# Iraq on the Record



## michaeledward (Mar 16, 2004)

"The Iraq on the Record Report, prepared at the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, is a comprehensive examination of the statements made by the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq: President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.
...
This database identifies 237 specific misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq made by these five officials in 125 public appearances in the time leading up to and after the commencement of hostilities in Iraq. The search options on the left can be used to find statements by any combination of speaker, subject, keyword, or date."

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

Submitted for your research and / or amusement. - Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 18, 2004)

And this came to my email yesterday. It will take one minute to view.

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 19, 2004)

Digging up things like this keeps me hopeful our intel didn't fail us. Could take years to know though.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp


----------



## psi_radar (Mar 19, 2004)

With all the sand damage maybe we'll be able to pick up one of those cheap on eBay.  

Given Saddam never really thought his air force could face the U.S.' with a positive outcome, it's not surprising he buried his MIGs to save for a later date or to just keep out of our hands until times changed and he was in favor again.


----------



## Ender (Mar 19, 2004)

Most of it is the same stuff Clinton and Albright said.....WMD, Tyranny, National Security threat...shrug.

Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." 

Clinton: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." 

Clinton: "The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. ... Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. ... But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 19, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> Most of it is the same stuff Clinton and Albright said.....WMD, Tyranny, National Security threat...shrug.
> 
> Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
> 
> ...



This is crap.  You quote a proven liar to back up a proven liar.  The hypocrisy is that this congress won't try and impeach the president for it.  Do you seriously think that the same people who wanted to profit from the war in Iraq did not exist when Clinton was in office?


----------



## Ender (Mar 19, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is crap.  You quote a proven liar to back up a proven liar.  The hypocrisy is that this congress won't try and impeach the president for it.  Do you seriously think that the same people who wanted to profit from the war in Iraq did not exist when Clinton was in office?




*L..get over yourself....there isn't a conspiracy around every corner.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 19, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> Most of it is the same stuff Clinton and Albright said.....WMD, Tyranny, National Security threat...shrug.
> 
> Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
> 
> ...


Actually, if you review David Kay's report, he indicated that, along with the sanctions, Clinton's bombing campaing in 1998, is probably what eliminated the final pieces of the chem/bio programs in Iraq.

And, Clinton was not trying to justify an invasion that was going to cost the American Tax-Payers $1,000,000,000.00 per week; and 550+ American soldiers lives, and perhaps 8,000 American wounded and maimed. Thank medical science that so many of those wounded on the battlfield today are able to survive, yet many, perhaps the majority have lost legs and arms.

Ender ... It seems apparent that there is nothing that can be said that will allow you to look at the actions of the current Administration objectively. There is no logical comparison to the Clinton Bombing campaign of 1998 with the Bush Invasion of 2003, unless you are talking about geography.

If you will blindly follow the administration, I posit you are not doing your duty as an American Citizen. As a citizen, it is our duty to question those in authority, for they speak for us. 

Ender, can you answer these questions.

Have any weapons of mass destruction been found, to date, in Iraq?

What was the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 19, 2004)

All true. Which makes it all the more shameful that my country--my country!--supported this guy for "realpolitik," reasons. Couda been worse--coulda been Noriega. Or Nguyen Cao Thy, I guess...or Lindbergh backing Hitler.

As well as a host of other dictators. When will y'all wake up? There's the retreats into "Parallax View," fantasies rather than deal with one's own profit from, and complicity in, capitalism; there's the refusal to admit that this is a capitalist country, unless of course they're arguing How Great Capitalism Thou Art. Both positions share an utter refusal to consider direct contradictions of expressed positions on secular ethics and/or Christianity.

Silly me. I thought this country was supposed to stand for something better. Oops.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 19, 2004)

I thought Gulf War I ended in a cease fire with conditions placed on Iraq....
When Iraq thumbed their noses at the conditions, we had an administration that did pretty much nothing (effective) about it. Now not saying that the way Gulf War II was started was entirely "legit" (at least on the face of it), it seems strange that some are looking at the war as an attack on a nation we never had any military "history" with......this whloe thing "probably" could have been done with support and legitimacy if it had been initiated during Clintons administration.

















The Tin-Foil Hat Squad


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 20, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> *L..get over yourself....there isn't a conspiracy around every corner.



This isn't a conspiracy.  It's how the government works.  People with lots of power have agendas that go beyond the four year terms of presidents.  They have the money to get what they want, no matter who is in office.


----------



## Ender (Mar 20, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Actually, if you review David Kay's report, he indicated that, along with the sanctions, Clinton's bombing campaing in 1998, is probably what eliminated the final pieces of the chem/bio programs in Iraq.
> 
> And, Clinton was not trying to justify an invasion that was going to cost the American Tax-Payers $1,000,000,000.00 per week; and 550+ American soldiers lives, and perhaps 8,000 American wounded and maimed. Thank medical science that so many of those wounded on the battlfield today are able to survive, yet many, perhaps the majority have lost legs and arms.
> 
> ...



Former President Clinton, in an appearance on "Larry King Live" on July 22, 2003, said, "... _t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know." 

Again, if YOU can answer why didn't Clinton do anything. He bet the lives of innocent Iraqis, Kurds, Israelis, and Americans on a "We sure as heck don't know". It was his duty to take action, to find the truth, but he didn't. His "diplomacy" failed Amercia, and he nearly sold Israel out. 

To make sure those weapons were out of his hands. Thats the justification of the invasion. Hope to God, those weapons have not found their way elsewhere._


----------



## Tgace (Mar 20, 2004)

What would we have done to post WW2 Germany/Japan if they had broken treaty and started making weapons/massing troops???


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 20, 2004)

With all the 'Politicians are a separate breed of people who work form agendas that cost the rest of us lives, money and quality of life' talk going on, I don't see much faith in humanity.  Do any of you have a given politician/authority that you don't disapprove of?

Who do you people have any faith in/trust?  I am not taking sides here for or againsts any of this stuff, but COME ON!  Is this distrust so pervasive that you are questioning all public servants with authority over you?  Cops, teachers (influencing/in loc... parentis), priests (spiritual authority if you accept it)....

