from secret CIA cells to Guantanamo, will finally get to tell the Red Cross that they have indeed been tortured.
Thus the debate over the Geneva Conventions, might not be about further interrogations of detainees, but about those already conducted, and the possible liability of the administration, for them. That, certainly, could explain Mr. Bush’s fury.
That, at this point, is speculative. But at least it provides an alternative possibility as to why the President’s words were at such variance from the entire history of this country. For, there needs to be some other explanation, Mr. Bush, than that you truly believe we should live in a United States of America in which a thought is unacceptable.
There needs to be a delegation of responsible leaders — Republicans or otherwise — who can sit you down as Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott once sat Richard Nixon down - and explain the **reality** of the situation you have created.
There needs to be… an apology from the President of the United States.
And more than one.
But, Mr. Bush, the others — for warnings unheeded five years ago, for war unjustified four years ago, for battle unprepared three years ago — they are not weighted with the urgency and necessity of this one. We must know that, to you…thought with which you disagree — and even voice with which you disagree - and even action with which you disagree — are still sacrosanct to you.
The philosopher Voltaire once insisted to another author, "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Since the nation’s birth, Mr. Bush, we have misquoted and even embellished that statement, but we have served ourselves well, by subscribing to its essence.
Oddly, there are other words of Voltaire’s that are more pertinent still, just now. "Think for yourselves," he wrote, "and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too." Apologize, sir, for even hinting at an America where a few have that privilege to think — and the rest of us get yelled at by the President.
Anything else, Mr. Bush, is truly… unacceptable.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
criddic, you might be interested to see that Dubya actually had this to say about bin Laden at one of his rare press conferences:
Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
This is on the whitehouse web site:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
This is on the whitehouse web site:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
US Intelligence hasn't been trying to capture Bin Laden for awhile now; Late last year, the CIA closed the unit that was dedicated to searching for him.criddic3 wrote:If untrue, then he must be captured sooner rather than later. Hopefully the debate over his passing will bring him out of hiding to make another video or somthing that intelligence officials can use to locate him.
True or False?
French newspaper claims Bin Laden is dead of Thyphoid disease. If true, what does that mean to Americans?
There are two scenarios I can see:
1. If Bin Laden is indeed dead, many will complain that he wasn't killed by a bomb.
2. On the other hand, many will take consolation in the fact that the terrorist leader spent the remainder of his life in hiding, contracting a deadly disease that he wasn't able to cure (despite millions getting Thyphoid all the time in parts of the world) because he could not receive proper medical help.
While neither sentiments are particularly civil, it's clear that few will mourn him outside of al-Qaeda.
If this report is true, along with later stories from Time Magazine reporters that they are being told of Bin Laden's illness (without confirmation of his demise), it's an ironic turn of events for the man who led the attacks on 9/11.
If untrue, then he must be captured sooner rather than later. Hopefully the debate over his passing will bring him out of hiding to make another video or somthing that intelligence officials can use to locate him. Wishful thinking, maybe, but I'd like to see him on the front page of newspapers in handcuffs being taken to Guantanamo Bay. If he's dead, we'll never see this happen. Oh, well.
French newspaper claims Bin Laden is dead of Thyphoid disease. If true, what does that mean to Americans?
There are two scenarios I can see:
1. If Bin Laden is indeed dead, many will complain that he wasn't killed by a bomb.
2. On the other hand, many will take consolation in the fact that the terrorist leader spent the remainder of his life in hiding, contracting a deadly disease that he wasn't able to cure (despite millions getting Thyphoid all the time in parts of the world) because he could not receive proper medical help.
While neither sentiments are particularly civil, it's clear that few will mourn him outside of al-Qaeda.
If this report is true, along with later stories from Time Magazine reporters that they are being told of Bin Laden's illness (without confirmation of his demise), it's an ironic turn of events for the man who led the attacks on 9/11.
If untrue, then he must be captured sooner rather than later. Hopefully the debate over his passing will bring him out of hiding to make another video or somthing that intelligence officials can use to locate him. Wishful thinking, maybe, but I'd like to see him on the front page of newspapers in handcuffs being taken to Guantanamo Bay. If he's dead, we'll never see this happen. Oh, well.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
WAR DEATHS IN IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN EQUAL 9/11 TOLLl
By Calvin Woodward AP
WASHINGTON (Sept. 23) - Now the death toll is 9/11 times two. U.S. military deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan now match those of the most devastating terrorist attack in America's history, the trigger for what came next. Add casualties from chasing terrorists elsewhere in the world, and the total has passed the Sept. 11 figure.
The latest milestone for a country at war comes without commemoration. It also may well come without the precision of knowing who is the 2,973rd man or woman of arms to die in conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, or just when it happens. The terrorist attacks killed 2,973 victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
Not for the first time, war that was started to answer death has resulted in at least as much death for the country that was first attacked, quite apart from the higher numbers of enemy and civilians killed, too.
Historians note that this grim accounting is not how the success or failure of warfare is measured, and that the reasons for conflict are broader than what served as the spark.
The body count from World War II was far higher for Allied troops than for the crushed Axis. Americans lost more men in each of a succession of Pacific battles than the 2,390 people who died at Pearl Harbor in the attack that made the U.S. declare war on Japan. The U.S. lost 405,399 in the theaters of World War II.
Despite a death toll that pales next to that of the great wars, one casualty milestone after another has been observed and reflected upon this time, especially in Iraq.
