posted on January 11, 2007 02:52:05 PM new
The Bush Plan: Networks Prepared Audiences With Week of Badmouthing "Surge" Option
Posted by Rich Noyes on January 11, 2007 - 17:02.
By the time President Bush delivered his Iraq speech Wednesday night, the news media had spent several days engaged in what the military calls "preparing the battlefield." The media's air war against the plan to try to actually win the Iraq war assured that most of Bush's audience would have already heard journalists claiming the new mission is wrong-headed and doomed to failure. A few examples:
"Like a folly." Last Tuesday on NBC's Today, anchor emeritus Tom Brokaw argued that the way Saddam Hussein was executed revealed Iraq as "a deeply divided country along tribal lines," and that sending more troops would "seem to most people...like a folly." Brokaw added: "I think a lot of people who are raising their hands to join the armed services are wondering, ‘I'm giving my life for that?'"
"Wrong Way Corrigan." The next morning on Today, political analyst Chris Matthews declared the President's plan dead on arrival: "I expect it will be treated the way Richard Nixon's invasion of Cambodia was reacted to. The American people aren't gonna like it." Matthews insisted that the voters wanted to end, not mend, Bush's Iraq policies and "for the President to go Wrong Way Corrigan on this thing and to increase the number of troops, take us deeper into Iraq, would be to reject the opinion of the American people."
"Absolutely no difference." This week, as more details of the President's plan were revealed, the anti-surge drum-beat got louder. On CBS's Early Show, co-host Harry Smith asked Baghdad reporter Lara Logan if extra troops would make a difference. "The best thing we have is to look at what has happened already. When the U.S. brought in 12,000 more troops into Baghdad last summer, it made absolutely no difference," Logan replied. "In fact, security here in Baghdad got even worse."
"Lost Cause?" On Tuesday's Today, NBC's White House reporter David Gregory suggested even White House insiders have lost faith. "As the President prepares to start a new phase of the war in Iraq, the White House is fending off charges that key figures in the administration have concluded the war is lost." NBC's graphic headline read "Lost Cause? Can U.S. Win the War In Iraq?" Gregory also cited unnamed "critics" to suggest Bush's motives were psychological: "U.S. commanders who opposed adding troops to Iraq have been replaced, prompting critics to charge the President's resolve has become stubbornness."
Roll call of critics. On Wednesday's Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer confronted White House aide Dan Bartlett: "I just want to run through a partial roll call of the number of people who have either opposed what the President is going to do, or expressed serious reservations." As she read off names such as Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel, their names and faces scrolled over her right shoulder. "I could go on and on," Sawyer told Bartlett. "What don't they get? What don't they understand?" Bartlett objected, saying some of the generals she listed as critics "helped devise this plan."
"Breaking Point." On yesterday's Today, co-host Meredith Vieira doubted that the U.S. military could meet the challenge: "The cornerstone of his plan is sending around 20,000 additional U.S. troops into the war zone. But is the military stretched to the breaking point already?" Reporter Jim Miklaszewski suggested it was: "The pace of two wars has left two-thirds of the Army's combat brigades rated ‘Not Ready to Fight.'"
"The cost has been enormous." Uniquely last night, CBS's Katie Couric decided to introduce Bush's speech by repeating the war's terrible toll: "Four years into the war, the cost has been enormous. More than 3,000 American military killed, more than 22,000 wounded. The dollar cost, close to $400 billion." Emphasizing her point, CBS posted each demoralizing statistic as a full-screen graphic.
The new plan may succeed, or it may fail. But the media's mantra these past few days has been that failure seems inevitable, so we shouldn't even try.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on January 11, 2007 03:08:35 PM new
Of course they did...they always have and they always will.
They aid and abet our enemies....nothings changed since the VN war. They're quitters...cowards....and they want America to lose.
And they still are dense enough to think that the terrorists can be 'talked' out of their madness.
