[Vision2020] The Deceptions of War

Fri Dec 2 10:20:19 PST 2005

Donald Rumsfeld had an "epiphany" recently and no longer wants to use the 
word "insurgents" when referring to events in Iraq.  Perhaps the artist 
formerly known as the artist formerly known as Prince can help.  The 
"enemies of the legitimate Iraqi government formerly known as insurgents"?   

                                    Carl Westberg Jr.

>From: "Pat Kraut" <pkraut at moscow.com>
>To: "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Deceptions of War
>Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 17:43:00 -0800
>
>I do not live near someone who continues to abuse his family without
>reporting them and I was certainly tired of hearing of the capricious abuse
>in Iraq. The WMD's are in Syria or Libya because some treasoness senator
>went there and told them Bush was coming. On the other hand I don't care if
>they were there I just care that now the people of Iraq have an opportunity
>for a 'rule of law' justice. And I don't have to know about all the abuse 
>to
>children and women that Saddam and his two sons were perpetrating with no
>fear. The loss of any life is a sadness but there is a righteousness in the
>deaths of our soldiers to bring hope. I think it is a very sad commentary 
>on
>our press that the pentagon has to pay to get positive reports about the
>growth and good changes in Iraq. Where are those positive reports that I
>hear from returning troops and Lieberman?? We have a lazy press.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Phil Nisbet" <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com>
>To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 4:56 AM
>Subject: [Vision2020] The Deceptions of War
>
>
>THE DECEPTIONS OF Nick:
>THE COOKING OF the Books ON IRAQ
>
>Dr. Nick Gier is an interesting guy who really ought to stick to what he
>knows and stay out of the political deception business.
>
>Nick says;
>
>"President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are busy defending themselves
>against the charge that they deceived the American people about the reasons
>for going to war in Iraq.  Sorting through my thick Iraq file, I've come up
>with following examples of outright deception."
>
>But it is interesting that Nick is actually deceiving V2020 and the people
>he writes for with the 'facts' he attempts to put forward.
>
>For an example;
>
>"The bipartisan 9/11 Commission reported that there was no "collaborative
>relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, but Bush and Cheney
>blithely continued to make these charges."
>
>The report actually says "no evidence that these or the earlier contacts
>ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship." which is
>substantially different than the disingenuous statement Nick has given us.
>The actual 9-11 Commission report details extensive meetings between Al
>Queda and Iraqi officials, including trips back and forth discussing the
>potential for relocating Al Queda's training and other facilities to Iraq.
>Though none of the various proposed agreements between the two sides ended
>in a final agreement or in active dual operational activity, they were
>talking and had agreed not to hinder the activities of each other.
>
>One of the principle reasons that Bill Clinton did not take action to make 
>a
>surgical strike that would have taken out Bin Ladin in Afghanistan is
>clearly detailed in the 9-11 Commission report.  "Clarke was nervous about
>such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for
>someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald
>Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi
>officials, who "may have offered him asylum." Other intelligence sources
>said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin
>to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his
>network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually
>impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke
>declared."
>
>Then the 9-11 Commission reported that in emails between Sandy Berger and
>Clarke stated ""Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely 
>boogie
>to Baghdad," Clarke wrote in a February 11, 1999 e-mail to Berger."  That
>hardly suggests that there were no possible cooperative actions between the
>groups, just that they had not formalized their relationship.
>
>Then Nick says;
>
>"Even though on June 17, 2004 Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stated that
>Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was "not Al Qaeda," Bush and Cheney 
>continued
>to state that he was."
>
> >From Wikipedia;
>"Zarqawi is believed to be a long time ally of Osama bin Laden, and is now 
>a
>high-ranking member of bin Laden's terrorist network Al Qaeda, and since
>October 2004 has referred to his own organization (Jama'at al-Tawhid
>wal-Jihad, or Unification and Holy War Group, an insurgent network 
>operating
>in Iraq) as "Al-Qaida in Iraq." On October 21, 2004, Zarqawi officially
>announced his allegiance to Al Qaida; on December 27, 2004, Al-Jazeera
>broadcast an audiotape of bin Laden calling Zarqawi "the prince of al Qaeda
>in Iraq" and asked "all our organization brethren to listen to him and obey
>him in his good deeds."
>
>So, Ahmad Fadeel al-Nazal al-Khalayleh, alias Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, says he
>is part of Al Queda, Bin Ladin says he is as well and somehow Bush and
>Cheney referring to him as part of Al Queda makes them liars?
>
>And from Nick we then get this;
>
>" Zarqawi now heads the main terrorist organization in Iraq because of the
>turmoil of the U.S. invasion, not because Saddam invited him there."
>
>Actually, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi left Afghanistan during the invasion there
>and moved to Kurdish controlled Iraqi territory where Saddam had little
>sway.  Since his organization, Jama'at at-Tawhid wal-Jihad (JTJ), had
>previous links to Ansar al-Islam, Zarqawi did not exactly need Saddam's
>permission to be where he was.  To assume that once the US based invasion 
>of
>Afghanistan had shut down Zarqawi's Herat training camp, he would move to
>Ansar al-Islam's area so as to become a Boy Scout seems pretty unlikely.  
>He
>and his group were already planning terrorist acts, had killed people in a
>number of attacks and would have been killing people regardless of a US
>invasion of Iraq.
>
>Then Nick gives us this;
>
>"The day after the 9/11 report was released Cheney claimed that Zarqawi 