There was the benchmark of seeing more U.S. troops die in the occupation than in the swift and successful invasion. And the benchmarks of 1,000 dead, 2,000, 2,500.
Now this.
"There's never a good war but if the war's going well and the overall mission remains powerful, these numbers are not what people are focusing on," said Julian Zelizer, a political historian at Boston University. "If this becomes the subject, then something's gone wrong."
Beyond the tribulations of the moment and the now-rampant doubts about the justification and course of the Iraq war, Zelizer said Americans have lost firsthand knowledge of the costs of war that existed keenly up to the 1960s, when people remembered two world wars and Korea, and faced Vietnam.
"A kind of numbness comes from that," he said. "We're not that country anymore - more bothered, more nervous. This isn't a country that's used to ground wars anymore."
Almost 10 times more Americans have died in Iraq than in Afghanistan, where U.S. casualties have been remarkably light by any historical standard, although climbing in recent months in the face of a resurgent Taliban.
As of Friday, the U.S. death toll stood at 2,693 in the Iraq war and 278 in and around Afghanistan, for a total of 2,971, two short of the Sept. 11 attacks.
The Pentagon reports 56 military deaths and one civilian Defense Department death in other parts of the world from Operation Enduring Freedom, the anti-terrorism war distinct from Iraq. Altogether, 3,028 have died abroad since Sept. 11, 2001.
The latest identified by the armed forces:
Army 2nd Lt. Emily J.T. Perez, 23, Fort Washington, Md., who died Sept. 12 in Kifl, Iraq, from an explosive device detonated near her vehicle. A former high school sprinter who sang in her West Point gospel choir, she was assigned to the 204th Support Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.
Marine Sgt. Christopher M. Zimmerman, 28, Stephenville, Texas, killed Wednesday in Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.
A new study on the war dead and where they come from suggests that the notion of "rich man's war, poor man's fight" has become a little truer over time.
Among the Americans killed in the Iraq war, 34 percent have come from communities reporting the lowest levels of family income. Half have come from middle income communities and only 17 percent from the highest income level.
That's a change from World War II, when all income groups were represented about equally. In Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, the poor have made up a progressively larger share of casualties, by this analysis.
Eye-for-an-eye vengeance was not the sole motivator for what happened after the 2001 attacks any more than Pearl Harbor alone was responsible for all that followed. But Pearl Harbor caught the U.S. in the middle of mobilization, debate, rising tensions with looming enemies and a European war already in progress. Historians doubt anyone paid much attention to sad milestones once America threw itself into the fight.
In contrast, the United States had no war intentions against anyone on Sept. 10, 2001. One bloody day later, it did.
By Calvin Woodward AP
WASHINGTON (Sept. 23) - Now the death toll is 9/11 times two. U.S. military deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan now match those of the most devastating terrorist attack in America's history, the trigger for what came next. Add casualties from chasing terrorists elsewhere in the world, and the total has passed the Sept. 11 figure.
The latest milestone for a country at war comes without commemoration. It also may well come without the precision of knowing who is the 2,973rd man or woman of arms to die in conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, or just when it happens. The terrorist attacks killed 2,973 victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
Not for the first time, war that was started to answer death has resulted in at least as much death for the country that was first attacked, quite apart from the higher numbers of enemy and civilians killed, too.
Historians note that this grim accounting is not how the success or failure of warfare is measured, and that the reasons for conflict are broader than what served as the spark.
The body count from World War II was far higher for Allied troops than for the crushed Axis. Americans lost more men in each of a succession of Pacific battles than the 2,390 people who died at Pearl Harbor in the attack that made the U.S. declare war on Japan. The U.S. lost 405,399 in the theaters of World War II.
Despite a death toll that pales next to that of the great wars, one casualty milestone after another has been observed and reflected upon this time, especially in Iraq.
There was the benchmark of seeing more U.S. troops die in the occupation than in the swift and successful invasion. And the benchmarks of 1,000 dead, 2,000, 2,500.
Now this.
"There's never a good war but if the war's going well and the overall mission remains powerful, these numbers are not what people are focusing on," said Julian Zelizer, a political historian at Boston University. "If this becomes the subject, then something's gone wrong."
Beyond the tribulations of the moment and the now-rampant doubts about the justification and course of the Iraq war, Zelizer said Americans have lost firsthand knowledge of the costs of war that existed keenly up to the 1960s, when people remembered two world wars and Korea, and faced Vietnam.
"A kind of numbness comes from that," he said. "We're not that country anymore - more bothered, more nervous. This isn't a country that's used to ground wars anymore."
Almost 10 times more Americans have died in Iraq than in Afghanistan, where U.S. casualties have been remarkably light by any historical standard, although climbing in recent months in the face of a resurgent Taliban.
As of Friday, the U.S. death toll stood at 2,693 in the Iraq war and 278 in and around Afghanistan, for a total of 2,971, two short of the Sept. 11 attacks.
The Pentagon reports 56 military deaths and one civilian Defense Department death in other parts of the world from Operation Enduring Freedom, the anti-terrorism war distinct from Iraq. Altogether, 3,028 have died abroad since Sept. 11, 2001.
The latest identified by the armed forces:
Army 2nd Lt. Emily J.T. Perez, 23, Fort Washington, Md., who died Sept. 12 in Kifl, Iraq, from an explosive device detonated near her vehicle. A former high school sprinter who sang in her West Point gospel choir, she was assigned to the 204th Support Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.