I hope everyone heard the absolutely INSANE comment wesley clark said.....paraphrasing here - we need to get to know them...talk about our families....
Oh gawd...put that man in some locked down facility.....he's NUTS.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 11, 2007 03:25:45 PM new
hey dave....looks to me like your flip-flopping on what you continue to tell everyone here. That you're IGNORING me.
Maybe you SHOULD go sign up on the 'boycott' Linda thread.
OR at least READ what you wrote yourself, dave
"[i]posted on January 10, 2007 03:56:52 PM
No need to sign up. Just do it. You'd be surprized a week will soon turn into a lifetime[/i]."
Seems you are just like helen....and can't actually do what you say either.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 11, 2007 03:32 PM ]
posted on January 11, 2007 03:35:37 PM new
What I think is so laughable is that all the lead donkeys were braying and braying INSISTING that the President send more troops....really do a HUGE surge.
Now...lol lol lol they're fighting against him doing just that.
They don't know WHAT they want to do....and they ARE divided in their own party on this issue.
The fanatics are the loudest....and the ones more worried about our security are more balanced.....
...but I AM surprised that so many don't appear to see this FLIP-FLOP in their postition AGAIN.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 11, 2007 04:20:56 PM new
More troops were called for years ago when it may have made a difference but the ones running the war from the Whitehouse 'knew better' and said they weren't needed. Now it's too little too late.
posted on January 11, 2007 04:29:44 PM new
kiara...the CLUE room is still open....try and find one.
I know it's hard for you to 'keep up' with what the US military is doing....but at least come prepared with more current info.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 11, 2007 05:01:36 PM new
I worked today and didn't see the news. Last I heard was that Bush wanted to send more troops to Iraq and my opinion is that they were needed at the beginning but now since it's a civil war it's 'too little, too late'..... didn't see anywhere that he's changed his thinking since yesterday.
Since 2005 and for the past THREE MONTHS, kiara, there have been democrats who have said they either would or might support a surge of troops.
As I have stated over and over again...the DEM party is DIVIDED on the Iraq war issue.
The radicals like you....vs. the more sensable dems that agree with Lieberman that we CANNOT lose this war....the consequences are just TOO great.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 11, 2007 05:21 PM ]
posted on January 11, 2007 06:00:01 PM new
I was talking about years ago when those on the ground in Iraq who knew best called for more troops but the so-called leaders in the Whitehouse wouldn't listen to them.
It's a lost cause if the leader of the nation doesn't listen to those he sends off to war when they first contact him and then he decides several years later that perhaps they were right so forms a new plan that may have worked back then ......... it's too late now.
You may call me radical but then so are the other 70% of your countrymen who do not agree with this.
You can try to blame the networks for the reaction of the general public but that's just another excuse to cover your shame for supporting the idiots that tried to run this war and for lauding such bloodshed and then having it all backfire on you.
Accept it, your leaders were wrong and you were wrong and it's caused the death and injuries of many innocent people and there is no going back now. Start listening to the 70% now and maybe they'll have some better ideas.
posted on January 11, 2007 06:54:44 PM new
Kiara, You are 100% spot on IMO. This situation just gets more sickening. Now it appears that Bush is baiting Iran and many think, including Pat Buchanan of all people, that this surge is really to set up a confrontation with Iran. Invading the Iranian Embassy? That is an act of war. This man is really out of control.
posted on January 11, 2007 07:44:31 PM new
How stupid can a person be??
There is no "baiting" Iran. The Iranians are in this full force and have been for many years. The Iraqi "war" is nothing but a contest of domination between Saudi Arabia and Iran using proxies. Iran is one of the world's most deadly threats, and the west has been actively fighting this war for 60 yrs one way or another.
posted on January 11, 2007 07:48:43 PM new
Again I see two liberals forming their opinions on totally FALSE info. As seems to be the case MOST of the time.
The President told our military leaders they could have more troops IF they needed/wanted them.
It's been those on the ground who have, until recently, continued to say they DIDN'T need them.
