Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- Begin Message --- -Caveat Lector- "The memo cuts the ground from under White House claims that the situation in Iraq is far better than the media "filter" has portrayed it. And it moves a Pentagon that was behind the curve and losing credibility for foolish predictions and failed planning for postwar Iraq back into line with public perceptions. Yes, it is going to be "a long, hard slog." "
Here's today's front page Bush statement--they're just re-spinning a more tenable, politically survivable position, rather than making confessions or disagreeing between Bush and Rumsfeld, but note that in doing so Bush was caught using WMDeception again--
"Bush said his staff was not responsible for the banner on the ship. "The 'Mission Accomplished' sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished," he said....White House press secretary Scott McClellan later acknowledged that the sign was produced by the White House."
--and Bush only beat eggs by hours in a race with serious egging of face as the foreseeable statistical event consisting of post-war guerrilla phase US casualties caught up and exceeded the number of US casualties in the conventional war phase.
Actually one of Paul Krugman's talking points on WMDeception is that there must be a hidden agenda if the public rationale in support of each policy changes three times.
-Bob
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A29010-2003Oct28?language=printer
Bush Vows U.S. Will Stay in Iraq
President Calls Situation 'Dangerous,' Blames Attacks on Baathists, ForeignersBy Dana Milbank and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 29, 2003; Page A01
President Bush acknowledged yesterday that there is dangerous resistance to the U.S. occupation of Iraq but vowed to Americans and Iraqis: "We're not leaving."
At a late-morning news conference in the Rose Garden, the president softened previous assertions about events in Iraq, including a May 1 victory speech, a "bring 'em on" taunt to Iraqi militants and his assertion Monday that violence in Iraq indicated American progress.
Bush, facing questions even from Republican lawmakers about whether he has leveled with the public about Iraq, repeatedly described the situation there as "dangerous."
"I can't put it any more plainly: Iraq is a dangerous place," Bush said. "That's leveling. It is a dangerous place."
At the same time, he previewed a 2004 reelection strategy that labels as a success his performance in Iraq and in foreign policy generally. "I'll say that the world is more peaceful and more free under my leadership, and America is more secure," he said. "And that will be how I'll begin describing our foreign policy."
Bush's 10th presidential news conference came days after he passed the 1,000-day milestone in office. Appearing relaxed but speaking in more somber tones than he often does, Bush likened the militants in Iraq to the hijackers of Sept. 11, 2001, and said he believes that both Baathist Party remnants and foreigners are responsible for recent guerrilla attacks.
The president endeavored to calibrate and qualify claims he has made about Iraq. He defended his May 1 speech, on an aircraft carrier beneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner, when he declared that "in the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed," and that "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror."
"My statement was a clear statement, basically recognizing that this phase of the war for Iraq was over and there is a lot of dangerous work, and it's proved to be right," he said. But Bush scaled back his previous claim of victory. "Iraq is a front on the war on terror," he said, "and we will win this particular battle on the war on terror."
Bush said his staff was not responsible for the banner on the ship. "The 'Mission Accomplished' sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished," he said. "I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way."
That disavowal drew a complaint from retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, a Democratic presidential candidate, who said Bush should not be "blaming the troops on the aircraft carrier."
White House press secretary Scott McClellan later acknowledged that the sign was produced by the White House.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33413-2003Oct29?language=printer
Two GIs Killed When Tank Attacked in Iraq
Postwar Combat Deaths Surpass Number Killed Before May 1By Robert H. Reid
The Associated Press
Wednesday, October 29, 2003; 2:05 PM
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Insurgents destroyed an American tank north of Baghdad, killing two U.S. soldiers, and wounded seven Ukrainians in the first ambush against the multinational force patrolling central Iraq, officials said Wednesday. The attacks were part of a dramatic upsurge in recent days.
U.S. policy in Iraq suffered another setback when the international Red Cross announced it was reducing its international staff in the country, two days after a deadly suicide car bombing at its Baghdad headquarters. The humanitarian group Medecins Sans Frontieres, or Doctors Without Borders, also announced it had pulled out workers.