Marine Sgt. Christopher M. Zimmerman, 28, Stephenville, Texas, killed Wednesday in Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.
A new study on the war dead and where they come from suggests that the notion of "rich man's war, poor man's fight" has become a little truer over time.
Among the Americans killed in the Iraq war, 34 percent have come from communities reporting the lowest levels of family income. Half have come from middle income communities and only 17 percent from the highest income level.
That's a change from World War II, when all income groups were represented about equally. In Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, the poor have made up a progressively larger share of casualties, by this analysis.
Eye-for-an-eye vengeance was not the sole motivator for what happened after the 2001 attacks any more than Pearl Harbor alone was responsible for all that followed. But Pearl Harbor caught the U.S. in the middle of mobilization, debate, rising tensions with looming enemies and a European war already in progress. Historians doubt anyone paid much attention to sad milestones once America threw itself into the fight.
In contrast, the United States had no war intentions against anyone on Sept. 10, 2001. One bloody day later, it did.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Strained army looks to Guard for more relief
WASHINGTON (Sept. 22) - Strains on the Army from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have become so severe that Army officials say they may be forced to make greater use of the National Guard to provide enough troops for overseas deployments.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news....0000001
WASHINGTON (Sept. 22) - Strains on the Army from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have become so severe that Army officials say they may be forced to make greater use of the National Guard to provide enough troops for overseas deployments.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news....0000001
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
This is pretty funny, kind of like an old vaudeville act. From BobGeiger.com:
FRIST BLAMES DEMOCRATIC MINORITY FOR DO-NOTHING CONGRESS, GETS SPANKED
How did Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) commemorate Constitution and Citizenship Day, when he returned to the Senate floor on Monday? In an odd twist of logic, he blamed the minority party for how little work has been done in the 109th Congress.
September 17, which fell on Sunday, celebrated the ratification of the United States Constitution and Frist used that occasion to announce that Senate Democrats are actually the reason that the last 20 legislative months have been proclaimed the "Do-Nothing Congress."
"Too often my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have inhibited the fulfillment of our duty," said Frist, after a stirring reading of the preamble of the Constitution. "They have relied on obstruction and thrown up roadblocks at every opportunity. They have let politics get in the way of sound policy and purpose. That is unacceptable."
Frist read a laundry list of issues he believes are important and that will be left on the back burner after the Senate's scheduled October 6 adjournment and urged Democrats to "…review our Constitution's Preamble, to consider anew our purpose here in the Senate, and to let that purpose guide our debate and action here on the Senate floor."
Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who has endured this Congress with control of no committees, an inability to pass any meaningful legislation and no say over the Senate's legislative agenda, was on Frist faster than Halliburton snaps up a no-bid contract.
"For more than 3 years, this Congress, which has been given the name of the "do-nothing Congress,'' has turned a blind eye to the intractable war in Iraq, ignoring the administration's many mistakes and allowing it to stay on a failed course," said Reid. "Here we are, with 6 days left in the 109th Congress, and the Republicans, who control the House and Senate and the White House, have not held one hearing -- not one -- into the President's wartime failures."
Given how little attention the White House and Congressional Republicans have actually paid to the Constitution in the last few years, I'm sure Frist was blindsided by Reid actually invoking that old checks and balances thing that schoolchildren all over America were probably learning about last week.
Reid went on to give the Senate leadership a quick history lesson on how Congress is suppose to work and how it indeed operated before the current crop of Bush rubber-stampers took over:
"During the Civil War, President Lincoln was faced continually with oversight hearings by his Congress. Of course, we know during World War II, there were a number of commissions. The most famous was that conducted by Senator Harry Truman of Missouri, which led to his becoming Vice President. Some say, but for that he would not have been chosen as Vice President.
"What was the Truman Commission? It was to determine what was going on with World War II. Was money being wasted? Were troop levels right? Korean war hearings were also held, and the same for the Vietnam war. But for this war, none--even though this war has taken longer than it took to settle the differences in the European theater in World War II. Soon it will be the same amount of time that we were able to beat Japan."
Reid then let loose the frustration that's no doubt been building after watching Republicans shoot down three attempts by Democrats to raise the federal minimum wage in this Congress and killing many pieces of legislation designed to bolster homeland security -- including the 528-page, Democratic-sponsored Real Security Act of 2006, which was snuffed by Republicans just last week.
"This Republican Congress has wasted 20 months on horse slaughtering; the Schiavo case, dealing with someone's personal relationship, which should not even have been before this body; gay marriage; the nuclear option; flag burning; repealing the estate tax," said Reid. "But they could not find a day for some time to look at the President's mistakes, missteps, and misconduct, which have hurt American security and plunged Iraq into a civil war -- not a day."
I guess you just have to call Reid an old-school kind of guy, hanging in there, against such great Republican opposition, with his insistence that the Senate maintain its mandated oversight of the executive branch.
But the real show-stopper came when Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Il) stepped up to the microphone to engage Reid is a dialog that must have had Republican teeth gnashing all the way to the White House. Here it is, straight from the Congressional Record:
Mr. Durbin: Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. Reid: I will be happy to yield for a question.
Mr. Durbin: Can the Senator refresh my memory? Was Mr. Bremmer the recipient of a gold medal or something from the President? Didn't he receive some high decoration or medal for his performance in Iraq?
Mr. Reid: The answer is, yes, he received that. I assume one would expect that from somebody who had a throne while he was over there.
