Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Some thoughts
Published on October 26, 2005 By Draginol In Current Events

In the battle of Okinawa, a small island in the Pacific ocean, over 12,000 Americans died and another 38,000 were seriously wounded.

Mind you, this was to take an island that was tiny and had a population less than part of Baghad. And we're still there today.

Luckily, Americans were a little bit tougher of skin back then.  We didn't shirk or slink away from paying a high price to do things that were important in a larger sense. 

2,000 Americans have died in Iraq over the past 3 years.  That's 1/6th as many people who died -- within the span of a few days -- in a single battle on a single island in World War II. 

Those Americans gave their lives in a cause they believed in.  In a cause that serves our country and even the rest of the world even if much of that world (those ironically many of whom were either our enemies or sat on the side-lines back in World War II) doesn't appreciate it. 

Those Americans were not sent there to find "WMD" or for "oil".  They were sent there to topple an evil, corrupt regime that had twice attacked its neighbors, had used whatever weapons it had at hand in war, was violating the cease fire from the previous war with the coaliation, and quite clearly was working its way through the so-called "Sanctions" to the day when it could restart programs to gain for itself horrific weapons to use or distribute to enemies. 

Those Americans were sent to a country that is literally in the middle of a region that is formenting people who want to exterminate not just every single American but the entire western way of life. 

Those Americans gave their lives to help put in its place a country that we hope will become democratic and representative but at the very least won't harbor terrorists who can plan at their leisure further attacks on this country.

Those Americans gave their lives as a part of a broader war on Islamic terror.  And while some don't see the connection between Iraq and Islamic militarism, the same could be said of not seeing the connection between the attack on Pearl Harbor and the US invasion of French North Africa.

Luckily, the greatest generation of Americans were made of sterner stuff than what today's Americans are apparently made of. They rolled up their sleaves and went to work and made possible the world we have today where we have the luxury to hyper-analyse every combat death that occurs in the name of securing freedom and security both there and at home.

The families and friends of those 2,000 men and women can hopefully take comfort that they gave their lives in a cause that was as noble and true as any cause that warriors have fought and died in.  As an American, I want to express appreciation for their sacrifice that has helped make all of us a bit safer and helped make the world a better place.


Comments (Page 7)
11 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last
on Oct 30, 2005
There is no question from the investigation outing the fact Mrs Wilson worked for the CIA is the resilt of both Rove and Libby talking to the press. That has caused all the CIA agents that operated for the same cover company as Mrs wilson to be compermised. Mr. Fitzgerald said at his news conference this was a serious issue. The fact that no one was charged under the law intented to protect CIA agents from becomming public knowledge is a factor of the complexity of that law . It is NOT because Rove and Lobby did not identify Mrs Wilson as a CIA agent. They did that and as such are rssponsible for putting that CIA cover operation OUT OF BUSINESS. WHY was Rove or Libby talking to the press about ANY CIA personnel? Answer- to punish Amb. Wilson for his Op Ed that did not support the Bush policy!

Another fact that has come out is that it was not Mrs Wilson that said send my husband but it was her superiors who were talking about sending Amb. Wilsion and then asked Mrs Wilson about the experience of Amb. Wilson. Bottom line- The caution that Amb. Wilson stated in his Op ED about Iraq having WMD has turned out to be the truth about WMD in Iraq! Bush and Cheney were wrong not Wilson about WMD in Iraq.
on Oct 30, 2005
we also now know Fitzgerald's political leanings, don't we?)


we do?
on Oct 30, 2005

Reply By: COL Gene

Does someone here that gnat buzzing? I thought I heard a peep.  My mistake.

on Oct 30, 2005

we also now know Fitzgerald's political leanings, don't we?)


we do?