GAWD...I can't believe you're so UNAWARE of what's been going on. Guess your little 'sound bites' aren't filling you in enough....obviously.
And I was talking about the DEMS who have SAID they WOULD support SENDING MORE TROOPS NOW in this SURGE.....they've been saying they agreed. They were agreeing back in NOV. DEC. and this Month.
Now...since they win the election....and SOME of them are FLIP-FLOPPING Least reid did.
You DO know who reid is hopefully.
But if you two think for ONE minute that all the NEGATIVE reporting done by the liberal press hasn't influenced how American's feel about this war....then you'd better come out from whatever cave you've been living in.
The have RARELY reported ANY good news that has happened over there.
But ...the sheep only believe what they're told.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 11, 2007 07:53 PM ]
posted on January 11, 2007 09:21:13 PM new
"Invading the Iranian Embassy? That is an act of war."
LOL LOL LOL
carter certainly didn't see it that way when Iran invaded our embassy and took OUR people as hostages.
[or is that another memory failure on the part of the left]
AND if we are to follow in his cowardly footsteps then we will be holding these Iranians until sometime in March 2008.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 11, 2007 10:00:14 PM new
Coincoach, I believe that Clinton contained Saddam who in turn contained Iran by making them think he had WMD. When Bush and his accomplices went in they set off a chain of events even though they had been warned of the possible consequences. Does Bush think that by bombing Iran and starting another war he will have a 2nd chance to win a war since his first attempt has been so pitiful?
Some of the fired and retired military have talked about the call for more troops in Iraq early on.
As to media reports, if there was so much good news coming out of Iraq it would be proof that 'staying the course' is working and great progress is being made so Bush would not be making his scared looking little speeches scrambling for a new plan.
A major part of the good news would be fewer deaths reported but it's the reverse for the Iraqis and more coffins are coming home to America even though it's all hidden....... unless of course more deaths and civil war is considered good news to the neo-cons .
Some may not be aware that media coverage is from all over the world and it can't all be biased or wrong. The footage of death in Iraq is not a hollywood movie set done by anti-war media, the pictures of war and death are real daily happenings.
posted on January 12, 2007 06:15:30 AM new
Exactly, Kiara. Linda and desquirrel-- This is no sound bite, it is the opinion of many people, including military experts. You are entitled to disagree, just as I am entitled to state my opinions. I'll admit, I'm not an expert on everything like you both are (or think you are)but I am still capable of forming an opinion based on the information I hear. If you need to post epithets and put-downs to make you feel superior, have fun.
Looks to me like more than the media is saying BUSHY'S same old "stay the course ideas" won't work. I don't want people not knowing this has all been tried before AND MOST GENERALS DON'T APROVE IT.
MARK MY WORDS BUSHY IS ONLY TRYING TO SAVE FACE BY MAKING THE IRAQ PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT THE FALL GUYS FOR HIS TERRIBLE BLUNDERS. FOR ME THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS HOW MANY MORE AMERICAN TROOPS WILL BUSHY ASK TO DIE IN HIS FALIED IRAQ INVASION?
"Bush said it is now clear that there have not been sufficient troops in Baghdad, and that part of the difference in this approach is that the plan will be adequately resourced. Yet the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq after the planned increase will be about 153,000, less than the peak of about 165,000 in December 2005. Military experts last night wondered, as one said, how a "thin green line" of 17,500 additional soldiers in Baghdad could affect the security situation in a city where many of the 5 million residents are hostile to the U.S. presence. "Too little, too late -- way too late," said retired Col. Jerry Durrant, who has worked as a trainer of Iraqi forces".
posted on January 12, 2007 08:34:00 AM new
What amuses me constantly here is the desire for some people to debate a fact. You say 2 + 2 is 4 and someone says "That's your opinion" as if you said "Vanilla ice cream is the best".