Secretary of State Colin Powell had urged the Red Cross and other non-government organizations to stay in Iraq because "if they are driven out, then the terrorists win."
The latest attacks -- 233 over the last seven days according to the U.S. military -- have driven the combat death toll during the occupation above the number killed before President Bush declared an end to active combat on May 1.
Two American soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division were killed and one was wounded late Tuesday when their Abrams battle tank apparently hit a land mine near Balad, 45 miles north of Baghdad, division spokeswoman Maj. Jossyln Aberle said.
Their deaths brought to 117 the number of American soldiers killed by hostile fire since May 1. A total of 114 U.S. soldiers were killed between the start of the war March 20 and the end of April.
It was the first M1 Abrams battle tank destroyed since May 1, military officials said. Several of the 68-ton vehicles -- the mainstay of the Army's armored forces -- were disabled in combat before May 1.
The ambush of the Ukrainians occurred Tuesday night when two armored personnel carriers rolled over land mines near Suwayrah, about 40 miles southeast of Baghdad.
After the vehicles were disabled, gunmen opened fire on the disembarked soldiers, a spokesman for the multinational division at Camp Babylon said on condition of anonymity.
The spokesman said it was the first ambush against the Polish-led force that since September has been patrolling a belt of central Iraq south of the capital. About 1,650 Ukrainians are serving in the Polish-led force of some 9,500 peacekeepers.
In Geneva, the International Committee of the Red Cross said it would remain in Iraq, but would reduce the number of international staff -- now about 30 -- and increase security for those who stay. The agency has 600 Iraqi employees.
"The ICRC remains committed to helping the people of Iraq," said Pierre Kraehenbuehl, the agency's director of operations.
Medecins Sans Frontieres, which operates clinics and helps at a hospital in Baghdad, said some of its international staff had left Baghdad for Jordan.
Officials of the group said medical personnel had been scheduled to leave Baghdad in the near future, but their departure was hastened by the Red Cross attack.
"The reduction was foreseen," spokeswoman Linda Van Weyenberg said. "It was sped up because of events. It's a balance between the security of the staff and the needs of the population." She did not say how many staffers left. The group previously said it had seven international staffers in Baghdad.
Baghdad police commander Maj. Gen. Hassan al-Obeid on Wednesday announced measures to bolster security in the capital, including additional 24-hour checkpoints and special patrols around sensitive locations, according to coalition-run Iraqi television.
Elsewhere, three soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division were slightly wounded Wednesday when up to seven roadside bombs exploded near their convoy in the northern city of Mosul, the military said.
And in Ramadi, 60 miles west of Baghdad, witnesses said an explosive device intended for U.S. troops detonated Wednesday as a civilian car was passing by, seriously injuring the driver.
Col. William Darley, a U.S. military spokesman, said American forces are now suffering an average of 33 attacks a day. That marked a dramatic escalation over the average of 12 daily attacks reported in mid-July.
By late September, occupation authorities reported the average ranged from "the low teens to the mid-20s" over the previous two months. On Oct. 23, the U.S. military said attacks averaged 26 daily between Oct. 8 and Oct. 22.
These include including mortars, small arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs.
In London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair condemned as "brutal and wicked" a wave of attacks that killed dozens of people this week.
"These attacks are the work of evil people who do not wish to see a stable and prosperous Iraq," Blair told the House of Commons on Wednesday. "We shall continue to do everything we can to thwart them and reconstruct the country."
The violence escalated this week starting with the rocket attack Sunday against the Al-Rasheed Hotel, which killed an American officer and wounded 18 other people.
On Monday, car bombers devastated the Red Cross headquarters and three police stations, killing about three dozen people and wounding more than 200 -- the bloodiest day in Baghdad since the start of the U.S. occupation.
The attacks, which coincided with the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, cast doubt on assertions by the Bush administration that conditions in Iraq are steadily improving.