Yea, I think he is in the Life party!

on Oct 30, 2005



Saddam was not linked to attacking the US. That is pure BS


Nope! NOT BS! You shoot at our planes (belonging to the "UNITED STATES" and containing US pilots) then you ARE attacking us!
on Oct 30, 2005
There is no question from the investigation outing the fact Mrs Wilson worked for the CIA is the resilt of both Rove and Libby talking to the press. That has caused all the CIA agents that operated for the same cover company as Mrs wilson to be compermised. Mr. Fitzgerald said at his news conference this was a serious issue. The fact that no one was charged under the law intented to protect CIA agents from becomming public knowledge is a factor of the complexity of that law . It is NOT because Rove and Lobby did not identify Mrs Wilson as a CIA agent. They did that and as such are rssponsible for putting that CIA cover operation OUT OF BUSINESS. WHY was Rove or Libby talking to the press about ANY CIA personnel? Answer- to punish Amb. Wilson for his Op Ed that did not support the Bush policy!


That's a nice bit of fiction, Gene. If any of it were true, Fitzgerald would have indicted someone. No excuses about the law being "too complex" - that's bullshit.

Another fact that has come out is that it was not Mrs Wilson that said send my husband but it was her superiors who were talking about sending Amb. Wilsion and then asked Mrs Wilson about the experience of Amb. Wilson. Bottom line- The caution that Amb. Wilson stated in his Op ED about Iraq having WMD has turned out to be the truth about WMD in Iraq! Bush and Cheney were wrong not Wilson about WMD in Iraq.


Another pathetic attempt at revising history, Gene, and completely bogus. Wilson's report had nothing to do with WMD "in" Iraq and was considered by the Committee which investigated his trip to actually support the suspicion that Iraq had sought to acquire yellowcake. You know this, yet you continue to manufacture & spew this crap.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Oct 30, 2005
kb -

Replay that news conference tape and tell me you don't know.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Oct 30, 2005
drmiler

If any country were to fly combat aircraft over the US what do you think we would do?

Saddam did not attack the US. He did not have the means to attack the US. He was not a threat even if he would have had WMD. Iran is far closer to having a WMD and has a much better military. They are more likely to attack Israel and start a mojor war. Bush screwed up by attacking Iraq and anyone that looks at the facts knows it. Now we are stuck just like Bush was warned by no less then his father.
on Oct 30, 2005
WHY was Rove or Libby talking to the press about ANY CIA personnel? Answer- to punish Amb. Wilson for his Op Ed that did not support the Bush policy!


I'll ask again, for probably the 20th time, exactly how would divulging her identity undermine Wilson or his report? This purported motive has been accepted by nutjobs like you and the MSM as fact without any evidence to support it. The motive is an assumption on the part of administration opponents, especially the MSM, spewed to make Libby & Rove look venal, and nothing more. And you have no business answering your hypothetical question anyway - you have no evidence whatsoever to support that answer.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Oct 30, 2005
Daiwa

The Op Ed that Wilson wrote that got Cheney and Bush upset questioned the Bush argument to go to war. Guess what Wilson was correct to question that war. Powell has now stated his UN address about Saddam having WMD was the result of a SNOW JOB and a BIG mistake.
on Oct 30, 2005
Daiwa

It was not to discredit his report it was pay back for the Op Ed that Bush and Cheney did not like. Rove and Libby had no business talking to the press about our CIA agents in ANY context.
on Oct 30, 2005
The Op Ed that Wilson wrote that got Cheney and Bush upset questioned the Bush argument to go to war. Guess what Wilson was correct to question that war. Powell has now stated his UN address about Saddam having WMD was the result of a SNOW JOB and a BIG mistake.


Another perfect Gene non-answer.

BTW, give us a link to Powell's "confession" - I respectfully decline to trust your interpretation of anything.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Oct 30, 2005
Since English is apparently your second language, Gene, I'll restate the question(s).

How did "outing" Plame, even if intentional, constitute "payback" for Wilson's article? What is the factual basis for this allegation?

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Oct 30, 2005
Simple. Mrs Wilson can no longer function the way she did at the CIA . In adition, the entire cover company and all other agents that were part of it or worked with Mrs Wilson have a problem. The CIA itself thought it so important that they went to the Justice dept which resulted in a two year investigation. For two top officials to be talking to reporters about our CIA members is outrages. They should both be fired for just talking to the press and creating the loss of the CIA operation and all the tax money to conduct this investigation. For over two years the White House has been saying NO WHITE HOUSE STAFF WERE PART OF THIS AFFAIR. Another Bush lie!
on Oct 30, 2005
Daiwa;

Try these

Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article


Published on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 by The Nation
Powell Admits False WMD Claim
by David Corn


It would be a foolish endeavor to call for this Republican Congress to mount a thorough investigation of this Republican administration. But what else is there to do in response to the comments made by Secretary of State Colin Powell this past weekend?