Clinton "contained" nothing. Iran has been trying to achieve hegemony over the region since the 50s. We catered to and controlled the Shah by making him dependent on us. He in turn cracked down on the fundamentalists who were a threat to him as well as the rest of the world.
The Syrians, Egyptians have sought to be the leaders of some kind of pan-Arab group also, but were stopped. The Syrians by Israel and the Egyptians who fare better co-operating with us. The 1950-60s saw Saddam's attempt to rise to this position.
He was kept in check by us and the power of Saudi money. When he thought us preoccupied and without will, he invaded Kuwait. It would have worked with Carter or Clinton.
The war exists because
1)Saddam was throwing the dice too many times.
2)He was pursuing WMD. It doesn't matter what Molly thinks, we know what he was buying and who he got it from.
3)His financial and tactical support of terrorism.
4)The ability to establish an American military presence on the ground.
posted on January 12, 2007 09:06:08 AM new
No, the war exists because the people behind bush wanted it to happen...do I know the REAL reason? No, and not many other people do either.
However, all the reasons..all the MANY different and varying reasons our president gave us were LIES ! PERIOD! He knowingly LIED.
I DO know that:
It had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
Nothing to do with imagined WMDs.
Nothing to do with stopping terrorism.
And finally the majority of Americans are realizing that (see Election 2006)....hence the unpopularity with the "troop surge" non-plan.
posted on January 12, 2007 09:16:32 AM new
It amazes me how those on the right only think it is the Democrats that are divided on the war issue. There are many in the Republican party that are not siding with Bush on this issue as well as many more.
The last two years for Bush are not going to get any easier.
Republicansf division over Iraq grows
By Guy Dinmore in Washington
Published: January 7 2007 18:43 | Last updated: January 8 2007 05:14
Leading Republicans on Sunday showed further signs of dissent over President George W. Bushfs reported plans to send more troops to Iraq, while the Democrats, now in control of Congress, said they would not give the president a gblank chequeh for reinforcements.
gIf the president recommends what we seem to believe hefs going to recommend, I intend to support him,h declared Mitch McConnell, the Republicanfs new minority leader in the Senate, before conceding on Fox News Sunday that other Republicans would not endorse the plan.
Republicans are divided over the expectation that Mr Bush intends to announce a big troop increase on Wednesday as part of the strategy and personnel overhaul the White House is calling a gnew way forwardh.
Senator Chuck Hagel last week called the idea gAlice in Wonderlandh, while, on his return from Iraq last month, Senator Norm Coleman said he would gstand againsth any such plan.
However, Senator John McCain, the leading Republican presidential hopeful, has come out strongly in favour of a gsurgeh, and Senator Jon Kyl has called on both parties to work together in giving the presidentfs plans gan opportunity to workh.
While the Democrats have no agreement on what action is needed in Iraq, very few have publicly backed sending more troops to add to the 132,000 in Iraq.
Nancy Pelosi, the new House speaker, and other Democrats stopped short of saying they would block funding but yesterday made clear that the administration would have to work hard in committee hearings to justify more spending.
gIf the president chooses to escalate the war, in his budget request we want to see a distinction between what is there to support the troops who are there now,h she told CBS. gIf the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it and this is new for him because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank cheque with no oversight, no standards, no conditions.h
Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat on the foreign relations committee, went further than Ms Pelosi, saying Congress should exercise its gpower of the purseh by voting on gwhether or not we should fund this escalation if, in fact, thatfs what the president doesh.
She also accused Mr Bush, in carrying out his military reshuffle last week, of gshopping for a general who agreed with himh to send more forces.
The discord among Republicans over Iraq will be significant in the battle over who will become the partyfs presidential candidate for 2008.
Among the Democrats, senatorial contenders for the partyfs nomination, including Barack Obama and Joseph Biden, have spoken out against a gsurgeh, whereas Hillary Clinton has kept her powder dry.
Steny Hoyer, the Democratsf House majority leader, declined to comment on the possibility of the Democrats cutting off funding.
