posted
Investigators dig up mass grave seeking evidence to nail Saddam
Wed Oct 13, 8:19 AM ET Mideast - AFP
HATRA, Iraq (AFP) - Forensic experts digging for evidence against ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) have carried out their first full exhumation of a mass grave filled with the skeletons of scores of women and children, many shot in the back of the head.
"This is all women and children. We have taken in excess of 120 bodies out of there," US investigator Greg Kehoe said Wednesday as he stood over one of nine trenches piled with bones and scraps of clothes and jewelry near the northern Iraqi town of Hatra.
Among the dead are pregnant women, even a young boy still clutching his ball, whose bodies were ploughed into their earthen tombs by bulldozers.
"This is something in the time Ive been doing mass graves Ive never seen done before," said Kehoe, a lawyer who has also worked in the Balkans.
The bodies are believed to be those of hundreds of Kurds killed by Saddam's feared regime in a deadly campaign in 1987 and 1988, for which the toppled Iraqi leader is facing trial on charges of crimes against humanity.
"These bodies were just pushed in. It was all women and children. No men. All these people were executed with small arms fire... (It) includes pregnant woman," said Kehoe.
There are about 40 known mass graves in Iraq (news - web sites) containing possibly tens thousands of bodies dumped by Saddam's regime.
But exhumation has in many cases been a free-for-all, with relatives searching for loved ones in the early days after the fall of Baghdad accidentally destroying or tampering with evidence that could be used against Saddam.
Kehoe and a team of US, British and Iraqi forensic experts are now conducting full scientific exhumations to preserve hard evidence, uncovering the ghastly horrors of the old regime.
Saddam, who first appeared before a court in July, faces seven charges including the 1987-88 offensive that saw Kurdish villages razed in northern Iraq and the gassing of the village of Halabja, which left 5,000 people dead.
Kehoe said the Hatra grave was the first to be exhumed according to international standards since his appointment last December, but said his team hopes to work on another 10 sites.
"Were trying to meet international standards that have been accepted by courts throughout the world," Kehoe said.
"One woman when she was executed was carrying her two-year old child, shot in the back of the head. She was shot in the face," he said.
The former US prosecutor's voice cracked as he showed slides of some of the victims.
"This is a young boy with a ball, still holding onto the ball when we uncovered him... This is the little ball he was holding onto, you see his little arm right here, this little ball, this little arm, this little boy."
In the end, he hopes to be able to identify the bodies and return them to families.
"Everybody said never again after the Holocaust. The world wasnt listening. Thats how it happened again and again and again."
He said he thinks often about the piles of children's bones he has seen lying in the dirt.
"Sometimes, you go in there, you see soldiers, and it's not to justify it, but my God, little babies, women, with their children shot in the back of the head.. Why," he asked in a whisper.
posted
President Bush Tuesday, Sept. 21, 2004 Text of the president's address to the U.N. General Assembly:
Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen: Thank you for the honor of addressing this general assembly. Story Continues Below
The American people respect the idealism that gave life to this organization. And we respect the men and women of the U.N., who stand for peace and human rights in every part of the world. Welcome to New York City, and welcome to the United States of America. During the past three years, I have addressed this General Assembly in a time of tragedy for my country, and in times of decision for all of us. Now we gather at a time of tremendous opportunity for the U.N., and for all peaceful nations. For decades, the circle of liberty, and security, and development has been expanding in our world. This progress has brought unity to Europe, and self-government to Latin America and Asia, and new hope to Africa. Now we have the historic chance to widen the circle even further, to fight radicalism and terror with justice and dignity and to achieve a true peace, founded on human freedom.
The United Nations and my country share the deepest commitments. Both the American Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaim the equal value and dignity of every human life. That dignity is honored by the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, protection of private property, free speech, equal justice and religious tolerance. That dignity is dishonored by oppression, corruption, tyranny, bigotry, terrorism, and all violence against the innocent.
And both of our founding documents affirm that this bright line between justice and injustice, between right and wrong, is the same in every age, and every culture, and every nation.
Wise governments also stand for these principles for very practical and realistic reasons. We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace. We know that oppressive governments support terror, while free governments fight the terrorists in their midst. We know that free peoples embrace progress and life, instead of becoming the recruits for murderous ideologies.
Every nation that wants peace will share the benefits of a freer world. And every nation that seeks peace has an obligation to help build that world. Eventually, there is no safe isolation from terror networks, or the failed states that shelter them, or outlaw regimes, or weapons of mass destruction. Eventually, there is no safety in looking away, seeking the quiet life by ignoring the struggles and oppression of others.
In this young century, our world needs a new definition of security. Our security is not merely found in spheres of influence, or some balance of power. The security of our world is found in the advancing rights of mankind.