Mr. Durbin: Isn't it also true that George Tenet, who was responsible for the intelligence that was so bad that led us into the war in Iraq, got a medal from the President the same day?
Mr. Reid: That is true.
Mr. Durbin: Did Michael Brown with FEMA receive a gold medal from the White House before he was dismissed?
Mr. Reid: I don't think he did. Even though he was doing a heck of a job, I don't think he obtained a medal from the White House.
Mr. Durbin: Apparently, these gold medals were being awarded for incompetence. They missed Mr. Brown, but they did give one to Mr. Bremmer. Will the Senator yield for another question?
Mr. Reid: I will be happy to.
Mr. Durbin: I am trying to recall the exact number -- it was in the billions of dollars -- that we gave to the President for the reconstruction of Iraq; is that not true?
Mr. Reid: It started out at $18 billion. But as the Senator from Illinois will remember, part of that money, stacks of one-hundred-dollar bills, was used by some of the contractors who were sent over there to play football games -- some of these same people.
Mr. Durbin: It is also true, is it not, that the Democratic policy conference has been holding hearings -- in fact, I think it is the only agency on the Hill holding hearings -- on this waste and abuse, this profiteering and corruption at the expense of American taxpayers and even, equally important -- more importantly -- at the expense of our troops?
Mr. Reid: I say to my friend, this war is approaching 3 1/2 years, and there has not been a single congressional oversight hearing on the conduct of the war. This war has now cost us, the American taxpayers, about $325 billion. There has not been a single congressional oversight hearing on the war.
Mr. Durbin: I ask the Senator from Nevada if he might comment on this as well: Are we not in a situation where the President has told us that he wants to "stay the course'' in Iraq, and Vice President Cheney, when asked a week ago, said he wouldn't change a thing in the way they have done this war in Iraq? Is it very clear that unless there is a change in leadership in this town soon, we are going to continue down this disastrous course, exposing our soldiers to danger every single day, their families to the anxiety of separation, and the taxpayers of this country to billions and billions of dollars more being spent that don't make us any safer?
Mr. Reid: I say to my friend, I spent the weekend reading a book. I did other things. I spent a lot of time on an airplane. The book is called "Fiasco,'' written by a man named Thomas Ricks who has spent his life covering the military. He has written books on the military. I don't know his political persuasion. This book is on the best seller's list of the New York Times.
In this book, he talks in such detail about what has happened as a result of the incompetence of this administration to our valiant fighting men and women over there. I recommend the book to anyone. It is a searing indictment of this administration.
Reid then thrust the final dagger on his own saying, "The war in Iraq has been a diversion from the real war on terror. But this administration and this do-nothing Congress are content to stay the course, even as it makes America less safe and Iraq less stable. We need a new direction. This Congress has failed."
At this point, I'm sure Bill Frist was sitting at his desk writing something along the lines of "Note to self: do not ... bring ...toothpick ... to a knife fight."
FRIST BLAMES DEMOCRATIC MINORITY FOR DO-NOTHING CONGRESS, GETS SPANKED
How did Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) commemorate Constitution and Citizenship Day, when he returned to the Senate floor on Monday? In an odd twist of logic, he blamed the minority party for how little work has been done in the 109th Congress.
September 17, which fell on Sunday, celebrated the ratification of the United States Constitution and Frist used that occasion to announce that Senate Democrats are actually the reason that the last 20 legislative months have been proclaimed the "Do-Nothing Congress."
"Too often my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have inhibited the fulfillment of our duty," said Frist, after a stirring reading of the preamble of the Constitution. "They have relied on obstruction and thrown up roadblocks at every opportunity. They have let politics get in the way of sound policy and purpose. That is unacceptable."
Frist read a laundry list of issues he believes are important and that will be left on the back burner after the Senate's scheduled October 6 adjournment and urged Democrats to "…review our Constitution's Preamble, to consider anew our purpose here in the Senate, and to let that purpose guide our debate and action here on the Senate floor."
Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who has endured this Congress with control of no committees, an inability to pass any meaningful legislation and no say over the Senate's legislative agenda, was on Frist faster than Halliburton snaps up a no-bid contract.
"For more than 3 years, this Congress, which has been given the name of the "do-nothing Congress,'' has turned a blind eye to the intractable war in Iraq, ignoring the administration's many mistakes and allowing it to stay on a failed course," said Reid. "Here we are, with 6 days left in the 109th Congress, and the Republicans, who control the House and Senate and the White House, have not held one hearing -- not one -- into the President's wartime failures."
Given how little attention the White House and Congressional Republicans have actually paid to the Constitution in the last few years, I'm sure Frist was blindsided by Reid actually invoking that old checks and balances thing that schoolchildren all over America were probably learning about last week.
Reid went on to give the Senate leadership a quick history lesson on how Congress is suppose to work and how it indeed operated before the current crop of Bush rubber-stampers took over:
"During the Civil War, President Lincoln was faced continually with oversight hearings by his Congress. Of course, we know during World War II, there were a number of commissions. The most famous was that conducted by Senator Harry Truman of Missouri, which led to his becoming Vice President. Some say, but for that he would not have been chosen as Vice President.
"What was the Truman Commission? It was to determine what was going on with World War II. Was money being wasted? Were troop levels right? Korean war hearings were also held, and the same for the Vietnam war. But for this war, none--even though this war has taken longer than it took to settle the differences in the European theater in World War II. Soon it will be the same amount of time that we were able to beat Japan."