I am positive that if you look at any person at any level of influence or power, we could find arguable reasons to discredit/disagree or support/approve of their track record.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 20, 2004)

hey...if you see something wrong blaze away.....looking for/assuming that things are ALWAYS wrong/corrupt is another story.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 20, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> hey...if you see something wrong blaze away.....looking for/assuming that things are ALWAYS wrong/corrupt is another story.



Believe me, I would much rather believe that our current leaders ARE the public servents they pretend to be.  Unfortuneately, there are far too many parellels between today and the late Roman Republic.  For some interesting, and scary, research read about Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus.  The things they dealt with in their days are nearly analogous to what we are dealing with.

Upnorthkyosa


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 20, 2004)

While you have chosen to not address my questions, I will chose to address yours:



			
				Ender said:
			
		

> Former President Clinton, in an appearance on "Larry King Live" on July 22, 2003, said, "... _t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know." _


_ 
Main Entry: *un·ac·count·ed* : Pronunciation: -'kaun-t&d : Function: adjective *:* not accounted *: [size=-1]UNEXPLAINED[/size]* -- often used with for 

You are correct that after the bombing of Iraq in 1998, the United States could not explain if their were chemical or biological weapons in the Iraqi arsenal.

You may remember, that UNMOVIC was sent into Iraq in late 2002 to determine if the chem/bio weapons existed. You may also recall that the current administration suggested that UNMOVIC cease their inspections and leave the country of Iraq. I posit that this suggestion came about because we were going to invade the country regardless of what Weapons of Mass Destruction or related program activities there were.



			
				Ender said:
			
		


			Again, if YOU can answer why didn't Clinton do anything.
		
Click to expand...

Clinton was doing something, he and his administration were participating in the economic sanctions that were designed to encourage compliance with the wishes of the World community and the provision set forth in the cease fire agreement signed at the end of the 1991 war. Additionally, the Clinton administration enforced for year the Southern and Northern No-Fly zones in Iraq (which could be why those jets were shrink-wrapped, eh?)



			
				Ender said:
			
		


			He bet the lives of innocent Iraqis, Kurds, Israelis, and Americans on a "We sure as heck don't know". It was his duty to take action, to find the truth, but he didn't. His "diplomacy" failed Amercia, and he nearly sold Israel out.
		
Click to expand...

Oh, dear me ... which argument to make here... So Ender, you are suggesting that the United States should now become the Police Force of the world? I am assuming that is what you intend to mean when you say "He bet the lives of innocent Iraqis".  The United States has never undertaken a military campaign based on Humanitarian reasons. (although, you could make that argument in the Balkans ... it certainly DOESN"T apply in Iraq).

Clinton (and Blair) were protecting the Kurds. The Kurds live in the Northern portions of Iraq, which was protected by the Northern Watch No Fly Zone. ... Now, if you wanted to argue that the Northern No-Fly Zone allowed Ansar-al-Islam to train in safety (away from Hussein), you might have a point, but that is not the way I read that arguement.



			
				Ender said:
			
		


			To make sure those weapons were out of his hands. Thats the justification of the invasion. Hope to God, those weapons have not found their way elsewhere.
		
Click to expand...

Well, if the weapons never existed, then, they couldn't have found their way anywhere, could they. 

The Bush Administration encouraged this invasion based on a number of statements. A number of those statements are grossly above what the intelligence could suggest. The link posted at the beginning of this thread displays where those over-statements are made, and explains why they are infact, beyond what could be reasonably supported by the information we had available. 

As I said Ender, it is apparent that you are not interested in seeing these items for what they are. Thank you for participating. - Mike_


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 20, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What would we have done to post WW2 Germany/Japan if they had broken treaty and started making weapons/massing troops???


This arguement is not really the same. If I am not mistaken, Japan & Germany surrendered *unconditionally* in 1945. We were occupying powers. They had no opportunity to start massing troops because we were there.

In contrast, in 1991, when Bush told Schwartzkoppf to stop his advance, we ended up in a very different situation. While we were close by, we were not 'in-country'. When BHW Bush encouraged the *****e's to rise up and over-throw the Hussein government, Hussein was able to counter attack with helicopter gunships and destroy the upraising. During which time, Schwartzkoppf's troops were watching the battles, and were not ordered to stop them. 

In hind-sight, there were several mistakes in this sequence of events; a) Bush ordered a halt too soon, Powell & Schwartzkopff wanted another day. b) The cease fire agreement allowed Hussein to keep, and fly, his helicopters, this allowed suppression of the uprising. c) Not assisting the *****e in the South, and the Kurds in the North when needed.

Anyhow ... there were very big differences between 1991 and 1945.

Thanks. Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 20, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> With all the 'Politicians are a separate breed of people who work form agendas that cost the rest of us lives, money and quality of life' talk going on, I don't see much faith in humanity. Do any of you have a given politician/authority that you don't disapprove of?
> 
> Who do you people have any faith in/trust? I am not taking sides here for or againsts any of this stuff, but COME ON! Is this distrust so pervasive that you are questioning all public servants with authority over you? Cops, teachers (influencing/in loc... parentis), priests (spiritual authority if you accept it)....
> 
> I am positive that if you look at any person at any level of influence or power, we could find arguable reasons to discredit/disagree or support/approve of their track record.


I agree Paul. In fact, the first link in this thread provides what I think we could all agree is a *very dispassionate* view of the statements made, and the source information behind them. This list was assembled by the public servents, at the request of public servants.

There is no 'Bomb Throwing' in the report. No one is called a 'Lying Liar'. It simply reports Statements made, and the intelligence that was available at the time the statement was made. Yet it seems that some will not even look at the report.

Mike


----------



## Tgace (Mar 20, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This arguement is not really the same. If I am not mistaken, Japan & Germany surrendered *unconditionally* in 1945. We were occupying powers. They had no opportunity to start massing troops because we were there.
> 
> In contrast, in 1991, when Bush told Schwartzkoppf to stop his advance, we ended up in a very different situation. While we were close by, we were not 'in-country'. When BHW Bush encouraged the *****e's to rise up and over-throw the Hussein government, Hussein was able to counter attack with helicopter gunships and destroy the upraising. During which time, Schwartzkoppf's troops were watching the battles, and were not ordered to stop them.
> 
> ...