¡Gordon Brown, who is expected to take over as prime minister from Tony Blair this year, said Sunday he expected the UK to push on with its plans for withdrawal from Iraq and focus more on training and completion of development projects.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on January 12, 2007 09:25:43 AM new
Very well stated, desquirrel.
I hope they can grasp the difference between debating a fact and having an opinion. I don't hold out much hope of that ever being the case....but hey...one never knows. It might sink in with some.
================
I'd bet this 'surge' of troops are already on their way to Iraq as we speak.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 12, 2007 09:52:47 AM new
Desquirrel, I see that you conveniently ignored the fact that the US enabled Saddam for years by sending him money and arms.
An American military base will never be accepted in the Middle East. They only encourage terrorism and insurgency and don't belong there at all.
posted on January 12, 2007 10:43:31 AM new
Maybe our resident Canadian might like to tell us why SHE believes the U.S. did that at that time????????
Who was saddam fighting against???????
=======================
The Patriot Post
1-12-07
Friday Digest
PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE
If not Iraq, then where, when and at what cost?
Mark Alexander
Amid all the political posturing about whether we should surge into or out of Iraq, a reality check with the rationale for Operation Iraqi Freedom is in order when considering the Bush administration?s revised operation plan, and rules of engagement, to accomplish our OIF mission.
Of course, reality checks have never been prerequisite to the Democrats' foreign-policy positions, especially in the perpetual election cycle. Hard realities, after all, make for difficult decisions.
For the record, on 11 September 2001, before the dust had settled over lower Manhattan and the Pentagon, U.S. military and intelligence analysts determined, correctly, that the architect of the attacks that morning was sheik Osama bin Laden. He was the chief Imam of Jihadistan, that borderless nation of Islamic extremists comprising al-Qaida and other Muslim terrorist groups around the world.
Though not a symmetric threat to the West (one with well-defined political, economic and geographic objectives), it became crystal clear that fateful morning that Osama and his Jihadi adherents would use any means at their disposal to cripple the West.
Jihadi terrorists had attacked western civilian targets for more than two decades, with limited retaliation. However, all that changed when our nation watched as some 3,000 of our fellow Americans were slaughtered by just a handful of al-Qaida terrorists.
In a world where the proliferation of nuclear WMD is a growth industry, the Bush administration launched a bold military campaign to push back the frontlines of this war to its strongholds in the Middle East, in order to thwart additional attacks on U.S. urban centers.
After containing Jihadi forces in Afghanistan, our best national estimates were that Iraq posed the greatest threat to regional stability and was the most likely conduit for Jihadi WMD.
On 19 March 2003, after long deliberations by the UN, the U.S. and our allies invaded Iraq. The Security Council's foot-dragging, however, along with substantial help from the French and Russians, had provided an ample window for Saddam to export some or all of his WMD to Syria and Iran.
OIF had several objectives - which were, and remain, within the margin of our critical national interests.
The short-term tactical objectives were to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyrannical rule and remove Iraq as a conduit for WMD.
The long-term strategic objectives were, and remain, to establish a democratic Muslim state to support regional stability and an ally who would permit forward deployment bases for limited personnel but significant military hardware.
The rub, and it's a big one, is that when the U.S. launched OIF, it was estimated by war planners that major hostilities would cease within 90-120 days. While 'major,' in this case, is certainly open to interpretation, (noting that any combat operation is major when incoming rounds are intended for you), no estimates projected that we would still be involved in combat operations almost four years into OIF.
Of course, no war plan survives the opening salvo.
However, listening to the Democrats accuse the administration of lying about Iraq, and then using that canard to effect a politically expedient sounding of the retreat, one must conclude that these Demos think they are bulletproof in regard to their own opinions in advance of OIF.
Fact is, however, every prominent Democrat was once of the same opinion as the Bush administration. The only difference now is that those Democrats long ago lost their will to fight. They're now as eager as al-Qaida to see the U.S. retreat from Iraq.