Reid then let loose the frustration that's no doubt been building after watching Republicans shoot down three attempts by Democrats to raise the federal minimum wage in this Congress and killing many pieces of legislation designed to bolster homeland security -- including the 528-page, Democratic-sponsored Real Security Act of 2006, which was snuffed by Republicans just last week.
"This Republican Congress has wasted 20 months on horse slaughtering; the Schiavo case, dealing with someone's personal relationship, which should not even have been before this body; gay marriage; the nuclear option; flag burning; repealing the estate tax," said Reid. "But they could not find a day for some time to look at the President's mistakes, missteps, and misconduct, which have hurt American security and plunged Iraq into a civil war -- not a day."
I guess you just have to call Reid an old-school kind of guy, hanging in there, against such great Republican opposition, with his insistence that the Senate maintain its mandated oversight of the executive branch.
But the real show-stopper came when Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Il) stepped up to the microphone to engage Reid is a dialog that must have had Republican teeth gnashing all the way to the White House. Here it is, straight from the Congressional Record:
Mr. Durbin: Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. Reid: I will be happy to yield for a question.
Mr. Durbin: Can the Senator refresh my memory? Was Mr. Bremmer the recipient of a gold medal or something from the President? Didn't he receive some high decoration or medal for his performance in Iraq?
Mr. Reid: The answer is, yes, he received that. I assume one would expect that from somebody who had a throne while he was over there.
Mr. Durbin: Isn't it also true that George Tenet, who was responsible for the intelligence that was so bad that led us into the war in Iraq, got a medal from the President the same day?
Mr. Reid: That is true.
Mr. Durbin: Did Michael Brown with FEMA receive a gold medal from the White House before he was dismissed?
Mr. Reid: I don't think he did. Even though he was doing a heck of a job, I don't think he obtained a medal from the White House.
Mr. Durbin: Apparently, these gold medals were being awarded for incompetence. They missed Mr. Brown, but they did give one to Mr. Bremmer. Will the Senator yield for another question?
Mr. Reid: I will be happy to.
Mr. Durbin: I am trying to recall the exact number -- it was in the billions of dollars -- that we gave to the President for the reconstruction of Iraq; is that not true?
Mr. Reid: It started out at $18 billion. But as the Senator from Illinois will remember, part of that money, stacks of one-hundred-dollar bills, was used by some of the contractors who were sent over there to play football games -- some of these same people.
Mr. Durbin: It is also true, is it not, that the Democratic policy conference has been holding hearings -- in fact, I think it is the only agency on the Hill holding hearings -- on this waste and abuse, this profiteering and corruption at the expense of American taxpayers and even, equally important -- more importantly -- at the expense of our troops?
Mr. Reid: I say to my friend, this war is approaching 3 1/2 years, and there has not been a single congressional oversight hearing on the conduct of the war. This war has now cost us, the American taxpayers, about $325 billion. There has not been a single congressional oversight hearing on the war.
Mr. Durbin: I ask the Senator from Nevada if he might comment on this as well: Are we not in a situation where the President has told us that he wants to "stay the course'' in Iraq, and Vice President Cheney, when asked a week ago, said he wouldn't change a thing in the way they have done this war in Iraq? Is it very clear that unless there is a change in leadership in this town soon, we are going to continue down this disastrous course, exposing our soldiers to danger every single day, their families to the anxiety of separation, and the taxpayers of this country to billions and billions of dollars more being spent that don't make us any safer?
Mr. Reid: I say to my friend, I spent the weekend reading a book. I did other things. I spent a lot of time on an airplane. The book is called "Fiasco,'' written by a man named Thomas Ricks who has spent his life covering the military. He has written books on the military. I don't know his political persuasion. This book is on the best seller's list of the New York Times.
In this book, he talks in such detail about what has happened as a result of the incompetence of this administration to our valiant fighting men and women over there. I recommend the book to anyone. It is a searing indictment of this administration.
Reid then thrust the final dagger on his own saying, "The war in Iraq has been a diversion from the real war on terror. But this administration and this do-nothing Congress are content to stay the course, even as it makes America less safe and Iraq less stable. We need a new direction. This Congress has failed."
At this point, I'm sure Bill Frist was sitting at his desk writing something along the lines of "Note to self: do not ... bring ...toothpick ... to a knife fight."
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
This last sentence of the article is what gets me: "Sudan is also considered an important intelligence ally in the "war on terror"."
Does this mean that the Federal Government will allow further atrocities to be committed in the name of the war on terror?
That fact needs to be addressed, too.
Does this mean that the Federal Government will allow further atrocities to be committed in the name of the war on terror?
That fact needs to be addressed, too.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Nearly 300,000 have been killed in Darfur. Now it is feared that 2 million refuges could be slaughtered in a mass genocide.
Which makes this so disgusting:
Bush blocks campaign to put pressure on Sudan over Darfur
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 19 September 2006
The Independent
The Bush administration and big business interests have been accused of undermining efforts to exert financial pressure on the Sudanese government to stop the killing in Darfur.
A bill that passed the US Congress endorsing state legislation to force publicly owned entities to sell off holdings in companies that do substantial business with Sudan, or sell Khartoum weapons, has now been blocked in the Senate, with campaigners blaming the White House. They say the long-delayed draft put forward last week by the Foreign Relations Committee had removed a clause known as Section 11 that would have thrown its weight behind a celebrity-backed campaign requiring publicly owned entities to dump stock.