These rights are advancing across the world, and across the world the enemies of human rights are responding with violence. Terrorists and their allies believe that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the American Bill of Rights, and every charter of liberty ever written, are lies, to be burned and destroyed and forgotten.
They believe that dictators should control every mind and tongue in the Middle East and beyond. They believe that suicide and torture and murder are fully justified to serve any goal they declare. And they act on their beliefs.
In the last year alone, terrorists have attacked police stations and banks and commuter trains and synagogues and a school filled with children. This month in Beslan we saw, once again, how the terrorists measure their success, in the death of the innocent, and in the pain of grieving families.
Svetlana Dzebisov was held hostage along with her son and her nephew. Her nephew did not survive. She recently visited the cemetery, and saw what she called the "little graves." She said, "I understand that there is evil in the world. But what have these little creatures done?"
Members of the United Nations: The Russian children did nothing to deserve such awful suffering and fright and death. The people of Madrid and Jerusalem and Istanbul and Baghdad have done nothing to deserve sudden and random murder. These acts violate the standards of justice in all cultures, and the principles of all religions.
All civilized nations are in this struggle together. And all must fight the murderers.
We are determined to destroy terror networks wherever they operate, and the United States is grateful to every nation that is helping to seize terrorist assets, track down their operatives and disrupt their plans.
We are determined to end the state sponsorship of terror, and my nation is grateful to all that participated in the liberation of Afghanistan.
We are determined to prevent proliferation, and to enforce the demands of the world, and my nation is grateful to the soldiers of many nations who have helped to deliver the Iraqi people from an outlaw dictator.
That dictator agreed in 1991, as a condition of a ceasefire, to fully comply with all Security Council resolutions, then ignored more than a decade of those resolutions. Finally, the Security Council promised serious consequences for his defiance. And the commitments we make must have meaning. When we say "serious consequences," for the sake of peace, there must be serious consequences. And so a coalition of nations enforced the just demands of the world.
Defending our ideals is vital, but it is not enough. Our broader mission as U.N. members is to apply these ideals to the great issues of our time. Our wider goal is to promote hope and progress as the alternatives to hatred and violence. Our great purpose is to build a better world beyond the war on terror.
Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have established a global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. In three years the contributing countries have funded projects in more than 90 countries, and pledged a total of 5.6 billion dollars to these efforts. America has undertaken a $15 billion effort to provide prevention, treatment, and humane care in nations afflicted by AIDS, placing a special focus on 15 countries where the need is most urgent. AIDS is the greatest health crisis of our time, and our unprecedented commitment will bring new hope to those who have walked too long in the shadow of death.
Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have joined together to confront the evil of trafficking in human beings. We are supporting organizations that rescue the victims, passing stronger anti-trafficking laws, and warning travelers that they will be held to account for supporting this modern form of slavery. Women and children should never be exploited for pleasure or greed, anywhere on earth.
Because we believe in human dignity, we should take seriously the protection of life from exploitation under any pretext. In this session, the U.N. will consider a resolution sponsored by Costa Rica calling for a comprehensive ban on human cloning. I support that resolution, and I urge all governments to affirm a basic ethical principle: no human life should ever be produced and destroyed for the benefit of another.
Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have changed the way we fight poverty, curb corruption and provide aid. In 2002 we created the Monterrey Consensus, a bold approach that links new aid from developed nations to real reform in developing ones. And through the Millennium Challenge Account, my nation is increasing our aid to developing nations that expand economic freedom and invest in the education and health of their own people.
Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have acted to lift the crushing burden of debt that limits the growth of developing economies, and holds millions of people in poverty. Since these efforts began in 1996, poor countries with the heaviest debt burdens have received more than 30 billion dollars of relief. And to prevent the build up of future debt, my country and other nations have agreed that international financial institutions should increasingly provide new aid in the form of grants rather than loans.
Because we believe in human dignity, the world must have more effective means to stabilize regions in turmoil, and to halt religious violence and ethnic cleansing. We must create permanent capabilities to respond to future crises.
The United States and Italy have proposed a Global Peace Operations Initiative. G-8 countries will train 75,000 peacekeepers, initially from Africa, so they can conduct operations on that continent and elsewhere. The countries of the G-8 will help this peacekeeping force with deployment and logistical needs.
'Stop the Killing in Darfur'
At this hour, the world is witnessing terrible suffering and horrible crimes in the Darfur region of Sudan, crimes my government has concluded are genocide. The United States played a key role in efforts to broker a cease-fire, and we are providing humanitarian assistance to the Sudanese people.
Rwanda and Nigeria have deployed forces in Sudan to help improve security so aid can be delivered. The Security Council adopted a new Resolution that supports an expanded African Union force to help prevent further bloodshed, and urges the government of Sudan to stop flights by military aircraft in Darfur. We congratulate the members of the council on this timely and necessary action. And I call on the government of Sudan to honor the cease-fire it signed, and to stop the killing in Darfur.