>"ran
>[a] poisons factory in northern Iraq out of Baghdad," but he should have
>known full well that this camp was not under Saddam's control, and when it
>was taken by U. S. troops, captured documents revealed no connection to
>Baghdad."
>
>Hum. . .  And how exactly should Cheney have 'known this"?  Zarqawi had 
>been
>invited to set up shop by Ansar al-Islam and Abu Abdallah al-Shafi'i had
>connections to Saddam.  Prior to actually taking the training camp, how
>exactly do you get the intellegence to know that connection exists or not?
>
>
>Then Dr Gier hands us this one;
>"With regard to Iraq's capacity to produce nuclear weapons, Bush, at a
>September 2, 2002 news conference, declared that a new report from the UN's
>International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that Iraq was "six months 
>away"
>from building a nuclear weapon.  It was later discovered that no such 
>report
>existed."
>
>Mohamed El Baradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy
>Agency (IAEA) made statements that Iraq had the capability to produce
>nuclear weapons in that time frame.  At the same time, he stated that to 
>his
>knowledge they were not acting on carrying out a program, but he could not
>be sure, since the Iraqi regime would not let them take proper soils and
>other samples.  He made those statements to CNN, BBC and a variety of
>sources.  The report mentioned by Bush was 1200 pages in length and not out
>officially until October, with 300 pages of the document in Arabic.  Has
>Nick read the October 2002 IAEA report on Iraq?  Because that report exists
>and is noted in IAEA press releases, so is Dr. Gier's discovery process
>flawed?
>
>Then Nick hands us this distortion;
>
>"On December 8, 2002, former U.S. weapons inspector David Albright appeared
>on "60 Minutes" and stated that the aluminum tubes Saddam ordered could not
>be used to enrich uranium. He concluded that Bush administration was
>"selectively picking information to bolster a case that the Iraqi nuclear
>threat was more imminent than it is, and in essence, scare people."
>
>David Albright was never a former U.S. weapons inspector he worked briefly
>for the UN's IAEA.  As for any statement he may have made in December of
>2002, look at what he said in January 2003,
>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/inspectors_1-27.html 
>.
>Though Albright questioned the Administration's intelligence reports, he
>also was categorical that Iraq was not complying with UN resolutions and
>should be given only a couple of weeks to begin complying.  He also stated
>"However, if Iraq doesn't cooperate, they can't prevent Iraq from getting
>weapons of mass destruction in the long run. I mean, it finally...it's a
>losing game for the inspectors to play if Iraq isn't going to cooperate and
>in essence, comply."
>
>
>In essence, Nick is cooking the books far more carefully than any of the
>statements he makes with regard to the Administration.  It's called
>intellectual dishonesty, something that is supposed to be anathema to
>persons in academic systems.
>
>Because then Nick tells us this;
>
>"The result has been an Iraq in far worse shape than before, the 
>recruitment
>of new terrorists and insurgents where none existed before, and the
>unnecessary deaths of 2,100 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis."
>
>As previously noted, there were terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion.
>But in addition to terror cells of the Islamic variety, there were also
>terror cells of Hamas and other Palestinian groups that were indeed backed
>with financial and other support by Saddam.  So telling us that no
>terrorists existed in Iraq prior to the US lead invasion is simply false 
>and
>completely demonstrably false.  Once we invaded and took Afghanistan out of
>the terror camp business, the people behind those camps headed to Iraq, as
>is easily demonstrated by Zarqawi's move there.
>
>As for necessity for casualties, the question that Nick has not dealt with
>at all is why not Iraq?   Was there and is there a case for geopolitical
>action and war in Iraq?
>
>The Middle East has been the potential flash point for global conflict for
>ages.  Islamic and Pan Arab Nationalist groups have been able to spawn
>terror cells, spark wars and threaten global economic security for decades
>now.  What exact solution does Dr. Gier propose to solve the problem of an
>unstable Middle East?  If not Iraq, then what alternative proposals does he
>have?
>
>And finally Nick gives us this;
>
>"During the Cold War millions of innocent people in the Third World died
>because both sides chose to fight in some else's country.  Our country 
>would
>be much more secure if the billions spent in Iraq had been used to repair
>our crumbling infrastructure, protect our ports, search air cargo, and
>secure our nuclear and chemical plants."
>
>Yes, Professor, rather than blow the world into small bits and leave the
>globe a radioactive slag heap, we ended up fighting small scale actions
>between the USSR and the USA.  Are you suggesting that it would have been
>wiser to simply pull the trigger and do a Dr Strangelove?  The alternative
>was capitulation to the Russians and a close review of the situation in the
>former Worker's Paradise is not exactly a ringing endorsement for such a
>plan.
>
>And as for the idea that rather than interact globally we should simply
>build a giant security fence around ourselves, hunker down and let the 
>world
>go to heck in a hand basket, we tried that as I recall in 1939.  The idea 
>of
>Fortress America was silly then and is just as silly now.  I would hope 
>that
>America First style Isolationism is not Nick's proposal for how to solve 
>the
>problem of Middle East instability, because we have to deal with the globe
>or it will deal with us.
>
>Through faulty intelligence and bad planning, the current administration
>made some very strange calls about Iraq.  But the reality is that Iraq is a
>geopolitical linchpin.  Bush et al may have made a bad case for war, but
>eventually we were going to have to deal with the situation there.  Nick 
>has
>no stated solutions, but seems perfectly willing to use book cooking to
>attack those who took action.  Instead of giving us some stale rehash of
>selected politcally motivated 'facts', give us some sort of idea what you
>would do otherwise Dr. Gier.
>
>Phil Nisbet
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