What has ground OIF into a virtual stalemate for three years is the influx of Jihadi insurgents and domestic tribal and sectarian fractionalization, which continue to destabilize efforts by the Iraqi government to establish social and economic order, particularly in Baghdad.
Given the Democrats' effective politicization of OIF in the run-up to midterm elections last October, and given the degree to which their hand-wringing had undermined our national will to stay the course in Iraq, President Bush had little chance of obtaining public support for sending additional forces to the region.
Ironically, it is the Democrat victories in both the House and Senate that provided the opening President Bush needed to call for additional troops.
Knowing the Democrats' penchant for reacting as opposed to acting - because, after all, actions have consequences - the President called their bluff. Wednesday, he appealed to the nation for what military commanders believe will be enough additional troops to stabilize Baghdad and finish the job in Iraq - 20,000 more troops (a number far short of the 35,000 troops some Republicans, like Sen. John McCain, insist are needed).
President Bush also called for a much needed and long overdue expansion of service personnel, as outlined by Defense Secretary Robert Gates:
"The President would strengthen our military for the long war against terrorism by authorizing an increase in the overall strength of the Army and the Marine Corps. I am recommending to him a total increase in the two services of 92,000 soldiers and Marines over the next five years - 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines. The emphasis will be on increasing combat capability. This increase will be accomplished in two ways. First, we will propose to make permanent the temporary increase of 30,000 for the Army and 5,000 for the Marine Corps. Then we propose to build up from that base in annual increments of 7,000 troops a year for the Army and 5,000 for the Marine Corps until the Marine Corps reaches a level of 202,000, and the Army would be at 547,000."
Democrat leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have rejected any 'surge option' as a 'serious mistake,' instead calling for 'phased redeployment' (AKA, 'retreat') in the next four to six months.
Politically speaking, Reid and Pelosi are staking out a perilous position, both politically and in terms of our national security.
The hard reality is this:
If we don't finish the OIF mission now, we will have to finish it later and, potentially, at much greater cost, both in terms of human lives and resources. Pulling out of Iraq will have severe implications for the stability of other states in the region, in effect, turning the Gulf over to Jihadistan forces of Iran, Hizballah, Hamas and radical Shi?ites.
A retreat will necessitate a return to the region with perhaps four or five times the number of American military personnel now deployed in Iraq.
Shoring up our critical national interest in the Middle East and protecting our homeland from another catastrophic attack must trump rancorous politics.
John Stuart Mill wrote,
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."
Operation Iraqi Freedom is a bitter pill, to be sure, but one that will become less palatable only if we refuse to take it now.
=================
Quote of the week
"The Democrats want the political mileage of opposing the troop increase rhetorically. What they don't want is to take responsibility for their own policy choice."
"Meanwhile, their rhetoric will only serve to reassure the Jihadis that sooner or later Democrats will force a U.S. withdrawal." - The Wall Street Journal
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 12, 2007 10:50 AM ]
posted on January 12, 2007 12:05:33 PM newDesquirrel, I see that you conveniently ignored the fact that the US enabled Saddam for years by sending him money and arms.
It is true Kiara, those on the right keep ignoring the fact the Reagan helped Saddam and supplied him with weapons. I guess they are trying to re-write history. Is it any wonder why those in the Middle East do not like America, after what the Reagan administration did.
The Ties That Blind
How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons
By NORM DIXON
On August 18, 2002, the New York Times carried a front-page story headlined, "Officers say U.S. aided Iraq despite the use of gas". Quoting anonymous US "senior military officers", the NYT "revealed" that in the 1980s, the administration of US President Ronald Reagan covertly provided "critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war". The story made a brief splash in the international media, then died.