Because we believe in human dignity, peaceful nations must stand for the advance of democracy. No other system of government has done more to protect minorities, to secure the rights of labor, to raise the status of women or to channel human energy to the pursuits of peace. We have witnessed the rise of democratic governments in predominantly Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish and Christian cultures.
Democratic institutions have taken root in modern societies, and in traditional societies. When it comes to the desire for liberty and justice, there is no clash of civilizations. People everywhere are capable of freedom, and worthy of freedom.
Finding the full promise of representative government takes time, as America has found in two centuries of debate and struggle. Nor is there only one form of representative government, because democracies, by definition, take on the unique character of the peoples that create them.
Yet this much we know with certainty: The desire for freedom resides in every heart. And that desire cannot be contained forever by prison walls or martial laws or secret police. Over time, and across the earth, freedom will find a way.
Freedom is finding a way in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we must continue to show our commitment to democracy in those nations. The liberty that many have won at a cost must be secured. As members of the United Nations, we all have a stake in the success of the world's newest democracies.
Not long ago, outlaw regimes in Baghdad and Kabul threatened the peace and sponsored terrorists. These regimes destabilized one of the world's most vital and most volatile regions. They brutalized their peoples, in defiance of all civilized norms.
Today, the Iraqi and Afghan people are on the path to democracy and freedom. The governments that are rising will pose no threat to others. Instead of harboring terrorists, they are fighting terrorist groups. And this progress is good for the long term security of us all.
The Afghan people are showing extraordinary courage under difficult conditions. They are fighting to defend their nation from Taliban hold-outs, and helping to strike against terrorist killers. They are reviving their economy. They have adopted a constitution that protects the rights of all, while honoring their nation's most cherished traditions. More than 10 million Afghan citizens, over 4 million of them women, are now registered to vote in next month's presidential election. To any who would question whether Muslim societies can be democratic societies, the Afghan people are giving their answer.
Since the last meeting of this General Assembly, the people of Iraq have regained sovereignty. Today, in this hall, the prime minister of Iraq and his delegation represent a country that has rejoined the community of nations. The government of Prime Minister Allawi has earned the support of every nation that believes in self-determination and desires peace.
And under Security Council Resolutions 1511 and 1546, the world is providing that support. The U.N. and its member nations must respond to Prime Minister Allawi's request, and do more to help build an Iraq that is secure, democratic, federal and free.
A democratic Iraq has ruthless enemies, because terrorists know the stakes in that country. They know that a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a decisive blow against their ambitions for that region. So a terrorist group associated with al-Qaida is now one of the main groups killing the innocent in Iraq today, conducting a campaign of bombings against civilians, and the beheadings of bound men.
Coalition forces now serving in Iraq are confronting the terrorists and foreign fighters, so peaceful nations around the world will never have to face them within our own borders. Our coalition is standing beside a growing Iraqi security force.
The NATO alliance is providing vital training to that force. More than 35 nations have contributed money and expertise to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. And as the Iraqi interim government moves toward national elections, officials from the United Nations are helping Iraqis build the infrastructure of democracy. These selfless people are doing heroic work and are carrying on the great legacy of Sergio de Mello.
As we have seen in other countries, one of the main terrorist goals is to undermine, disrupt and influence election outcomes. And we can expect terrorist attacks to escalate as Afghanistan and Iraq approach national elections.
The work ahead is demanding. But these difficulties will not shake our conviction that the future of Afghanistan and Iraq is a future of liberty.
'Advance of Freedom Always Carries a Cost'
The proper response to difficulty is not to retreat; it is to prevail. The advance of freedom always carries a cost, paid by the bravest among us.
America mourns the losses to our nation, and to many others. And today I assure every friend of Afghanistan and Iraq, and every enemy of liberty: We will stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq until their hopes of freedom and security are fulfilled.
These two nations will be a model for the broader Middle East, a region where millions have been denied basic human rights and simple justice.
For too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability. Oppression became common, but stability never arrived. We must take a different approach. We must help the reformers of the Middle East as they work for freedom and strive to build a community of peaceful, democratic nations.
This commitment to democratic reform is essential to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Peace will not be achieved by Palestinian rulers who intimidate opposition, tolerate corruption, and maintain ties to terrorist groups. The long-suffering Palestinian people deserve better. They deserve true leaders capable of creating and governing a free and peaceful Palestinian state.
Even after the setbacks and frustrations of recent months, good will and hard effort can achieve the promise of the roadmap to peace. Those who would lead a new Palestinian state should adopt peaceful means to achieve the rights of their people, and create the reformed institutions of a stable democracy.