"If the federal government is for divestment outright, they should publicly state so," said Jason Miller, a US-based Darfur campaigner. " If they are against divestment, they should publicly state so. If there's some middle ground where they agree with certain types of divestment but not others, they should have been open to compromise on Section 11 language. Instead, they gave us complete ambiguity."
The half dozen states that have already passed such measures, and the 15 more said to be studying them, now face the prospect of legal action from a big business pressure group with a track record of lobbying against economic sanctions.
The National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) has already sued the state of Illinois, which has enacted the most sweeping such measure. Despite the Senate action, California has become the latest state to draft a bill that would require state pension funds to identify companies in which they invest, and are involved with Sudan. These would then have 90 days to end the association. Failing that the funds would be obliged to sell the stock.
The move in California, which was inspired by a divestment initiative of the University of California, is another vivid sign of how individual states, academic bodies and celebrities such as George Clooney are now taking the action that the US government is unable or unwilling to take itself.
In fact, Washington was one of the first to identify the scale of the atrocities in Darfur, with the then Secretary of State Colin Powell declaring back in September 2004 that "genocide has been committed" in the south-western Sudanese province. Since then however, efforts have stalled.
Mr Bush himself has blown hot and cold on the issue, but last night finally named a special envoy to try to end the violence. [Woah! Go Bush! Hire that envoy!]
The envoy was not named but Andrew Natsios, a former Bush administration aid official, was considered the front-runner. The envoy would likely be named at the UN today.
Mr Bush will address the General Assembly today as the international community tries to persuade Khartoum to drop its objections to a UN peacekeeping force in the territory.
The US Congress has also been criticised, for failing to deliver a bill that would back up the individual state measures to step up financial pressure on Khartoum, by protecting individual states from being sued by companies affected.
In April, the House of Representatives approved a Darfur Peace and Accountability Act by an overwhelming 416 votes to three, containing such a provision. But the Senate has dragged its feet on moves to reconcile the House bill with its own version, passed in November 2005, so that an agreed measure can be sent to President Bush.
In fact, the prime targets of the legislation by the states are not American companies already barred from doing business with the government of Sudan but Chinese concerns helping the development of the country's oil industry, and various European companies including Siemens, Shell, and Finmeccanica of Italy.
Sudan is also considered an important intelligence ally in the "war on terror".
Which makes this so disgusting:
Bush blocks campaign to put pressure on Sudan over Darfur
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 19 September 2006
The Independent
The Bush administration and big business interests have been accused of undermining efforts to exert financial pressure on the Sudanese government to stop the killing in Darfur.
A bill that passed the US Congress endorsing state legislation to force publicly owned entities to sell off holdings in companies that do substantial business with Sudan, or sell Khartoum weapons, has now been blocked in the Senate, with campaigners blaming the White House. They say the long-delayed draft put forward last week by the Foreign Relations Committee had removed a clause known as Section 11 that would have thrown its weight behind a celebrity-backed campaign requiring publicly owned entities to dump stock.
"If the federal government is for divestment outright, they should publicly state so," said Jason Miller, a US-based Darfur campaigner. " If they are against divestment, they should publicly state so. If there's some middle ground where they agree with certain types of divestment but not others, they should have been open to compromise on Section 11 language. Instead, they gave us complete ambiguity."
The half dozen states that have already passed such measures, and the 15 more said to be studying them, now face the prospect of legal action from a big business pressure group with a track record of lobbying against economic sanctions.
The National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) has already sued the state of Illinois, which has enacted the most sweeping such measure. Despite the Senate action, California has become the latest state to draft a bill that would require state pension funds to identify companies in which they invest, and are involved with Sudan. These would then have 90 days to end the association. Failing that the funds would be obliged to sell the stock.
The move in California, which was inspired by a divestment initiative of the University of California, is another vivid sign of how individual states, academic bodies and celebrities such as George Clooney are now taking the action that the US government is unable or unwilling to take itself.
In fact, Washington was one of the first to identify the scale of the atrocities in Darfur, with the then Secretary of State Colin Powell declaring back in September 2004 that "genocide has been committed" in the south-western Sudanese province. Since then however, efforts have stalled.
Mr Bush himself has blown hot and cold on the issue, but last night finally named a special envoy to try to end the violence. [Woah! Go Bush! Hire that envoy!]
The envoy was not named but Andrew Natsios, a former Bush administration aid official, was considered the front-runner. The envoy would likely be named at the UN today.
Mr Bush will address the General Assembly today as the international community tries to persuade Khartoum to drop its objections to a UN peacekeeping force in the territory.
The US Congress has also been criticised, for failing to deliver a bill that would back up the individual state measures to step up financial pressure on Khartoum, by protecting individual states from being sued by companies affected.
In April, the House of Representatives approved a Darfur Peace and Accountability Act by an overwhelming 416 votes to three, containing such a provision. But the Senate has dragged its feet on moves to reconcile the House bill with its own version, passed in November 2005, so that an agreed measure can be sent to President Bush.
In fact, the prime targets of the legislation by the states are not American companies already barred from doing business with the government of Sudan but Chinese concerns helping the development of the country's oil industry, and various European companies including Siemens, Shell, and Finmeccanica of Italy.
Sudan is also considered an important intelligence ally in the "war on terror".
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
President Bush bares his soul:
"The first bill will allow us to use military commissions to try suspected terrorists for war crimes. We need the legislation because the Supreme Court recently ruled that military commissions must be explicitly authorized by Congress.