While the August 18 NYT article added new details about the extent of US military collaboration with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during Iraq's 1980-88 war with Iran, it omitted the most outrageous aspect of the scandal: not only did Ronald Reagan's Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime's repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq's Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
Nor did the NYT dwell on the extreme cynicism and hypocrisy of President George Bush II's administration's citing of those same terrible atrocities--which were disregarded at the time by Washington--and those same weapons programs--which no longer exist, having been dismantled and destroyed in the decade following the 1991 Gulf War--to justify a massive new war against the people of Iraq.
A reader of the NYT article (or the tens of thousands of other articles written after the war drive against Iraq began in earnest soon after September 11, 2001) would have looked in vain for the fact that many of the US politicians and ruling class pundits who demanded war against Hussein--in particular, the one of the most bellicose of the Bush administration's "hawks", defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld--were up to their ears in Washington's efforts to cultivate, promote and excuse Hussein in the past.
The NYT article read as though Washington's casual disregard about the use of chemical weapons by Hussein's dictatorship throughout the 1980s had never been reported before. However, it was not the first time that "Iraqgate"--as the scandal of US military and political support for Hussein in the '80s has been dubbed--has raised its embarrassing head in the corporate media, only to be quickly buried again.
One of the more comprehensive and damning accounts of Iraqgate was written by Douglas Frantz and Murray Waas and published in the February 23, 1992, Los Angeles Times. Headlined, "Bush secret effort helped Iraq build its war machine", the article reported that "classified documents obtained by the LA Times show ... a long-secret pattern of personal efforts by [George Bush senior]--both as president and vice president--to support and placate the Iraqi dictator."
Even William Safire, the right-wing, war-mongering NYT columnist, on December 7, 1992, felt compelled to write that, "Iraqgate is uniquely horrendous: a scandal about the systematic abuse of power by misguided leaders of three democratic nations [the US, Britain and Italy] to secretly finance the arms buildup of a dictator".
The background to Iraqgate was the January 1979 popular uprising that overthrew the cravenly pro-US Shah of Iran. The Iranian revolution threatened US imperialism's domination of the strategic oil-rich region. Other than Israel, Iran had long been Washington's key ally in the Middle East.
Washington immediately began to "cast about for ways to undermine or overthrow the Iranian revolution, or make up for the loss of the Shah. Hussein's regime put up its hand. On September 22, 1980, Iraq launched an invasion of Iran. Throughout the bloody eight-year-long war--which cost at least 1 million lives--Washington backed Iraq.
As a 1990 report prepared for the Pentagon by the Strategic Studies Institute of the US War College admitted: "Throughout the [Iran-Iraq] war the United States practised a fairly benign policy toward Iraq... [Washington and Baghdad] wanted to restore the status quo ante ... that prevailed before [the 1979 Iranian revolution] began threatening the regional balance of power. Khomeini's revolutionary appeal was anathema to both Baghdad and Washington; hence they wanted to get rid of him. United by a common interest ... the [US] began to actively assist Iraq."
At first, as Iraqi forces seemed headed for victory over Iran, official US policy was neutrality in the conflict. Not only was Hussein doing Washington's dirty work in the war with Iran, but the US rulers believed that Iraq could be lured away from its close economic and military relationship with the Soviet Union--just as Egypt's President Anwar Sadat had done in the 1970s.
In March 1981, US Secretary of State Alexander Haig excitedly told the Senate foreign relations committee that Iraq was concerned by "the behaviour of Soviet imperialism in the Middle Eastern region". The Soviet government had refused to deliver arms to Iraq as long as Baghdad continued its military offensive against Iran. Moscow was also unhappy with the Hussein's vicious repression of the Iraqi Communist Party.
Washington's support (innocuously referred to as a "tilt" at the time) for Iraq became more open after Iran succeeded in driving Iraqi forces from its territory in May 1982; in June, Iran went on the offensive against Iraq. The US scrambled to stem Iraq's military setbacks. Washington and its conservative Arab allies suddenly feared Iran might even defeat Iraq, or at least cause the collapse of Hussein's regime.