Arab states should end incitement in their own media, cut off public and private funding for terrorism, and establish normal relations with Israel. Israel should impose a settlement freeze, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people and avoid any actions that prejudice final negotiations. And world leaders should withdraw all favor and support from any Palestinian ruler who fails his people and betrays their cause.
The democratic hopes we see growing in the Middle East are growing everywhere. In the words of the Burmese democracy advocate Aung San Suu Kyi: "We do not accept the notion that democracy is a Western value. To the contrary, democracy simply means good government rooted in responsibility, transparency, and accountability."
Here at the United Nations, you know this to be true. In recent years, this organization has helped create a new democracy in East Timor, and the U.N. has aided other nations in making the transition to self-rule.
Because I believe the advance of liberty is the path to both a safer and better world, today I propose establishing a Democracy Fund within the United Nations. This is a great calling for this great organization. The fund would help countries lay the foundations of democracy by instituting the rule of law, independent courts, a free press, political parties and trade unions. Money from the fund would also help set up voter precincts and polling places and support the work of election monitors.
To show our commitment to the new Democracy Fund, the United States will make an initial contribution, and I urge other nations to contribute as well.
Today I have outlined a broad agenda to advance human dignity and enhance the security of all of us. The defeat of terror, the protection of human rights, the spread of prosperity, the advance of democracy - these causes, these ideals call us to great work in the world. Each of us alone can only do so much. Together we can accomplish so much more.
History will honor the high ideals of this organization. The charter states them with clarity: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.
Let history also record that our generation of leaders followed through on these ideals, even in adversity. Let history show that in a decisive decade, members of the United Nations did not grow weary in our duties, or waver in meeting them.
I am confident that this young century will be liberty's century. I believe we will rise to this moment, because I know the character of so many nations and leaders represented here today. And I have faith in the transforming power of freedom.
posted
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com Thursday, Oct 30, 2003
A couple of weeks ago in this space I ran down the strengths and weaknesses of the Democratic presidential contenders, so now to be "fair and balanced" let's evaluate President Bush.
His strongest suit is the bond he forged with the American people immediately following the terror attack on September 11th. Mr. Bush reacted the way most Americans reacted: with anger and a stark determination to right the wrong.
And he did, he dethroned the Taliban and sent Al Qaeda into the caves. That sequence of events provided Bush with an emotional attachment to the folks. Only two other American Presidents in my lifetime have had that: John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
George W. Bush is also a strong leader. He doesn't waffle around, and he isn't poll driven. He makes determinations and sticks to them. Some believe this is a minus, but I think a strong leader is a major plus in this time of terror.
So, the President's determination to stay the course could very much help him win re-election if the course is deemed successful. That's the hard part.
Also, Mr. Bush is seen as an honest man who espouses traditional values. That will shore up his conservative base, and even though he's a huge spender, the right-wing will not abandon him.
Finally in the plus department, the President is helped by those who are demonizing him. The criticism is so over the top in many quarters that legitimate questions about Bush's leadership are sometimes lost among all the vitriol.
The loony left's defamatory attacks persuade no one; they are simply shrill notes to the choir that already despises the President. Bush rarely responds to the grenades, wisely calculating that the excessive venom will turn off independent-thinking Americans.
And now for the downside. The President rarely shows his affable side, because he distrusts his ability to communicate. He cloisters himself behind iron gates when he should be holding town meetings and interacting with the people. When Mr. Bush speaks from the heart, he comes across well.
When he relies on canned speeches and statements, he looks like Don Knotts. He has good reason to distrust the press, but that doesn't mean he should avoid it. Mr. Bush's inaccessibility is a major drawback.
While the economy is picking up and will recede as a major campaign issue, the President has enormous problems in Iraq. He must acknowledge those difficulties and explain the mistakes his administration has made.
Mr. Bush continues to run a tightly controlled, closed shop. This will hurt him in a close election race. Americans will accept mistakes from a President, but they will not accept uncertainty. Bush's failure to get out in front of the administration's problems and define the payoff a stable Iraq will deliver is the biggest weapon the democrats have against him.
The President is generally disliked overseas and that's not good. He is portrayed in many places as an American chauvinist with a poor frame of reference. Thus, he is underestimated by prigs like Chirac and Schroeder.
The upside is that Mr. Bush is feared by the bad guys. Osama will not be visiting a Club Med anytime soon. But the President should make an attempt to be conciliatory to countries that might possibly help America down the road. He must swallow some pride, and if he doesn't, the country will suffer.
All in all, George W. Bush could go either way in the history books. If his Iraqi gamble pays off and worldwide terrorism is kept on the defensive, he will be well remembered. If Iraq degenerates into a fiasco, he'll sidle up alongside Lyndon Johnson.