Yeah..that statement was made more as a loose "example" than a historical comparison. But Ill say it again...

I thought Gulf War I ended in a cease fire with conditions placed on Iraq....
When Iraq thumbed their noses at the conditions, we had an administration that did pretty much nothing (effective) about it. Now not saying that the way Gulf War II was started was entirely "legit" (at least on the face of it), it seems strange that some are looking at the war as an attack on a nation we never had any military "history" with......this whole thing (should have been completed by Bush 1and..) "probably" could have been done with support and legitimacy if it had been initiated during Clintons administration.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 20, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> To make sure those weapons were out of his hands. Thats the justification of the invasion. Hope to God, those weapons have not found their way elsewhere.



Exactly my point about SHussein not complying with the treaty agreements and snubbing/blocking inspectors from certain sites for 10 years.  More than enough time to move/sell them off don't you think?  Isn't that one of the fears/suspicions about the Russians weapons grade nuc. material...


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 21, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Believe me, I would much rather believe that our current leaders ARE the public servents they pretend to be.  Unfortuneately, there are far too many parellels between today and the late Roman Republic.  For some interesting, and scary, research read about Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus.  The things they dealt with in their days are nearly analogous to what we are dealing with.
> 
> Upnorthkyosa



I am a firm believer that history, natural and human civ., is a silly little line that goes up down and loops over itself many times as opposed to the nice straight as an arrow time line that we used in soc. studies classes and such, but PLEASE!  Nearly analogous means that it isn't the same.  Analogies taken too far can be frightening, but by there very nature are imperfect.

I can see parallels, certainly, but there are some huge differences too - beyond the bold fashion sense of the day .

The Roman culture, not just the powers that be,  saw nothing wrong with holocaustic destruction of a group that stood in their way.  There was an obilisk (Washington monument in D.C. look alike) with engravings of Roman soldiers slaughtering non combatives:  woman, children, elderly... as a monument to the successful campaigns in Western Europe/Germania... 

I don't really forsee the US citizen waving flags and cheering at an unveiling of a monument that depicts the Me Lei Massacre....

Similarities yes, but there are VERY different foundational values that make up the framework of the cultures that you are comparing.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 21, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This arguement is not really the same. If I am not mistaken, Japan & Germany surrendered *unconditionally* in 1945. We were occupying powers. They had no opportunity to start massing troops because we were there.
> 
> In contrast, in 1991, when Bush told Schwartzkoppf to stop his advance, we ended up in a very different situation. While we were close by, we were not 'in-country'. When BHW Bush encouraged the *****e's to rise up and over-throw the Hussein government, Hussein was able to counter attack with helicopter gunships and destroy the upraising. During which time, Schwartzkoppf's troops were watching the battles, and were not ordered to stop them.
> 
> ...



Agreed there are differences, but unconditional surrender just means that you are not arguing or negotiating terms.  There are still terms though.  I have already discussed the ten year refusal to cooperate or even honor those terms.  Conditional or unconditional, terms are agreed upon. 

As far as US troops and involvement, the military goals of the Gulf War were accomplished - Kuwait was liberated.  Advancing into Iraq, at that time, would not have been within the objectives list, nor would it have helped the local/regional support of the international community let alone the US citizens/mother's of America.  We were not set up, equipted or budgeted to push on.  Look at the mess that is going on with trying to stabilize the country after SHussein has been overthrown.  I am sure that the contingency specialists in the white house had sketched out something, but it is a hell of an operation to accomplish, as we are seeing.  After such a long and involved campaign, it might look hypocritical to do so, but the idea that the local resistance would gain control of the local gov. a standard policy in the current day.  It helps avoid the accusations of impirialism.  Of course the sharp shooters who will find fault with any choice will say that we should have finished the job. If we had gone in, the same people would be the accusers of impirialism.  Either way, I respect a person who will at least take the reins of leadership/decision making, it is better than doing nothing.  Same thing with MA training, I do it and choose to use it if necessary as an alternative to doing nothing or having no letting other's fall victim to bullies/abusers.  Judge me afterward, but I tried to make a difference.

Former POTUS Bush spoke at University at Buffalo after he was out of office and said during that speek that he could not morally justify risking American lives to chase one man... Right or wrong, he made a choice.  The buffer was suppose to be SHussein's compliance with his treaty conditions.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 21, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> As far as US troops and involvement, the military goals of the Gulf War were accomplished - Kuwait was liberated. Advancing into Iraq, at that time, would not have been within the objectives list, nor would it have helped the local/regional support of the international community let alone the US citizens/mother's of America. We were not set up, equipted or budgeted to push on. . . .
> Former POTUS Bush spoke at University at Buffalo after he was out of office and said during that speek that he could not morally justify risking American lives to chase one man... Right or wrong, he made a choice. The buffer was suppose to be SHussein's compliance with his treaty conditions.


I agree that Operation Desert Storm did not have in its objectives a march on Bagdhad. The coalition built by GHW Bush's administration was built around the premise of liberating Kuwait. I do not know if one of the objectives of the campaign would be that Iraq would no longer be able to threaten its neighbors or not, but it probably should have been, given the history with Iran.

But, it has been fairly widely reported that GHW Bush put the brakes on the Military commanders *before* they were ready to say their mission was completed. General Schwartzkopff has stated that discussions among himself, Chairman Powell, and President Bush indicated that all of the tactical objectives could be completed with an additional 24 to 48 hours, and that President Bush ordered them to end the hostilities at Midnight (approximately 6 hours later).

If the military had been given the extra time they requested, and if the terms of the cease fire prohibited the use of helicopter gunships, perhaps the *****e & Kurdish uprisings could have overthrown Hussein *without *risking American lives.

In general, I think Jefferson did a good thing by putting the civilian authorities in charge of the military. But it seems that both Presidents Bush, through their administrations, in appropriately exercised this command structure. 