Associated Press writers Katarina Kratovac in Tikrit and Mariam Fam in Mosul contributed to this report.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35316
Rummy's 'long, hard slog'
Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted: October 29, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
ÂÂ 2003Â Creators Syndicate, Inc.
The now-famous Donald Rumsfeld memo was stamped neither "sensitive" nor "secret." Thus there would be no cause to call in the FBI should it leak. It was sent to Rumsfeld deputies Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith and Gens. Richard Myers and Peter Pace, who had heard it all before. It was brief enough to be reprinted in any newspaper, and tart and succinct enough to be quoted.
When it fell into the hands of Tom Squitieri, who splashed it on Page 1 of USA Today, Rumsfeld made light of the leak, though his aides had insisted he was "livid." Hence it is not a stretch to conclude that Rumsfeld intended this memo for a wider audience than his four deputies â i.e., he wanted it out, and he wanted his views known.
Indeed, the memo seems intended to convey to the nation, Congress and the president the growing apprehension of the leading hawk in the War Cabinet on America's progress in the war on terror.
What does the memo tell us about the mindset of its author?
Secretary Certitude harbors the same anxieties and doubts about the war in Iraq as those who opposed the invasion: "It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog," wrote Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld's memo shreds in tatters the triumphalist banner "Mission Accomplished" that flew from the Lincoln on May 1 when President Bush landed. The boast that "Failure is not an option!" in Iraq and Afghanistan gives way to cold contemplation that failure is possible.
The memo cuts the ground from under White House claims that the situation in Iraq is far better than the media "filter" has portrayed it. And it moves a Pentagon that was behind the curve and losing credibility for foolish predictions and failed planning for postwar Iraq back into line with public perceptions. Yes, it is going to be "a long, hard slog."
Rumsfeld emerges from this brief memo as a tough-minded realist asking hard questions about whether we are winning and what new "bold" measures are needed for victory â including reconfiguring the entire U.S. government to fight the war. And there is the suggestion that elements of all departments engaged in prosecuting this war â CIA, Justice, Defense â should be brought under one roof and one command. And there is little doubt whom Secretary Rumsfeld has in mind as Deputy President for War.
The downside is that the secretary comes off less as a wise statesman than as a frustrated corporate CEO, perplexed as to why company products are not selling as well as his marketeers and advertising team led him to believe. The memo is McNamarian â as in Robert S. McNamara, paragon of "The Best and the Brightest," who led us into Vietnam and who took as his signposts of victory body counts of Viet Cong dead that junior officers fresh from battle brought in from the rice paddies.
"Today," writes Rumsfeld, "we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists than ... the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"
"Is our current situation such that the 'harder we work, the behinder we get'?"
These questions should have been asked before, not after, Rumsfeld prodded the president to send an army into Mesopotamia.
And the memo lacks reflection, imagination, vision.
Can the secretary not see that it is the U.S. presence itself in Iraq that recruits "terrorists"? Can he not see that it may not be our tactics that are faulty, but our policy? Did he not know that invading an Islamic country could create more Islamic enemies than we kill? Has the Pentagon never studied Israel's invasion of Lebanon, and her subsequent expulsion by the Hezbollah guerrillas who were tots and sub-teens when Sharon's Merkava tanks first came storming in?
Has the secretary not read history? Post-1945, every single Western imperial power has been expelled from the Arab world. Why did we think we could go back, set up an imperial outpost in an ancient Arab capital that was the seat of the caliphate for 500 years, and be welcomed by flower-tossing Baghdadis and Tikritis as liberators?
In 1945, no people were more admired in the Arab world than we Americans. Yet, no Western nation is now more reviled. A question for the secretary: Might it not be that we have behaved in the Middle East so as to be perceived by the Arabs as the British came to be perceived by our founding fathers, as blustering and arrogant imperialists?
Would one be surprised to discover in British archives a memo from Lord North to King George saying, in the vernacular of the time, "Sire, the harder we work, the behinder we get"?
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Please let us stay on topic and be civil.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Home Page- www.cia-drugs.org
OM
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substanceânot soap-boxingâplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'âwith its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsâis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- End Message ---