Like him or not, the President is a man of strength and weakness. But the war on terror will define him, and that war is still to be determined.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Petrified Truth Transforming fact into rumor. « Khalid talking | Main | Machiavellian thoughts » September 21, 2003 Reagan-Bush Time magazine is running excerpts this week from a newly-published volume of Ronald Reagan's letters. The letters are worth reading in whole, so a copy of the book itself will be a good investment. Also interesting is the grudgingly positive commentary by the Time reporters, which pauses to compare Reagan with George W. Bush.
It has always been tempting to compare the two men, especially since the Bush shop keeps a 24-hour honor guard around the Reagan flame. The letters remind us that Bush and Reagan both rose as Governors of big states; both are Westerners to the core, vigorous, unabashed, plainspoken and dismissed as incurious. They were bracketed by tinkerers and tacticians: Carter, Bush pere and Clinton all worked the margins, looked for an opening. Reagan and Bush are by contrast radicals, risk takers, playing for keeps. It's almost part of the conservative catechism: Bush, as Reagan did, conveys the sense that he has had a full life apart from his political fortunes; both men give the impression that they could have run and lost and been content back at the ranch with their beloved wives, clearing brush, chopping wood, moving on. So with nothing to lose, they play for the whole table: overhaul the tax code, topple the evil empire, save the world from terrorism. Why settle for less? :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The Facts Show Increase of Jobs Under Bush Paige McKenzie, NewsMax.com Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2004 The media and Democrats keep repeating it over and over: "2.3 million jobs lost" since President Bush took office. His could be the worst job record since before World War II, they claim. One little problem: It's not true.
Not only has there been no net loss of jobs during the Bush administration, there has been a net gain, even with the devastation of 9/11. At least 2.4 million jobs have been created since the president took office, 2 million of those in 2003. The gains more than offset the losses.
While Democrats continue to beat their election-year drums about outsourcing, manufacturing losses, unemployment and slow growth in employment, America’s economy has been steadily creating jobs.
At least 366,000 jobs have been created in the last five months, over 100,000 of those in January, White House press secretary Scott McClellan has noted. And though the eight-month recession “officially” ended in November, economic indicators are surprising economists and pointing toward a take-off in the recovery.
The signs:
The 5.6 percent unemployment rate is the lowest in two years and below the average of the 1980s (7.3 percent) and '90s (5.8 percent), and still continues to drop.
The nation's economic output revealed the strongest quarterly growth in 20 years. The data for the fourth quarter of 2003 show that the civilian labor force rose by 333,000, while the number of unemployed in the labor force dropped by 575,000, and the number of so-called discouraged workers is less than .3 percent of the workforce, according to Paul Kersey of the Heritage Foundation.
Consumer spending grew between 4 percent and 5 percent last year, and real hourly earnings rose 1.5 percent. Real earnings have risen over the last three years.
Exports doubled to 19 percent in the fourth quarter, compared to less than 9 percent in the third.
The number of American workers is at an all-time high of 138.5 million, a level never before attained in U.S. history.
Jobless claims are 10 percent below the average of the last 25 years and still falling.
Hiring indices are up, even in manufacturing.
Productivity growth is extremely high.
Now the doomsayers are criticizing the validity of the unemployment rate, which at 5.6 percent does not fit their gloomy story.
Faulty Counting
The problem is the areas of biggest job growth are usually not even being counted at all.
Though 75 percent of jobs are created by small companies, according to the Small Business Administration, this sector’s entrepreneurial activity and the jobs it creates are left out by Washington bean counters when calculating official new job numbers.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does its Payroll Survey by phoning businesses to crunch the number of jobs that have been gained or lost. This is where Democrats grabbed onto their lifeline, the 2.3 million figure. Look only at the Payroll Survey, and there has been a gain of only 522,000 jobs since Bush took office.
But here’s the rub. The Household Survey is used to determine the unemployment rate and accounts for those who are self-employed, and small emerging businesses that might be overlooked by the Payroll Survey. But the number of U.S. firms isn’t static, and the "fixed list" used by the BLS for phoning established businesses does not reflect new entrepreneurial activity.
People are called at home and asked if they have jobs, or if they are in the market for a job. In contrast to the Payroll Survey, the Household Survey shows that 2.4 million jobs have been created so far during Bush's time in office.
As Economy.com writer Haseeb Ahmed recently wrote, "something is amiss in the [Payroll] survey."
Credit Where Credit Is Due
That’s not all. When doomsayers, and media spoiling for a fight in an election year, laughed at Bush’s prediction of 2.6 million new jobs this year, not everyone was scoffing.
Ahmed, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and others hardly batted an eye. Greenspan said it was "probably feasible" the economy would reach the Bush administration's forecast of adding 2.6 million jobs this year, provided growth continues and the productivity rate slows to more typically levels.
"I don't think it's 'Fantasyland,'" Greenspan said.
