> > Robert wrote:
> > So in the end, our governments sat by watching and said nothing.
> Does that surprise you?
>
> No, and I think you're right. I'd go one step further:
>
> I think Mr. Bush traded Russian support for the war in Iraq with
> turning a blind eye to the weapons violations AND to
> Andy wrote:
> Very interesting perspective. And this makes sense. If any of the
> terrorist groups had the stash, they'd of probably filmed it and placed it
> on the web to increase the fear.
I thought one of these films did come out yesterday, but it wasn't confirmed.
~~
> Robert wrote:
> So in the end, our governments sat by watching and said nothing. Does that surprise
> you?
No, and I think you're right. I'd go one step further:
I think Mr. Bush traded Russian support for the war in Iraq with
turning a blind eye to the weapons violations AND to whatever Mr.
Very interesting perspective. And this makes sense. If any of the
terrorist groups had the stash, they'd of probably filmed it and placed it
on the web to increase the fear.
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Robert Munn
Here is the latest on the story:
Russia did not go "on its own". It h
Here is the latest on the story:
Russia did not go "on its own". It has been VERY well documented that Russian military
suppliers- that means the Russian government, essentially- were dealing arms to Saddam
in violation of the UN, over a period of years. When US troops got into Iraq and
started
Related reading and viewing:
Rumsfeld's War
The inside story of the war inside the Pentagon: Donold Rumsfeld's
battle to assert civilian control and remake the way America fights. A
joint report by FRONTLINE and the Washington Post.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/
-Kevin
> Robert wrote:
> what could we have done to prevent it from happening - short of killing everything
I think the debate all thoughout the planning and war was did we have
enough troops? The Pentagon insisted we did, but it's turned out we
didn't.
There were many inside the Pentagon that differed
No I don't, and that's a problem with this story. What I don't understand is that the
Times quoted an official from the Pentagon by name, so other news organizations should
be able to follow up and get this information. So far I haven't seen anything else in
print about it. Pat Buchanan did ment
See, I'm fair and balanced.
It describes the disagreement but not exactly the way
you say. Just wanted to clear it up.
-sm
--- Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fantastic article, thank you. It describes Mr.
> Shinseki's
> disagreements with Mr. Rumsfeld and how his
> "retirement" was rea
> Sam wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,925140,00.html
Gen Shinseki might say, "Mahalo Nui Loa for your kukoa" :)
~|
Purchase from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF
> Sam wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,925140,00.html
Fantastic article, thank you. It describes Mr. Shinseki's
disagreements with Mr. Rumsfeld and how his "retirement" was really
"re-fire-ment".
~|
He came into office in June 1999 with a clear vision
for "transformation" and talked passionately about the
army's need to adjust from thinking about traditional
enemies to what he called "complicators", including
both terrorists and the then little-known phrase
"weapons of mass destruction". Gen S
Of course that is fair. The timing is unfortunate, but all papers and news programs
run on a timeline. the fact that it would have come out the day before the election is
actual complete coincidence, it looks like.
Had they had the story in the can for a whole week, and delayed the story, it wou
And that's fair to you?
Did you know they also have a 60 minutes on Wednesday?
I'm shocked that the NY Times had the decency to the
right thing.
Keller said "60 Minutes" executives asked the
newspaper to hold the story until this Sunday so they
could report it the same day, and "we said we weren
Sit up and pay attention!
=)
60 minutes is an hourly news show broadcast on Sunday nights.
Of course they were going to hold off on the story until the following Sunday night.
That is when they are on TV. And it was probably part of their agreement with the NY
Times that the Times also had to
thanks Sam, printing it for later perusal
Dana
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:43:08 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Drudge is right 39% of the time :) Is this one of
> them?
>
> http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/26/20041026_223804_nbcw6.htm
>
> Jeff Fager, executive
Well look at that, Drudge got this one right.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3493-2004Oct27.html
On Sunday night, New York Times Executive Editor Bill
Keller told Jeff Fager, executive producer of CBS's
"60 Minutes," that the story they had been jointly
pursuing on missing Iraqi a
Drudge is right 39% of the time :) Is this one of
them?
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/26/20041026_223804_nbcw6.htm
Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition
of 60 MINUTES, said in a statement that "our plan was
to run the story on October 31, but it became clear
that
Andy
I just searched Google News for CBS and found no reference to weapons.
Nor was there anything of the kind on CBS this morning. Maybe I wasn't
clear -- what I am questioning is your contention that CBS held the
story.
As always, I suppose it is possible that I am just not seeing something.
D
do you have a source for this besides the washington times? I don't
want to get my mouse dirty.