In my opinion, GHW Bush, should have given the military the time they requested to complete the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait.
GW Bush (read Rumsfeld) should have given General Franks the 500,000 strong invasion force requested, which would have prevented the looting, and perhaps facilitated the 'after-action' establishment of peace and civil control.

Of course, this hind-sight is 20/20. It will be interesting to see how the historians write this chapter of American History, and how Clinton's role fits into it.

Either way, the statements made over the last two years by the current administration to build support for the invasion, are demonstrably inaccurate, according to the intelligence that was available to them. 

See http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

Mike


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 21, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I am a firm believer that history, natural and human civ., is a silly little line that goes up down and loops over itself many times as opposed to the nice straight as an arrow time line that we used in soc. studies classes and such, but PLEASE!  Nearly analogous means that it isn't the same.  Analogies taken too far can be frightening, but by there very nature are imperfect.
> 
> I can see parallels, certainly, but there are some huge differences too - beyond the bold fashion sense of the day .
> 
> ...



10,000 in Iraq.  More on the way.  How many more will it take to convince you?  Have you ever read anything regarding the Brother's Gracchi?  Perhaps we should list all of those killed by US sponsored dicators?  Now THAT would holocaustal!

I don't make statements such as "nearly analogous" without some sort of information to back it up.  The biggest difference is the scale.  Pax Romana was involved in a world that was MUCH smaller then todays.  This skewed much of the events of the day and it also accounts for my usage of "nearly analogous".

Pax Americana is following in the footsteps of the ancient late Roman republic.  Some of the information that supports this...

1.  Weathly landowners (precapitolists in roman days multinational corporations in ours) are consolidating ALL wealth leaving the majority with very little.
2.  Economic dominion enforced with military activities.
3.  Satallite nations set up militarily as part of the Empire.  This was justified with the argument "we are showing them a better way of governing themselves...(analogous to democratizing)  Has anyone ever read PNAC?
4.  Social change suppressed through information control.
5.  Social leaders who aspire to level the playing field are assassinated.
6.  Success in politics depends upon financial backing
7.  Do I really need to go on with this silly list?  Perhaps it is your responsibility to read the rest...

Sometimes historical examples and analogies are silly and far fetched.  This one is not.  Read and learn.  It follows that since our country was founded on many old Roman Republic laws that our country could suffer the same fate.

Who will be our Imperator?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Tgace (Mar 21, 2004)

Oh wow, youre right!! How could I have missed that!! Man were in the worst trouble of our history!! Oh besides that Civil War thing....This @#!$ is nothing "new" what do you think people thought about Lincoln during his time?


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 21, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I don't make statements such as "nearly analogous" without some sort of information to back it up.  The biggest difference is the scale.  Pax Romana was involved in a world that was MUCH smaller then todays.  This skewed much of the events of the day and it also accounts for my usage of "nearly analogous".



That's funny, the scale argument didn't work for me, but it works for you?

Some other differences:

1.  We don't have Caesars, we have VOTED POTUS who serve limited terms
2.  We don't worship the POTUS as a living god, nor do we have a state religion
3.  Bill of Rights/Constitution/System of Checks and Balances...
4.  Roman military forces were funded privately by an aristocrat who could pony up the cash to outfit his forces.  THerefore loyalty was first to Marcus Whoevericus first and the state second or even last. Our forces are STATE forces, not private and swear an oath of allegiance to defend the Constituion, not the Pres, or some other specific office/person.
5.  We ALL have the right to vote, not just the landed, wealthy citizens.
6.  OUr nation has public education that, at the very least teaches ALL citizens to read/think critically - not just the aristocratic/financial elite.  This in itself is empowering because they can, even on an elementary level, follow the events and exercise a vote to make a difference.
7.  Our nation is as much founded on Judeo/Christian values as it is Roman Republic construct.  Like I said about the obilisk, we also don't parade prisoners of war, exotic animals into a public forum for execution/entertainment of the masses - it wouldn't be tolerated because the moral/ethical values are not the same as the Roman Empire.

I can admire the abilities and accomplishments of another Martial art and adopt/adapt the methods without absorbing the values.  The modern military practice of standardized/manualed unit organization and record keeping is given credit to the Roman model - yet it is just a method, not the wholesale purchase of the culture.  I like the Isshin Ryu punch structure and use it personally, but I don't study/adopt the entire system.

You could make analogies to any point in US history to any major civiliation at a specific point in history - even those with little or no contact with Roman culture: China, Japan, Aztecs, Early Egyptians, Nubians, Summerians... Besides which, there are those who could argue that the Roman and Greek models weren't fitting to the early American nation and they were influenced by the Iroqouis (Hodonoshonee) league of 5 nations - later made 6 with the addition of the Tuskarora.  There is documentation to this affect in the local Reservation historical records, and even some texts (though I would have to dig to site them - working from memory here) that Ben Franklin proposed using the Iroqouis model.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 21, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I agree that Operation Desert Storm did not have in its objectives a march on Bagdhad. The coalition built by GHW Bush's administration was built around the premise of liberating Kuwait. I do not know if one of the objectives of the campaign would be that Iraq would no longer be able to threaten its neighbors or not, but it probably should have been, given the history with Iran.
> 
> Mike



Colin Powell has publically stated that one of the objectives, other than the liberation of Kuwait, was to do enough estimated damage that it would take 10 years for him to retool/rebuild.  That may have been the reason for the stop, along with others.  I don't agree with all the rhetoric and public justification of the current Iraqi war, but it doesn't mean that there aren't damn good reasons to take this guy out.

Personally, I think if Bush had stayed with the more immediate threat/pubically supported operation of breaking the terrorist financial/structural support in Afg., it would have been easier to justify/explain the Iraqi operation when transmissions and Iraqi support/harboring of Al Q/Taliban fugitives would be evident.  And, I really think it would/is happening - though that is personal opinion and not based on any concrete proof on my part.  Just that old Sergeant's hunch work going on.

I remember chomping at the bit when we didn't go all the way, but again I don't have to live with these decisions and if you look at my Tolkein SIg, it says it all for me.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 21, 2004)

MartialTalk Admin Note:

Please keep the discussion polite and respectful.