"The bill would also provide clear rules for our personnel involved in detaining and questioning captured terrorists.
"....This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.
"And that Common Article 3 says that, you know, There will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's like — it's very vague.
<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>"What does that mean, outrages upon human dignity?"</span>
Just what we suspected.
"The first bill will allow us to use military commissions to try suspected terrorists for war crimes. We need the legislation because the Supreme Court recently ruled that military commissions must be explicitly authorized by Congress.
"The bill would also provide clear rules for our personnel involved in detaining and questioning captured terrorists.
"....This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.
"And that Common Article 3 says that, you know, There will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's like — it's very vague.
<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>"What does that mean, outrages upon human dignity?"</span>
Just what we suspected.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Such progress we're making.
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>2,673</span>
2 U.S. Soldiers Among 17 Dead in Iraq
Sep 14, 8:06 AM (ET)
By SINAN SALAHEDDIN
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Car bombs and drive-by shootings on Thursday killed at least 17 people - including two U.S. soldiers - in a series of attacks around central Iraq, officials said.
The U.S. command said the first soldier died from wounds in the early morning hours after his unit same under attack by small arms, while the second was killed after his vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb south of Baghdad. At least 2,673 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
The attacks came after day that was especially bloody even by Baghdad's standards, when car bombs, mortars and other attacks killed at least 39 people and wounded dozens. Police also uncovered the tortured bodies of 65 men dumped in and around the capital.
The violence persists despite a monthlong security operation by thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops around Baghdad aimed mostly at stopping the killings carried out by Sunni and Shiite death squads.
A car bomb Thursday targeting a police patrol in a Shiite neighborhood of northern Baghdad missed, instead killing a civilian and wounding 13 others, police said.
Another car bomb then blew up bear the government's passport office in central Baghdad, killing nine people and wounding 17. The injured included four police officers,said police Lt. Bilal Ali.
The blast created a large crater in the street in front of the office, destroyed at least three cars, scattered debris and knocked down the walls of a neighboring house, according to AP Television News video.
Gunmen in Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, killed two police officers in a drive-by shooting. Another group of gunmen shot and killed three people in Ghazaniya, just north of Baqouba.
Police also found the body of a brigadier in the former Iraqi army two days after he was kidnapped Mahmoudiya, 19 miles south of Baghdad, said Cap. Udai Abdel-Rihda.
Also Thursday, the U.S. military said its forces have arrested a senior al-Qaida figure and personal associate of the group's new leader.
The man, who was not identified, was arrested Tuesday and led assassination, kidnapping and bomb-making cells in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell said.
He also played a key role in al-Qaida's activities in Fallujah before it was attacked by U.S. troops in November 2004, Caldwell added.
According to Caldwell he was a "personal associate" of Abu Ayyoub al-Masri, who took over al-Qaida in Iraq from Jordanian-born terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi after he was killed in a U.S. airstrike north of Baghdad on June 7.
After the discovery of the bodies Wednesday, the head of Iraq's largest Sunni Arab political bloc called on Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to honor a pledge to disband militias - blamed by Sunnis of being behind many of the death squads.
An influential Sunni Arab political party said that U.S. forces raided its Baghdad headquarters early Thursday and briefly detained one of its legislators.
Ahmed al-Janabi a spokesman for the National Dialogue Council, a Sunni party that is part the Iraqi Accordance Front - a Sunni Arab coalition - said U.S. forces broke into the group's offices in western Baghdad and detained and interrogated deputy Abdel-Nasir al-Janabi for two hours. The party has 12 deputies in the 275-seat parliament.
The reasons for the raid were not clear and coalition forces had no immediate comment, but al-Janabi alleged the raid seemed to be "an American message to the groups and lawmakers who demanded a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq."
Earlier in the week, a group of Shiite and Sunni legislators tried to take advantage of the unpopularity of U.S. troops to seek approval of a resolution setting a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops - which the mainstream Shiite-dominated government has so far refused to do. The resolution was sent to committee - essentially shelving it for months.
Sunni Arabs fear more sectarian violence will break out if the largest Shiite political bloc in parliament succeeds is passing legislation that will set in place the mechanism for establishing autonomous regions as part of a federal Iraq.
Parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani urged that a bill drafted last week by the dominant Shiite United Iraqi Alliance not to be submitted to the body on Sept. 19. Instead he has called for its postponement until parliament amends the country's new constitution, a time consuming affair that could drag on for months.
Sunni Arabs have said the bill could split the country into three distinct sectarian and ethnic cantons and have vehemently opposed it.
Although federalism is part Iraq's new constitution, and there is already an autonomous Kurdish region in the north, special legislation and a referendum would be needed to turn Iraq into a full federation.
Alliance leaders were sending delegations to the Shiite holy city of Najaf on Thursday to meet radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and other leaders who do not fully support the legislation - but for different reasons than the Sunnis. Al-Sadr, for examples, wants it to be discussed after U.S. troops leave Iraq.
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>2,673</span>
2 U.S. Soldiers Among 17 Dead in Iraq
Sep 14, 8:06 AM (ET)
By SINAN SALAHEDDIN
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Car bombs and drive-by shootings on Thursday killed at least 17 people - including two U.S. soldiers - in a series of attacks around central Iraq, officials said.