Dana
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:21:47 -0400, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is the latest on this story:
>
> US troops got to the site in early April and killed or captured about 200 Iraqi
Its been all over the papers yesterday and today. I saw it in the Chicago
Tribune. The start of this thread had the story.
Andy
-Original Message-
From: dana tierneyse
why do you think CBS was holding the story? Generally, if the
broadcast media has a fault it is rushing a story onto
, the Sinclair
story was opinions of people who did not serve with Kerry (as far as I
know).
- Matt Small
-Original Message-
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 3:12 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: October Surprise
why do you think CBS was holding the
dy
>
> -Original Message-
> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 1:52 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: October Surprise
>
> my understanding - the administration knew some time ago, and the
> story just came out, presu
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 1:52 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: October Surprise
my understanding - the administration knew some time ago, and the
story just came out, presumably dure to a leak. I got it in the
followiing order:
1) the stuff is missing
2) the stuff is mi
my understanding - the administration knew some time ago, and the
story just came out, presumably dure to a leak. I got it in the
followiing order:
1) the stuff is missing
2) the stuff is missing but it wasn't there when our troops got there
3) Our troops didn't find it there but on the other h
> Andy wrote:
> My problem is both of your willingness to state opinion as fact when reality
> is so much more complicated. In many ways you are acting in the same
> fashion that you accuse the man you dislike, which seems somewhat
> disingenuous.
How about these facts then:
1.) General Shinseki
ebanon and Iran. You've got to be kidding.
I heard that Santa even participated by flying out a few loads in his sliegh.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 9:22 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: October Surprise - th
That's correct. And each required a different strategy. One could utilize
a broader coalition and therefore required less US troops and the other
couldn't. So Bush chose the correct strategy for each.
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons
The point is that Iraq and Afghanistan
The point is that Iraq and Afghanistan are entirely separate cases
with different backgrounds and causes. You cannot equate the two.
larry
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:36:57 -0500, Andy Ousterhout
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Point is that a coalition was assembled when possible.
>
> -Original Me
Point is that a coalition was assembled when possible.
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons
Andy,
If you look at the nations involved with the coalition to out the
Taliban, you'll find it is composed of countries whose nationals were
killed by Alqueda on 9-11. Moreover the attack on
Andy,
If you look at the nations involved with the coalition to out the
Taliban, you'll find it is composed of countries whose nationals were
killed by Alqueda on 9-11. Moreover the attack on Afghanistan had
nothing to do with a coaltion. The Bush administration invoked article
5 of the NATO treat
oops:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52673-2004Oct21.html
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:19:32 -0500, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > Tommy Franks said they never reduced the troops in
> > Afghanistan they more then tripled them since the Iraq
> > war.
>
> I'm n
> Sam wrote:
> Tommy Franks said they never reduced the troops in
> Afghanistan they more then tripled them since the Iraq
> war.
I'm not sure that's accurate. From the Washington Post:
[A meeting in March 2002 began] a year-long drawdown of specialized
military and intelligence resources from t
Yikes. Sounds like Bush put together an international coalition. How dare
he! Just when Kerry & Co had him pegged. Guess it is time to bury the
truth...
-Original Message-
From: Sam Morris
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/opinion/19franks.html?ex=1255924800&en=dfe
849b12233309f&ei=50
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/opinion/19franks.html?ex=1255924800&en=dfe849b12233309f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
Second, we did not "outsource" military action. We did
rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a
mountainous, geographically difficult region on the
border of Afghanis
Jerry Jwrote:
> On September 12th and 13th, Bush had top-level meetings to figure out what to DO
> after 9/11.
Well written! I would add that the special ops team that was closing
in Bin Laden was pulled out and moved to Iraq.
[A March 2002 meeting began] a year-long drawdown of specialized
mil
No disagreement.
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Small
Having been in the military, I know that a "retirement" is often as much a
firing as anything. I don't believe Shinseki was "fired" i.e. "Get your
crap and get out", but that he was made into a lame duck by announcing his
retirement
Did you just make this up or did Michael Moore make
another movie?
Tommy Franks said they never reduced the troops in
Afghanistan they more then tripled them since the Iraq
war.
Nice theory though.
--- Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Everything was going pretty well in Afghanistan
>
age-
From: Andy Ousterhout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:34 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: October Surprise - the short version
When one disagrees with ones boss and is forced to quit, it is never because
the boss is correct. Only time shows whether the b
The difference is, to the best of my knowledge, my opining on these boards hasn't
killed or maimed a single person.
If I am wrong (and I often am), it does not matter too much.
(And which man do I dislike and what am I accusing him of?)
Jerry Johnson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/28/04 11:33AM >>>
On September 12th and 13th, Bush had top-level meetings to figure out what to DO after
9/11.
The first and most obvious target was Afghanistan, and that is what many at the
meeting said should be our top priority. It was going to be hard, but they were
DANGEROUS.
Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and others
When one disagrees with ones boss and is forced to quit, it is never because
the boss is correct. Only time shows whether the boss or subordinate where
correct. Many times, the disagreement has less to do with substance then
with style. The actual cause of Shinseki's leaving is likely never to b
> Andy wrote:
> Check your facts. From FactCheck:
Andy,
You're right that Gen. Shinseki filed his retirement sometime in 2002
and was not forced to retire solely due to his troops comment in 2003.
QED. No disagreement.
For 2 years, however, Gen Shinseki was not getting along with his
Pentagon
The Bush administration was against going into Afghanistan?? Where did
you come up with that?
As for the successes in Afghanistan, I don't know if i'd give as much credit
to the CIA as I would to the incredible desire amongst Afghanis to be free
to run their own countrysomething that is se
The problem being, the plans were not created by the Defense Department. Or the
Pentagon. Or the Military at all. They were created in back rooms by the people who
eventually became Bush's Defense team.
Not that this is even necessarily a problem. But if they want to create plans that do
not ha
> Andy wrote:
> Gruss,
> I am beginning to suspect that you are working for the Kerry campaign
I am KERRY! Ha ha ha ... no, I'm not. I'm a fiscal conservative and
I don't work for the campaign. I'm just making an analysis which is:
During war planning the Pentagon should've had a list of all I
I hope there were invasion plans in 1991. I hope those plans were retained
and updated throughout the 90's, ultimately finished off prior to the actual
assault in 2003.
Likewise, I hope invasion plans are in place, should they be necessary, for
any of the currently forseeable possibilities, includ
When do you think the invasion plans for Iraq were made? Around the beginning of 2003?
Around April 2002? Or Spring 2001? (Or, according to many reports, starting just after
the conclusion of the first Gulf war in 1992)
Yes, it is true that the General announced his retirement in the Spring of 2
Check your facts. From FactCheck:
Kerry claimed, as he had in the first debate, that the Army's Chief of
Staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, was forced to retire for saying before the
invasion of Iraq that many more troops were needed than the administration
was planning to send.
It is true that Shins
No, he didn't. He resigned after the plans were in place (but before they were made
public). There is absolutely no doubt that he was forced out by Rumsfeld due to deep
differences between them.
He announced his retirement after the plans were in place because the troop
discussions were going o
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 8:24 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: October Surprise - the short version
> Robert wrote:
> This all looks to be a gigantic blunder by Kerry
That's the best theory I've heard yet, but your final analysis is way off.
This cha
> Robert wrote:
> This all looks to be a gigantic blunder by Kerry
That's the best theory I've heard yet, but your final analysis is way off.
This charge works for Mr. Kerry if only because Mr. Bush should've
immediately been able to dispute it, yet he couldn't and still can't.
Further, since he
Here is the latest on this story:
US troops got to the site in early April and killed or captured about 200 Iraqi
troops- Saddam Fedayeen and Special Republican Guard units- who were positioned inside
the compound. US 3rd Infantry Division made a search of the facility and found none of
the wea
:
> Know that makes sense. But what does it have to do with Bush? Sounds
more
> like a problem with Clinton.
>
> Andy
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 8:09 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject:
ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 8:09 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: October Surprise - the short version
>
> > Andy wrote:
> > And when did this happen? Long before the decision making on troop
> > deployment. But again, don't b
Know that makes sense. But what does it have to do with Bush? Sounds more
like a problem with Clinton.
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 8:09 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: October Surprise - the short version
> Andy wrote:
> And when did this happen? Long before the decision making on troop
> deployment. But again, don't be bothered by the facts.
If your assumption is that the only disagreement that Gen Shinseki had
with the Pentagon is about the troop levels, and that it only happened
once when you
Wow, what a great definition of being fired? I've been wined and dined
after I was fired. For show. So unfortunately, your definition is not very
good. But feel free to adjust to meet your desired view of the world.
And when did this happen? Long before the decision making on troop
deployment
Andy wrote:
> Gruss,
> If you are going to continue to ignore the facts about Shinseki, what other
> facts do you continue to ignore because they don't suit your view. Re-read
> earlier posts showing that Shineki submitted his retirement prior to any
> troop discussion.
Gen Shinseki was fired -
Gruss,
If you are going to continue to ignore the facts about Shinseki, what other
facts do you continue to ignore because they don't suit your view. Re-read
earlier posts showing that Shineki submitted his retirement prior to any
troop discussion.