*
Martial Talk Assistant Administrator
Rich Parsons
*


----------



## Tgace (Mar 21, 2004)

I dont think were having any "bad blood" here...we sort of look at it as Verbal sparring...at least thats how we laid it out at the beginning of the thread. Although I may be confusing this thread with another that this same crowd is debating...they seem like OK people to me (even for "bleeding heart liberals"  )


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 21, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> That's funny, the scale argument didn't work for me, but it works for you?
> 
> Some other differences:
> 
> ...



The scale argument didn't work when you made it because you were talking about the scale of individual and group mechanics - which are two very different things.  Here we have two societies, both forming empires, with distinct similarities.  That is why the scale argument works for me.  As far as your point, you are misinformed on every single one...

1.  GW Bush was not VOTED into office, first of all.  Secondly, the Roman Republic gave us the concept of term limits.  Their political offices of Censors, Praetors, Tribunes, and Senators all had term limits in order to limit the power of that individual.  The Romans (and ourselves) subverted this process by making public service = the amount of money you had.
2.  Neither did the Romans of the Republican times.  
3.  Our checks and balances were based of theirs.  They certainly did have checks and balances.  Our forefathers saw how those balances were destroyed in the days of the late republic and that is why they tried to sactify them with our constitution.  Our current POTUS' policies will destroy those checks and balances and it will lead to the same ends that it did the Romans.
4.  Roman forces were STATE forces.  Roman armies were funded by TAXES and private aristocratic donations.  The men who destroyed the Roman Republic formed private armies to do this.  Haliberton is the first edition of this old phenomenon come around again.
5.  All roman citizens had the right to vote.  It did not matter how poor they were.  In the late republic, this was taken away from many people because the power of the Tribunate threatened the power of the military/economic complex.  Can you think of any voters now days who are systematically denied the right to vote?  Have you talked to any of the black people in Florida who were chased away from the ballot box by Jeb Bush's thugs?
6.  The Romans of the Republic had public education system.  Most of what we know of Roman times come from the letters that normal citizens wrote back and forth to each other.  The whole idea of public education is a Roman concept!
7.  And Saddam Huissain piped into every television in the country wasn't a parade!  Prisoners of war lined up along side the road for everyone to see, wasn't a parade either!  Do you watch television?  How many people do our children see murdered by the time they are 18?  Is that any less brutal then gladatorial combat?  The difference is that on television, its up close and personal.  Every gory detail is delectable for a society addicted to violence.

Again, I reassert, "nearly analogous".  If anyone continues to debate this, jump in.

TGACE

The fact that this is nothing new does not make it morally right.  We should learn from the mistakes of the past, instead of trying to rationalize our ignorance.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 21, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> MartialTalk Admin Note:
> 
> Please keep the discussion polite and respectful.
> 
> ...



Rich, could you identify the things that you are viewing/concerned might be pushing/crossing the respect lines.  If it is that much of a concern, I want to know what could lead to suspension/repercussions.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 21, 2004)

Havent had much success changing since the Roman times (according to you) what makes you think we are going to have any luck now???


----------



## Tgace (Mar 21, 2004)

Hmm hockey is kinda like gladiatorial combat....We have an eagle as our mascot too...toga parties at colleges....  The uniforms are much more comfortable now though.

What I dont get is ...the Roman Empire lasted how many hundreds/thousands of years and were headed for the Fall just short of 300?? Maybe we should try to be MORE like them....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 21, 2004)

Re: Admin Note:
It is policy as needed/possible to act preemptively, rather than wait for things to flare up. This way we hope to avoid the need for suspensions and bans.

If this is a concern to anyone, please start a new thread in the support forum, not here.

Thank you.

Now, may I request that things focus on the topics at hand as I personally am finding them rather interesting.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 21, 2004)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0911/p02s01-wogi.html
http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2151
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/analysis/2004/0126rival1.htm

Im no political scholar, but some who are hesitate to call America a "New Rome" the above are just the first few I found on a google search.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 21, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0911/p02s01-wogi.html
> http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2151
> http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/analysis/2004/0126rival1.htm
> 
> Im no political scholar, but some who are hesitate to call America a "New Rome" the above are just the first few I found on a google search.



Interesting, but obvious obfuscation.  If behooves the Establishment to rewrite actual historical events.  Otherwise, the past becomes a beacon...


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 21, 2004)

I see some similarities between the Roman Empire and the (growing) American Empire. But there are also some differences. I think one of the biggest similarities goes right to the US 'Checks and Balances'. 

The constitution states that Congress shall have the sole authority to declare war, yet congress has abdicated this authority to the executive. It is embarrassing, I think.

Is it OK that the Administration used mis-leading statements to build support for the invasion of Iraq. Such as:

"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency ... It has developed weapons of mass death." George Bush

"We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a neclear weapon." Richard Cheney.

"We said they had a neclear program. That was never any debate". Donald Rumsfeld

"The more we wait, the more chance there is for this dictator with clear ties to terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, more time for him to pass a weapon, share a technology, or use these weapons again." Colin Powell

"Had there been even a peep that the agency did not want that sentence in, or that George Tenet did not want that sentence in, that the director of Central Intelligence did not want it in, it would have been gone." Condolezza Rice (refering to the Yellowcake statement in the 2003 State of the Union speech).

Each of these statements was demonstrably misleading (or false in the case of Ms. Rice). My question is ... Of what consequence?

Mike


----------



## Tgace (Mar 21, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Interesting, but obvious obfuscation. If behooves the Establishment to rewrite actual historical events. Otherwise, the past becomes a beacon...


The Globalist Institute and Global Policy Org a part of the "establishment"??? Your tinfoil hats slipping..........Theyre probably as far from Republican/conservative as you can get. The other is from the BBC....???


----------



## Tgace (Mar 21, 2004)

seems theres 2 different issues here.....is it that the war is "wrong" or the way we got into it is "wrong" ???


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 21, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> seems theres 2 different issues here.....is it that the war is "wrong" or the way we got into it is "wrong" ???


Are you sure they aren't part of the same discussion?

As I started this post, it was more about the statements that were used to bring about the invasion. The Bush administration used demonstrably mis-leading statements to bolster support for their course of action. 

Without these mis-leading statements, would they have been able to launch an invasion?

Does the fact that the administration has made these statements, while knowing they were less than accurate, have any bearing on the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the war?

Is it just that 'Might Makes Right' or that the 'Ends Justify the Means'? 

Have we as a society become so shallow?

Mike


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 21, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I see some similarities between the Roman Empire and the (growing) American Empire. But there are also some differences. I think one of the biggest similarities goes right to the US 'Checks and Balances'.
> 
> The constitution states that Congress shall have the sole authority to declare war, yet congress has abdicated this authority to the executive. It is embarrassing, I think.
> 
> ...


Roman began with check ands balances. It was not until the Senate basically gave it power away to the by allowing one dictator versus their power base of two executive leaders (* sorry for got the latin term *). At one time there were three because of the politcs, yet usually they had the two executive and the senate.

The U.S. Contitution creators, in my opinion, took these examples and drafted some nice frame work including a Senate and a House of Rep. as well as the two executive, with one being senior to the other. Later, forgot which admendment, the Pres and Vice Pres were allowed to run together. This was to avoid having a VP from a different party than the Pres, and causing politcal instability or possible assininations.



Thank You


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 21, 2004)

1. Yes it is valid to discuss terms of office for the equivelant of Congressmen when I am referring to limited terms of the POTUS relative to a Caesar.  Right&#61514;.

2. Oh, but the annual celebrations that involved sacrifices to the Caesar/or the established religion that all citizens - except for card carrying Jews - were expected to participate in wasn't a state relig?

3. I didn't say that they didn't have checks and balances, only implied that ours is in place and - it seems, doing a better job if we are discussing the justified use of force by the POTUS, this would have led to some very large scale executions/assasinations in Roman Days (here we go with modern assassiniation conspiracies ).

4. You are correct, for some reason I had a brain fart and was thinking Greek and talking Roman.  Oops

5. All Roman citizens were male vets or people who bought into/earned citizenship or their children/family.  I think the media would have a hay day with any story of refusal to voting access -especially if it involved a minority.

6.  Actually western public education could be credited to quite a few points in history, the Spartans are an earlier possibility... depends on where you want to stop/start your finger pointing for analogy use.  It is subjective.  And, like citizenry in Roman culture, education predominately went to the male and was not available to all members.  Even if it was available it was caste/gender specific.  Women would get a different education on the average from the the men.  Weavers would get a different education from the future leaders/citizens.... I know there is disparity, but it isn't THAT caste-like in the current day US.

7.  Every culture could fit into a violence addicted comparison with the US from any historical point.  Have you seen the anime comics that children of any age can purchase off the rack in Japan?  The images of SHussein/POW's were publicized by the MEDIA not a state broadcasting forum like an execution.  The purpose of having these POW's/SHussein 'parades' - within the context of military operations/politics is for varification and confirmation, and yes a demonstration of power (like lifting the Stanley Cup over your head, it that so bad?) but it is NOT the same as Gladitorial games or public executions.  Like I said the difference between the values of the US citizen and those of the Roman citizen are the hugest difference I can see.  I don't see people watching executions on prime time.  Violence in culture isn't a direct or exclusive inheritance of the USA from Roman culture.  Japan used prisoners for penetration tests of new Katana, Aztec sports events would finish with the sacrifice of the losing team.  LaCrosse games with the Native American cultures was bloody and ended in deaths regularly.

Again, do you trust anyone in gov.?  Is there anyone you have any faith in?
I know you are going to respond to this, but I will not continue this.  Because of Rich and Bobs prompting, I am going to try and stay closer to the topic.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 21, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The Globalist Institute and Global Policy Org a part of the "establishment"??? Your tinfoil hats slipping..........Theyre probably as far from Republican/conservative as you can get. The other is from the BBC....???



I was thinking about proxies.  The US commits atrocity through proxies.  We had our hands full with genocide in the 1800s and the early part of this century and it was bad press.  Once it is established that secondary linkages are orthodox methodology, the relationship between our times and the Late Roman Republic becomes even more concrete.  

Also, Republican/Conservatives or Democratic/Liberal, it matters little.  The label is a sticker pasted over the same people.  This, is another trait that has many parellels...


----------



## Tgace (Mar 21, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Are you sure they aren't part of the same discussion?
> 
> As I started this post, it was more about the statements that were used to bring about the invasion. The Bush administration used demonstrably mis-leading statements to bolster support for their course of action.
> 
> ...


So what we needed was a legit "Pearl Harbor" to get us in? Like I said before, the roots of this conflict go back to Iraq not abiding to a cease fires terms...problem is we let things slide so long that we went back to needing an "excuse" for the war. Granted, turning up the heat with inspection demands and the like over a period of time would have been the better route than tossing the dice hoping that the expected weapons would be there.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 21, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I was thinking about proxies. The US commits atrocity through proxies. We had our hands full with genocide in the 1800s and the early part of this century and it was bad press. Once it is established that secondary linkages are orthodox methodology, the relationship between our times and the Late Roman Republic becomes even more concrete.
> 
> Also, Republican/Conservatives or Democratic/Liberal, it matters little. The label is a sticker pasted over the same people. This, is another trait that has many parellels...


What does any of that have to do with the points the writers of those articles had??? Everybody but you has an agenda???