"I agree with him," said John Ryding, chief market economist at Bear Stearns. "I think that we will create 2.5 million, possibly more, jobs over the balance of the year."
Ahmed is convinced that "the revision patterns of the early-1990s recovery cycle" will be repeated. A total of 1.4 million job gains were revised upward to 2.9 million in the first 21 months after the end of the last recession, just after Bush Sr. was voted out of office.
Next: If elected, will John Kerry get credit for the jobs created under the Bush administration? And find out why so many workers are not being counted. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Friday, Oct. 8, 2004 3:56 p.m. EDT Bremer: Bush Is Still Right About Iraq
Apparently tired of how the media establishment and its pet John Kerry have distorted his recent remarks on Iraq, former administrator L. Paul Bremer III has a column today in the worst offender, the New York Times.
Story Continues Below Among his points:
"The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq. "I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush."
"The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. "He understands that our enemies are not confined to al-Qaida, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan.
"As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are.
"Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaida ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq."
"Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. "But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism." :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Tuesday, Oct. 5, 2004 12:02 a.m. EDT Iraqi Nuke Scientist: Saddam Had WMD Program
The Iraqi physicist who ran his country's uranium enrichment program says that Saddam Hussein continued to fund efforts to develop nuclear weapons right up until the U.S. invasion in March 2003.
"Saddam kept funding the IAEC [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] from 1991 ... until the war in 2003," reveals Dr. Mahdi Obeidi in his new book, "The Bomb in My Garden."
While Saddam's nuclear program officially ended after the first Gulf War, the reality, says Dr. Obeidi, was far different.
"I was developing the centrifuge for the weapons" right through 1997, he now admits.
In an interview with WABC Radio's John Gambling, the Iraqi centrifuge scientist said he was ordered to keep his nuclear bombmaking research concealed from U.N. weapons inspectors.
And even after 1997 - when Saddam's nuke program went dormant - Obeidi says he continued to keep his centrifuge plans in safe storage - in a cardboard box buried beneath a lotus plant in his front yard.
"I had to maintain the program to the bitter end," Obeidi explained, saying his only other choice was death. All the while the Iraqi physicist was aware that he held the key to Saddam's continuing nuclear ambitions.
"The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece of nuclear technology," he writes. "With advances in centrifuge technology, it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program inside a single warehouse."
The nuke plans he buried included "the full set of blueprints, designs - everything to restart the centrifuge program - along with some critical components of the centrifuge."
Writes Dr. Obeidi:
"Would Saddam have tried to build nuclear weapons again? One can only imagine he would have. For the time being, however, the core knowledge for rebuilding the centrifuge program lay buried in my garden, waiting for the order from Qusay Hussein or his father." :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
posted
The truth of it is, which we have all said or agreed on (I am pretty sure) at least once, is that we will never know all the facts, never know the pure truth, which is undoubtedly not simple, and we will most likely never know all the reasons (ie. intel.) for going to war. From what I know, and what I have seen as bad as some of it may come across, I do feel long term it will bring about an entire new realm of peace; and possible stabalize the middle east.
Posts: 1153 | From: northeast | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stabilization in the middle east is been on going since i was born.And will probably still be going on when i'm dead.Nobody wants to give an inch over there.So it will continue.
Posts: 942 | From: tracy,ca U.S.A | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tigertony: Stabilization in the middle east is been on going since i was born.And will probably still be going on when i'm dead.Nobody wants to give an inch over there.So it will continue.
absolutely correct Tony..... that is what Bush meant when he said we can't win the war on terror...only people don't want to hear that....everybody seems to have forgotten the WHOLE Iran story....
the Shah was our ally, a good ally....
i don't know how to tell everybody what we have to deal with there.....nobody really wants to hear it, and from what i see so far Bush didn't want to hear it either....we are in for a long tough struggle.....Bush thought he was going to have a freaking statue made of him.....DUHHHHH..........
posted
I look upon this election, as a spiritual battle! If these are the end times, as a lot of Christians believe, then who would you rather have as leader? Someone who is willing to share his faith,and the gospel to all four corners of the world, like it says in scripture, or someone who thinks that God is mentioned way too many times? How can you mention the creator of the universe, too many times? Do you vote for the light, or for the darkness? Do you sit in the middle? Just wanted to make you think! I know you guys probably just love waiting to see what I am going to type! lol!
Posts: 622 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
you know what thought, it would be very impressive if someday they did make a statue of our President and put it somewhere prominent. I don't ever see a reason for it, but it would be funny. The quote on the bottom would say, you call this a swagger, down in the lone star state of the US of A we call this walkin. lol
Posts: 1153 | From: northeast | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kate: I look upon this election, as a spiritual battle! If these are the end times, as a lot of Christians believe, then who would you rather have as leader? Someone who is willing to share his faith,and the gospel to all four corners of the world, like it says in scripture, or someone who thinks that God is mentioned way too many times? How can you mention the creator of the universe, too many times? Do you vote for the light, or for the darkness? Do you sit in the middle? Just wanted to make you think! I know you guys probably just love waiting to see what I am going to type! lol!
its a good thing Bush has you on his side. At least you agree with him on Stem cell research.
quote:Originally posted by keithsan: when did he say it would be quick and easy...
I recall him saying this will be a long struggle....
Please, please no statues.
he did it by his whole approach keith...... the embedded reporter thing??????? you don't think they did to show the world a bunch of dead bodies do you????? it was a joke...ask anybody who knows anything about killing.....
posted
I have lost two beloved family members to Alzheimers, but I wouldn't of wanted to take innocent lives, to find a cure,and I know that neither one of them, would of wanted that either. I would rather die myself, than have an innocent child be used as a sacrafice for me!
Posts: 622 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What was going to be easy was the battle with the republican guard and iraq army.IMHO But Bush never said that.And we have always had the media in war and it has been growing to where they do go and report live that isnt on bush. What he said was going to be a long struggle was the war on terror
[This message has been edited by tigertony (edited October 13, 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by glassman: he did it by his whole approach keith...... the embedded reporter thing??????? you don't think they did to show the world a bunch of dead bodies do you????? it was a joke...ask anybody who knows anything about killing.....
guess i'm not as synical as you, i like the idea of embedded reporting, the vietnam way didn't work....and this is a media driven culture.
But saying we're bringing tv cameras cuz this war is a joke is a really far reach, even for you.....
You see france crying after the report today....whaaaa, its not true.... we weren't bribed....we didn't tell sadam we would veto for him.....
maybe if they weren't bribed, the war doesn't happen cuz sadam complies....
Posts: 9110 | From: boston, ma | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Complete coverage IRAQ IN-DEPTH: War and reconstruction
Bush to troops: Mission accomplished By Judy Keen, USA TODAY DOHA, Qatar — President Bush ended his trip to Europe and the Middle East on Thursday reveling in the approving roar of troops at Camp As Sayliyah.
"America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished," he said. Despite growing doubts at home and abroad, he reiterated that troops would find weapons of mass destruction, which were his rationale for striking first at Iraq.
Air Force One flew a victory lap across Iraq. Bush pointed out the Baghdad airport, the Tigris River, the place where U.S. bombing launched the war and other landmarks to Secretary of State Colin Powell, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and other senior staff members.
you don't remember what??????
i REMEMBER declarations of success all over the place by this guy....not just on the aircraft carrier......
posted
it was a success... that part of the op. then the hard work came... which he stated, time and time again
Posts: 1153 | From: northeast | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
you guys are IN LA LA land.... he declared victory..... and all of his staff has admitted they were caught by surprise at the insurgency....
there are so many MAJOR screw-ups i don't have time to list them.... it's been one after another.. from the same article]
Some allies worried when Bush went to war without U.N. approval that he would tackle future problems with a go-it-alone approach. The conduct of the Middle East summit may renew some of those questions: The "road map" peace plan was written by the United States, the European Union, United Nations and Russia, but only the United States was at the summit.
he is a lot more than unpopular in the rest of the world....
quote:Originally posted by glassman: he did it by his whole approach keith...... the embedded reporter thing??????? you don't think they did to show the world a bunch of dead bodies do you????? it was a joke...ask anybody who knows anything about killing.....
Glass you continue to impress me with your obviously intentional ability to avoid the obvious when it's reality. The embedded reporter idea was brilliant because it suceeded in showing the world in real-time how fast we cut through what was considered the best any arab nation could muster as far as a millitary force. Yet again you are wrong. Does it ever get old?
Posts: 1019 | From: Are You With The CIA? | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Glass you continue to impress me with your obviously intentional ability to avoid the obvious when it's reality. The embedded reporter idea was brilliant because it suceeded in showing the world in real-time how fast we cut through what was considered the best any arab nation could muster as far as a millitary force. Yet again you are wrong. Does it ever get old?
[/B]
LOL DQR they knew that from the first gulf war already----100hrs remember....fact is, that invasion was a cakewalk cuz Iraq was UNDEFENDED...sheesh
furthermore, as soon as things started looking the least bit bad the censors stepped right in......
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 13, 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by glassman: LOL DQR they knew that from the first gulf war already----100hrs remember....fact is, that invasion was a cakewalk cuz Iraq was UNDEFENDED...sheesh
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 13, 2004).]
Yes Glass, virtually undefended. I do apologize for the lack of an even fight. Pretty sure that was the idea behind the embedded reporter idea. Point being it was to send a message to countries like Iran, Syria, Lybia, North Korea, and the rest. Pretty sure it worked
Posts: 1019 | From: Are You With The CIA? | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i agree with you somewhat DQR.... BUT we were also trying to convince OURSELVES that we were not gonna have to get our hands WET
Who was? I sure wasn't. Were you? This is a forced regime change... it isn't all gonna be pretty, especially when we are killing two birds with one stone (regime change and focussing the war on terror into a space the size of Kalifornia) I'm sorry you think you were lead to believe it would all be roses. But you weren't. Bush all along said it would be a long hard fight. Posts: 1019 | From: Are You With The CIA? | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: So DQR at least you admit it to be what it was....
a forced regime change cuz we wanted to....
fascism....
A forced regime change because it had to be done. Do you regret topling Nazi Germany? Was that also facism? You really must take time to rehearse these posts of yours. I do regret you haven't my improvisational abilities but we all have our good points. Take your time, write out a few rough drafts, then procede with trying to refute what is obviously true.
Posts: 1019 | From: Are You With The CIA? | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A forced regime change because it had to be done. Do you regret topling Nazi Germany? Was that also facism? You really must take time to rehearse these posts of yours. I do regret you haven't my improvisational abilities but we all have our good points. Take your time, write out a few rough drafts, then procede with trying to refute what is obviously true.
obviously true???
we invaded a third world country?
for what? regime change??
and we did that on what moral authority?
oh yeah, the same moral authority the USSR invaded the Czechs with in the 60's, Afghanistan with in the 70's and the same one Germany used to take whatever it wanted?
and before you sart saying it's different cuz we are going to let them have elections....wait....
cuz they are gonna have the only democracy in the mid-east...except afgh. LOL its an expirement and these guys thought the Iraqis wanted US LOL...........
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 13, 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by glassman: [b] A forced regime change because it had to be done. Do you regret topling Nazi Germany? Was that also facism? You really must take time to rehearse these posts of yours. I do regret you haven't my improvisational abilities but we all have our good points. Take your time, write out a few rough drafts, then procede with trying to refute what is obviously true.
obviously true???
we invaded a third world country?
for what? regime change??
and we did that on what moral authority?
oh yeah, the same moral authority the USSR invaded Afghanistan with in the 70's and the same one Germany used to take whatever it wanted?
and before you sart saying it's different cuz we are going to let them have elections....wait.... cuz they are gonna have the only democracy inthe mid-east...except afgh. LOL its an expirement...........
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 13, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 13, 2004).][/B]
Seems to have worked in Germany and Japan. Next failed atempt to refute reality please...
Posts: 1019 | From: Are You With The CIA? | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DiQuiRiesco: Seems to have worked in Germany and Japan. Next failed atempt to refute reality please...
[/B]
interesting technique..... you are presuming the same way Bush does.... i have not failed at anything just because you say so...LOL the GOP has beeen using this sick technique all campaign... use facts, not rhetoric...
Japan and Germany attacked first..that's the Moral issue...
not only that, they had the capability to execute a war of aggression...that was our moral rudder.....not greed
Saddam never attacked US, he didn't have the capability.....
quote:Originally posted by glassman: interesting technique..... you are presuming the same way Bush does.... i have not failed at anything just because you say so...LOL the GOP has beeen using this sick technique all campaign... use facts, not rhetoric...
Japan and Germany attacked first..that's the Moral issue...
not only that, they had the capability to execute a war of aggression...that was our moral rudder.....not greed
Saddam never attacked US, he didn't have the capability.....
But you state he HAS failed using the same technique..... what the war has failed, 2 years in.... what war isn't a mess at that point. hell go check out kosovo..or any war you pick... after WW2 10k killed in france and germany.... 10k! that was just the first year after the war...
Posts: 9110 | From: boston, ma | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Keith, i am NOT anti-war... Heck, if they had WMD....it would be fine..RIGHT?
the problem is simple....they didn't....
this is like shooting somebody on the front lawn cuz they look wrong......
the cops throw you in jail and you get sentenced to 20 to life......unlees the guy has a gun.....no gun?????
No, its like telling someone tell me why your on my lawn or i'll kill you. first you have received many warnings. you have yet to give an answer with full disclosure. If you continue to reply in this manner, i will be forced to remove you. You have the choice, decide well.....
wrong decision.
I never argue the wmd's part, i am for a very strong group of nations that backs up what they say. not threats that aren't backed up cuz little france has a free veto....the fact that no WMD's were found truly sucks and is very scary.
I am anti war! But, not when justified... as i feel this has been.
Now bombing iran tomorrow, which probably is a good idea, is not right, there is no warning, no broken sanctions no nothing, same for korea. Just showing up with an army sends the wrong message.
sadam was just ignorant at playing world poker. he had pocket deuces in france.... they don't hold much weight.
Posts: 9110 | From: boston, ma | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
I know you guys probably just love waiting to see what I am going to type! lol!