The U.S. command said the first soldier died from wounds in the early morning hours after his unit same under attack by small arms, while the second was killed after his vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb south of Baghdad. At least 2,673 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
The attacks came after day that was especially bloody even by Baghdad's standards, when car bombs, mortars and other attacks killed at least 39 people and wounded dozens. Police also uncovered the tortured bodies of 65 men dumped in and around the capital.
The violence persists despite a monthlong security operation by thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops around Baghdad aimed mostly at stopping the killings carried out by Sunni and Shiite death squads.
A car bomb Thursday targeting a police patrol in a Shiite neighborhood of northern Baghdad missed, instead killing a civilian and wounding 13 others, police said.
Another car bomb then blew up bear the government's passport office in central Baghdad, killing nine people and wounding 17. The injured included four police officers,said police Lt. Bilal Ali.
The blast created a large crater in the street in front of the office, destroyed at least three cars, scattered debris and knocked down the walls of a neighboring house, according to AP Television News video.
Gunmen in Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, killed two police officers in a drive-by shooting. Another group of gunmen shot and killed three people in Ghazaniya, just north of Baqouba.
Police also found the body of a brigadier in the former Iraqi army two days after he was kidnapped Mahmoudiya, 19 miles south of Baghdad, said Cap. Udai Abdel-Rihda.
Also Thursday, the U.S. military said its forces have arrested a senior al-Qaida figure and personal associate of the group's new leader.
The man, who was not identified, was arrested Tuesday and led assassination, kidnapping and bomb-making cells in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell said.
He also played a key role in al-Qaida's activities in Fallujah before it was attacked by U.S. troops in November 2004, Caldwell added.
According to Caldwell he was a "personal associate" of Abu Ayyoub al-Masri, who took over al-Qaida in Iraq from Jordanian-born terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi after he was killed in a U.S. airstrike north of Baghdad on June 7.
After the discovery of the bodies Wednesday, the head of Iraq's largest Sunni Arab political bloc called on Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to honor a pledge to disband militias - blamed by Sunnis of being behind many of the death squads.
An influential Sunni Arab political party said that U.S. forces raided its Baghdad headquarters early Thursday and briefly detained one of its legislators.
Ahmed al-Janabi a spokesman for the National Dialogue Council, a Sunni party that is part the Iraqi Accordance Front - a Sunni Arab coalition - said U.S. forces broke into the group's offices in western Baghdad and detained and interrogated deputy Abdel-Nasir al-Janabi for two hours. The party has 12 deputies in the 275-seat parliament.
The reasons for the raid were not clear and coalition forces had no immediate comment, but al-Janabi alleged the raid seemed to be "an American message to the groups and lawmakers who demanded a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq."
Earlier in the week, a group of Shiite and Sunni legislators tried to take advantage of the unpopularity of U.S. troops to seek approval of a resolution setting a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops - which the mainstream Shiite-dominated government has so far refused to do. The resolution was sent to committee - essentially shelving it for months.
Sunni Arabs fear more sectarian violence will break out if the largest Shiite political bloc in parliament succeeds is passing legislation that will set in place the mechanism for establishing autonomous regions as part of a federal Iraq.
Parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani urged that a bill drafted last week by the dominant Shiite United Iraqi Alliance not to be submitted to the body on Sept. 19. Instead he has called for its postponement until parliament amends the country's new constitution, a time consuming affair that could drag on for months.
Sunni Arabs have said the bill could split the country into three distinct sectarian and ethnic cantons and have vehemently opposed it.
Although federalism is part Iraq's new constitution, and there is already an autonomous Kurdish region in the north, special legislation and a referendum would be needed to turn Iraq into a full federation.
Alliance leaders were sending delegations to the Shiite holy city of Najaf on Thursday to meet radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and other leaders who do not fully support the legislation - but for different reasons than the Sunnis. Al-Sadr, for examples, wants it to be discussed after U.S. troops leave Iraq.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Progress for America is already beginning to annoy me. They keep airing this "anti-terrorism" commercial about how before 9/11 (or, since they only list incedents from the Clinton administration, they blame Clinton) we did nothing and after 9/11 we destroyed Al'Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq. Destroyed? That's news to me! Did I miss a news story on that?
Anyway, they are playing this commercial far too frequently for my taste. Not to mention Sen. Jim Talent is already innundating us with his negative campaign ads against Claire McCaskill despite her lack of airing any commercials at all. I thought most respectable politicians held off on negative campaigning until the last month or so before....must mean he's desperate or not a respectable politician.
Anyway, they are playing this commercial far too frequently for my taste. Not to mention Sen. Jim Talent is already innundating us with his negative campaign ads against Claire McCaskill despite her lack of airing any commercials at all. I thought most respectable politicians held off on negative campaigning until the last month or so before....must mean he's desperate or not a respectable politician.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Time for <s>a firing</s> someone to spend more time with his family.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs</span>
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.
The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.
"If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."
The Air Force has paid for research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service is unlikely to spend more money on development until injury problems are reviewed by medical experts and resolved.
Nonlethal weapons generally can weaken people if they are hit with the beam. Some of the weapons can emit short, intense energy pulses that also can be effective in disabling some electronic devices.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs</span>
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.
The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.
"If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."
The Air Force has paid for research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service is unlikely to spend more money on development until injury problems are reviewed by medical experts and resolved.
Nonlethal weapons generally can weaken people if they are hit with the beam. Some of the weapons can emit short, intense energy pulses that also can be effective in disabling some electronic devices.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler