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
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
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.
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
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
:[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 charge works for Mr. Kerry
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
When
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 boss or subordinate where
correct. Many times
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
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
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
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/opinion/19franks.html?ex=1255924800en=dfe849b12233309fei=5090partner=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 Afghanistan
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=1255924800en=dfe
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 the
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 not sure
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
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
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
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
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 - the short version
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
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
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
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.
~|
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
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 really
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
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
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
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
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 urgently
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
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
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 - 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
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
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
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
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
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
51 matches
Mail list logo