----------



## Tgace (Mar 21, 2004)

"Some times the the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good. That honor, virtue and courage mean everything. That money and power mean nothing. That good always triumphs over evil. That true love never dies. Dosen't matter if they're true or not. A man should believe in those things anyway. Because they are the things worth believing in."
-Second Hand Lions

This line best sums up to me why soldiers fight, what I believe about my country and what is "best" in people. Politics, Nations , Empires...they will always have "negative" motivations and historys (they have all throughout history). Not saying that you overlook wrongdoing or be nieve (sp?), fight to make reality match your faith, but if you find evil and wrongdoing around every corner what is the point of going on? And if you dont believe in these things in your heart than who/what is worth fighting for anyway??? I believe that all high intentions and noble causes need that belief. Our founding fathers were only men after all, with faults and our nation has its problems like all the others. But they believed in a nation of liberty, justice and freedom and so do I.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 21, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> "Some times the the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good. That honor, virtue and courage mean everything. That money and power mean nothing. That good always triumphs over evil. That true love never dies. Dosen't matter if they're true or not. A man should believe in those things anyway. Because they are the things worth believing in."
> -Second Hand Lions
> 
> This line best sums up to me why soldiers fight, what I believe about my country and what is "best" in people. Politics, Nations , Empires...they will always have "negative" motivations and historys (they have all throughout history). Not saying that you overlook wrongdoing or be nieve (sp?), fight to make reality match your faith, but if you find evil and wrongdoing around every corner what is the point of going on? And if you dont believe in these things in your heart than who/what is worth fighting for anyway??? I believe that all high intentions and noble causes need that belief. Our founding fathers were only men after all, with faults and our nation has its problems like all the others. But they believed in a nation of liberty, justice and freedom and so do I.



Well, put Tom.  Be prepared for the 'your just being a blind puppet' comments.  God forbid that we hope for the best, that we aspire to be better, knowing that we are all a work in progress and believe the same in others.  Teach fear/distrust, students learn to be afraid of themselves and everyone else, learn to face fear, students learn to see the best in themselves and project that belief/hope on others.  Is that so wrong?  On any scale, I think this works.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 22, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So what we needed was a legit "Pearl Harbor" to get us in? Like I said before, the roots of this conflict go back to Iraq not abiding to a cease fires terms...problem is we let things slide so long that we went back to needing an "excuse" for the war. Granted, turning up the heat with inspection demands and the like over a period of time would have been the better route than tossing the dice hoping that the expected weapons would be there.


Maybe we do not need something on the scale of 'Pearl Harbor' in order to invade the country because they have not met the resonsibilities of the 1991 Cease Fire.

This administration did try to make September 11, 2001 *THE* Pearl Harbor that justified the invasion of Iraq. And despite all the evidence, many people continue to believe that Iraq played some part in those terrorist attacks.

The facts show that Iraq had *nothing at all* to do with 9/11.
The facts show that Iraq was *not an threat* to the United States.
The facts show that Iraq was *not assisting *al-Qaida in any way.

What then justifies the invasion as part of the 'War on Terror'?

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 22, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Well, put Tom. Be prepared for the 'your just being a blind puppet' comments.


Very good Paul. But let's try to look at it in a way other than a statement, OK.

Is there any action a leader (or leadership group) can take that can dis-honor those beliefs in all that is good in men and princes?

While at the individual level, it is good to hold to the beliefs in man's better nature, can there ever come a time that actions prove that other do not share these beliefs?

A very good example of someone trying to believe in 'What is Good and Right' was in evidence last night on 60 Minutes. Richard Clarke's interview showed a person who believed his government was motivated by the better angels, (he has served in goverment for 30 years). It appears that he felt betrayed by the Bush Administration's thirst for Iraq, and the way in which it built support for the invasion.

Mike


----------



## Tgace (Mar 22, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Very good Paul. But let's try to look at it in a way other than a statement, OK.
> 
> Is there any action a leader (or leadership group) can take that can dis-honor those beliefs in all that is good in men and princes?
> 
> ...


Mr. Ward..First off, I have no problem with anything you have had to say here. You object to the way our country was launched into this war and you have every right to, thats what it means to be an American. I personally think that the war was long overdue but wish that the administration would have taken a more measured, less gambling route. You dont come across as a "this nation has been a corrupt, genocidal, den of vipers out to take over the world since 1776" type that my post was meant to address. Like I said, believing the best of my country dosent mean turning a blind eye to wrong. My problem with many protesters is that they follow the "hippy" burn the flag, spit on soldiers, this country is evil route and not a "this great country deserves better than this!" one.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 22, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Very good Paul. But let's try to look at it in a way other than a statement, OK.
> 
> Is there any action a leader (or leadership group) can take that can dis-honor those beliefs in all that is good in men and princes?
> 
> Mike



Oh, there are many examples of this type of thing.  SHussein, comes to mind for me relative to his country.  Hitler, South African leaders who promoted Aparteid.  POTUS in history who turned a blind eye on the rights of blacks,women,... through history come to mind. Institutions that express the lack of decency are headed or staffed by individuals/groups of individuals. The individual is the building block of the group.  One bad apple and so on.

I think SHussein formed his own threat status separate from and lesser to the threat from Afg.  I posted a little while ago of how I thought the process could have been more palletable for the countries approval.  One thing that was never discussed was why, if the war was/is on Terrorism, Pakistan hasn't been taken to task in some fashion - either by regional nations in cooperation with the war on terrorism, diplomacy (yes, I know military action is a form of diplomacy ), Irag seemed like it could have sat on the back burner for a while.  But then, that was how we treated Al Q and Mid East terrorist threats on the US and look where it got us.

Exercise your right to protest and scrutinize our nations leaders, I do it too.  My criticism of political discussion on these forums - or in general - is the same one I have about most during meetings.  We all sit around and whine and complain, feel releaved once it is off our chest - or worse, feel wound up and angry - and never get to the 'what can we do about it to make it better' phase.  People, when they find a welcome aud., can have a tendency to take it as permission to say and do things that don't lead to resolving problems, but make them the center of attention and create more hate and discontent.  

I grew up/hung out in a small town with a big Irish American pride feel, part of that heritage is political debate (though I think it happens everywhere) and believe me I have heard and participated in the pointless political complaining -veiled as debate - at coffee shops/pubs.  It makes people who feel powerless comforted, but it doesn't really change a hell of a lot.  Voting, research, education on critical thinking, cooperation...teamwork - from the my POV as a teacher, would be more productive use of time.  

You write with a strong opinion, but not with a fantatacism/paranoia.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 22, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> You write with a strong opinion, but not with a fantatacism/paranoia.