Appearing on Meet the Press, Powell acknowledged--finally!--that he and the Bush administration misled the nation about the WMD threat posed by Iraq before the war. Specifically, he said that he was wrong when he appeared before the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, and alleged that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories to produce biological weapons. That was one of the more dramatic claims he and the administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq. (Remember the drawings he displayed.) Yet Powell said on MTP, "it turned our that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading." Powell did not spell it out, but the main source for this claim was an engineer linked to the Iraqi National Congress, the exile group led by Ahmed Chalabi, who is now part of the Iraqi Governing Council.

Powell noted that he was "comfortable at the time that I made the presentation it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community." In other words, the CIA was scammed by Chalabi's outfit, and it never caught on. So who's been fired over this? After all, the nation supposedly went to war partly due to this intelligence. And partly because of this bad information over 700 Americans and countless Iraqis have lost their lives. Shouldn't someone be held accountable? Maybe CIA chief George Tenet, or his underlings who went for the bait? Or Chalabi's neocon friends and champions at the Pentagon: Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle? How do they feel about their pal, the great Iraqi leader, now?

For months after the invasion, George W. Bush told the public that he had based his decision to invade Iraq on "good, solid intelligence." Does he still believe that? Has anyone told him that his government was hornswoggled by Chalabi, who was once convicted of massive bank fraud in Jordan. (Since Bush has said he does not read the newspapers or pay much attention to conventional media, he may not have heard about Powell's remarks unless an aide bothered to brief him on them.) And in January, Dick Cheney said that there was "conclusive evidence" that Saddam Hussein had manufactured bioweapons labs on wheels. Is he willing to say he was wrong?

For his part, Chalabi has not shown any regret. In February, he told the London Telegraph, "we are heroes in error....As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important."

Perhaps not for him. But Powell--fronting for Bush--placed his credibility on the line before the war. A Powell associate told The New York Times that Powell is "out there publicly saying this now because he doesn't want a legacy as the man who made up stories to provide the president with cover to go to war." But if Powell did not make up the stories himself, he was none too reluctant to peddle them. And he has displayed little outrage in public that he was turned into a fibbing pimp for the war.

In fact, at the time of his UN presentation, there was reason for Powell and the administration to be suspicious of the claims Powell were hurling. After his UN speech, several experts in the field of bioweapons said that it was possible for Hussein to develop mobile bioweapons labs but not likely that he could. "This strikes me as a bit far-fetched," observed Raymond Zilinskas, a former weapons inspector. Why did Powell and the CIA trust the word of a biased source that could not be confirmed more than the expertise of independent scientists? The answer is all too obvious. (There were plenty of other problems with Powell's UN performance. For instance, he maintained that one Iraqi military official had ordered another to "clean out" an ammunition site that was about to be inspected; but the official translation of this intercepted conversation, which was posted on the State Department website, did not contain that order. Powell also claimed there was a direct and close connection between Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist operating in northern Iraq, which was an area outside of Baghdad's control. But Powell provided sketchy evidence regarding what is probably a complicated, perhaps even competitive, relationship and one that apparently had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.)

On Meet the Press, Powell said of the bioweapons claim, "I am disappointed and I regret it." But that's not good enough. Powell provided cover for Bush's case for war. And he's still providing cover for the Bush administration overall. Why is he not angrily calling for an inquiry into how Chalibi flim-flammed the CIA and the administration? Why is Powell sticking around and helping Bush get reelected, when it's expected he will resign after that and leave the public with an administration that is not moderated (to the extent that it is) by the presence of this presumably sage grown-up?

Think about it. The secretary of state revealed that he, the CIA and the administration were conned (perhaps too easily) by exiles supported by the Pentagon, and this fraud helped set the stage for a war and a bloody and difficult occupation that still is claiming the lives of Americans. If this is not cause for investigations, dismissals, and angry statements from congressional leaders and administration officials, then what is?

******

11 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last