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott
Gen
Here's the deal on this stuff - I've seen stories on both ABC News
with Martha Radditz (sp?) who I like and trust and on The News Hour
with Jim Lehrer. Both seem to agree:
1.) There are some discrepancies on what was there.
2.) In March the IAEA says the seal was in place.
3.) On April 9th the
Ah, man. Can I get the exec summary? First I'll guess:
Blah, blah, blah, Kerry is an idiot.
Blah, blah, blah, Bush rules (if I say he doesn't I get shocked).
:-D
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:36:04 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Nine years ago, U.N. weapons inspectors urgentl
"Nine years ago, U.N. weapons inspectors urgently
called on the International Atomic Energy Agency to
demolish powerful plastic explosives in a facility
that Iraq's interim government said this month was
looted due to poor security. The chief American
weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, told The Ne
There's a theory out there that says the more you talk
about it, the more it keeps it front and center and it
doesn't really persuade anybody. But sorry, I can't
look at it that way, folks. This is an outrage. It's
an attempt to impact the election, and at the root of
it is the United Nations, and
sorry that was the wrong article
--- Andy Ousterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sam,
> Cut and paste. I'm not going to join.
>
> Andy
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam Morris
>
>
> --- Gruss Gott wrote:
> > It's a screwup, but how big is open to debate.
>
> Oh it's big.
>
> I
Fraudulent Times Story Keeps Changing,
Bush Hits Kerry for Blaming America First
October 27, 2004
It's exasperating and it makes you mad, but it's
getting funny now to watch the New York Times try to
keep their fraudulent story alive. Greetings, my
friends, and welcome. It's the EIB Network a
I'm not a member. Right now I'm watching a News Hour report on this
and it appears that, at best, this was an oversight.
>From the dates I'm hearing the IAEA says they saw the site just prior
to the invasion and the next report is from US troops who say the site
was looted and vandalized when the
Sam,
Cut and paste. I'm not going to join.
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Sam Morris
--- Gruss Gott wrote:
> It's a screwup, but how big is open to debate.
Oh it's big.
I know everyone here hates doesn't
like Rush but this is a must read.
Kerry's UN Screwed Up Al-Qaqaa
http://www.ru
--- Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's a screwup, but how big is open to debate.
Oh it's big.
I know everyone here hates doesn't
like Rush but this is a must read.
Kerry's UN Screwed Up Al-Qaqaa
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102704/content/truth_detector_2.member.html
:)
How big of a screwup? Considering just a few pounds of RDX destroyed
that Pan-Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, and that there's over 300
tons of the stuff missing, that's a fairly big screwup.
larry
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:43:04 -0500, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's a screwup,
I thought Sam's info indicated that the story had come out much earlier:
News of missing explosives in Iraq -- first reported
in April 2003 -- was being resurrected for a 60
MINUTES election eve broadcast designed to knock the
Bush administration into a crises mode.
Jeff Fager, executive producer
maybe I'm missing something - didn't the story come out yesterday and
the clarifications today?
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:11:34 -0500, Andy Ousterhout
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is not news because it was already reported on. Were any new facts
> introduced? If not, why re-introduce this old
It is not news because it was already reported on. Were any new facts
introduced? If not, why re-introduce this old story now?
-Original Message-
From: dana tierney
Andy, it is news because someone credible alleges they were stolen due
to US negligeance. There is another side of the st
Andy Ousterhout wrote:
> Dana,
> So why is this news? And if not news, why show it?
It's news because the al Qaqaa complex is 30 miles south of Baghdad
and contained 40 truckloads of high explosives. Iraq was considered
"liberated" on April 9th when it freed Baghdad, which is well after
when US
Further update:
Al-Qaqaa spokesman says no weapons search
By KIMBERLY HEFLING
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
EVANSVILLE, Ind. -- The first U.S. military unit to reach the Al-Qaqaa
military installation after the invasion of Iraq did not have orders
to search for the nearly 400 tons of explosives that I
Andy, it is news because someone credible alleges they were stolen due
to US negligeance. There is another side of the story, where different
people say that this is not the case. It's called balanced news
coverage. When there is confusion as to the facts, an attempt is made
to reflect all points o
Dana,
So why is this news? And if not news, why show it?
-Original Message-
From: dana tierney
Sam
I saw this story -- including the bit about were not there when tropps
arrived -- on CNN this morning. Chill.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:55:40 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris
wrote:
> The liberal m
Sam
I saw this story -- including the bit about were not there when tropps
arrived -- on CNN this morning. Chill.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:55:40 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The liberal media at it again.
>
> It's funny how yesterday every news agency mentioned
> these mis
78 matches
Mail list logo