Where is the line drawn between educated and rational vs fanaticism and paranoid?  What if the vast majority of education is just a mechanism to reduce the latter in order to support order?  Take a look at Peoples History of the United states and Lies My Teacher Told Me in order to understand what I'm talking about.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 22, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Again, do you trust anyone in gov.?  Is there anyone you have any faith in?
> I know you are going to respond to this, but I will not continue this.  Because of Rich and Bobs prompting, I am going to try and stay closer to the topic.



Yes, there are people who I trust and have trusted in politics.  Unfortuneately, they end up being assassinated...I guess a question I could ask you is that who, exactly, have you met that has been worthy of your trust?

Also, I would like to invite you to continue this discussion on this thread...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13669

This has been a very enjoyable discussion, thank you.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 22, 2004)

Wow, I'm a MT blackbelt!

I was listening to NPR and heard an interview of Richard Clarcke.  His job was to lead a high level counter terrorism task force.  This is a man who will be testifying infront of the 911 commission and this was a man who was aforementioned to have served this country for 30 years.  He says that the Bush administration ignored his memos regarding an "imminent" Al Qaeda attack.  Furthermore, after the attacks, he states that the Bush administration made every attempt to "force" a connection to Iraq.

How is this possible for a "dedicated public servant"?  More importantly, how can anyone seriously consider this administration worthy of the White House?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Tgace (Mar 22, 2004)

Hmmm took this long for the whistle to blow...and during election time??? Must just be coincidence. Or book $$$ greed.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 22, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Hmmm took this long for the whistle to blow...and during election time??? Must just be coincidence. Or book $$$ greed.


Sounds like somebody was listening to Laura Ingraham today. Her program is broadcast at night in Boston, and those were exactly the talking points she was hitting. Of course, she does not allow discussion on her program, just her one-way rants, like Limbaugh, Hannity, et al.  (Oh, and you missed the one about the books publisher, Simon & Schuster, is owned by Viacom, which also owns CBS, so it must be a [liberal media] conspiracy).

Do the facts stand on there own? Did the Bush adminstration reduce the counter-terrorism position from a Cabinet level position to a Staff level position?

Were there any meetings concerning terrorism during the transition from Clinton to Bush? (Yes ... a mininum of 10 - one of which NSA Berger informed NSA Rice that Osama bin Laden would occupy more of the adminstrations time than any other item - hmm).

Here's something to think about.

After September 11, 2001, the Bush adminstration was able to quite rapidly launch a counter attack in Afghanistan (approximately 3 weeks). That is a pretty quick time frame for such a big operation. How do you suppose all that came together so quickly?

Could it be because the plans were sitting on Richard Clarke's desk. That the plans he assembled at the request of President Clinton after the bombing of the USS Cole were waiting to be acted upon. Clarke completed plans to attack and eliminate al Qaeda and submitted them to NSA Berger on 12/20/2000 (one month before Bush was to take office).

All of these facts have been in plain site for quite a while.

Thanks - Mike


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 23, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Hmmm took this long for the whistle to blow...and during election time??? Must just be coincidence. Or book $$$ greed.



According to an interview on CNN, I witnessed this morning, Richard Clarcke's book needed to be "cleared" by the White House security staff before it could be released for publication.  The auther stated that he wanted to release this book over a year ago, but the White House sat on it until now.  The timing of the book's release is a direct result of the actions of the White House.  

Interesting...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Tgace (Mar 23, 2004)

Hey...Im not debating the factual points of the book...just questioning his adgenda/motivations......the fact that he makes $$$ off of its just an added perk huh??


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 23, 2004)

NPR is broadcasting the 911 commission hearing all day.  I would recommend that people listen to as much of this broadcast as possible.  In next few day, the things that are going to come out are going to be spun uncontrollably by both sides and it will be difficult to discern what was actually said.  So far, it is very interesting.  Right now, ex-secratary of state Madalaine Albright is testifying...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 23, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Where is the line drawn between educated and rational vs fanaticism and paranoid?  What if the vast majority of education is just a mechanism to reduce the latter in order to support order?  Take a look at Peoples History of the United states and Lies My Teacher Told Me in order to understand what I'm talking about.



I have read these books or at least sections of them.  I gave "Lies..." to my father for a B Day present.

Is there a suppression of the truth about our history conspiracy, or is it a decision to focus on the most basic elements that will establish a base line of citizerny knowledge when we are dealing with children?  State funded education will, by nature of sponsorship have and agenda of promoting order and citizenship - so what.  Don't you want the future of America to have some discipline, control, respect for the group?  Besides, there is no Federal curriculum that is used to indocrinate the masses in to the "CULT OF AMERICA."  There are disparities between states all the way down to school districts.

   From the lack of personal responsibility/accountability and academic performance I have seen in some schools, even if there were an agenda we can't even get all our kids to read and do math effectively to be effectively influenced positively or negatively.  Besides, I don't see little automatons goose stepping in time.  I see questioning, inquisitive and suspicious minds.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 23, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Hey...Im not debating the factual points of the book...just questioning his adgenda/motivations......the fact that he makes $$$ off of its just an added perk huh??



Isn't it logical to say that there could be just as much corruption and personal benefit in the agendas on the outside of the beltway as there could be on the inside?  Couldn't those trying to 'tear down the church' only be doing so to put up their own?  This is my point about scale and analogy.  It is all over, because groups are made up of individuals and those individuals influence the dynamics of the group.  

If the basic argument against Bush/Clinton... any politician that a person disapproves of is that they are in office because they think they can do it better... and people on the outside of that office decide that said person can't and 'they can do it better' aren't all parties involved just doing what the system allows them to do?  Compete and promote/criticize?  Why is it assumed that anyone who is critical of/or presents the POTUS or any politician as currupt is 'morally right' and those who are in office or their supporters are blind/being opressive?  

This isn't Jack Ryan of the Clancy Novels, tripping into the oval office - but being the best POTUS based on the fact that he never wanted to be there.  It is not a Capra film with Jimmy Stewart as Mr. Smith as the only moral man inside the beltway.  There are prices to doing business on every scale, in every venue that people come together and act as a group...


----------