Using its allies in the Middle East, Washington funnelled huge supplies of arms to Iraq. Classified State Department cables uncovered by Frantz and Waas described covert transfers of howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons to Baghdad in 1982-83 from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait.
Howard Teicher, who monitored Middle East policy at the US National Security Council during the Reagan administration, told the February 23, 1992, LA Times: "There was a conscious effort to encourage third countries to ship US arms or acquiesce in shipments after the fact. It was a policy of nods and winks."
According to Mark Phythian's 1997 book Arming Iraq: How the US and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's War Machine (Northeastern University Press), in 1983 Reagan asked Italy's Prime Minister Guilo Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq.
The January 1, 1984 Washington Post reported that the US had "informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the three-year-old war with Iran would be 'contrary to US interests' and has made several moves to prevent that result".
Central to these "moves" was the cementing of a military and political alliance with Saddam Hussein's repressive regime, so as to build up Iraq as a military counterweight to Iran. In 1982, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department's list of countries that allegedly supported terrorism. On December 19-20, 1983, Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy--none other than Donald Rumsfeld--to Baghdad with a hand-written offer of a resumption of diplomatic relations, which had been severed during the 1967 Arab-Israel war. On March 24, 1984, Rumsfeld was again in Baghdad.
On that same day, the UPI wire service reported from the UN: "Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers ... a team of UN experts has concluded ... Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, US presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with foreign minister Tariq Aziz."
The day before, Iran had accused Iraq of poisoning 600 of its soldiers with mustard gas and Tabun nerve gas.
There is no doubt that the US government knew Iraq was using chemical weapons. On March 5, 1984, the State Department had stated that "available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons". The March 30, 1984, NYT reported that US intelligence officials has "what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has used nerve gas in its war with Iran and has almost finished extensive sites for mass producing the lethal chemical warfare agent".
However, consistent with the pattern throughout the Iran-Iraq war and after, the use of these internationally outlawed weapons was not considered important enough by Rumsfeld and his political superiors to halt Washington's blossoming love affair with Hussein.
The March 29, 1984, NYT, reporting on the aftermath of Rumsfeld's talks in Baghdad, stated that US officials had pronounced "themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the US and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name". In November 1984, the US and Iraq officially restored diplomatic relations.
According to Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, in a December 15, 1986 article, the CIA began to secretly supply Iraq with intelligence in 1984 that was used to "calibrate" mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. Beginning in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive US satellite reconnaissance photography ... to assist Iraqi bombing raids".
Iraqi chemical attacks on Iranian troops--and US assistance to Iraq--continued throughout the Iran-Iraq war. In a parallel program, the US defence department also provided intelligence and battle-planning assistance to Iraq.
The August 17, 2002 NYT reported that, according to "senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program", even though "senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents ... President Reagan, vice president George Bush [senior] and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq."
Retired DIA officer Rick Francona told the NYT that Iraq's chemical weapons were used in the war's final battle in early 1988, in which Iraqi forces retook the Fao Peninsula from the Iranian army.
Another retired DIA officer, Walter Lang, told the NYT that "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern". What concerned the DIA, CIA and the Reagan administration was that Iran not break through the Fao Peninsula and spread the Islamic revolution to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Iraq's 1982 removal from Washington's official list of states that support terrorism meant that the Hussein regime was now eligible for US economic and military aid, and was able to purchase advanced US technology that could also be used for military purposes.
Conventional military sales resumed in December 1982. In 1983, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters to Iraq in 1983 "for civilian use". However, as Phythian pointed out, these aircraft could be "weaponised" within hours of delivery. Then US Secretary of State George Schultz and commerce secretary George Baldridge also lobbied for the delivery of Bell helicopters equipped for "crop spraying". It is believed that US-supplied choppers were used in the 1988 chemical attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja, which killed 5000 people.
With the Reagan administration's connivance, Baghdad immediately embarked on a massive militarisation drive. This US-endorsed military spending spree began even before Iraq was delisted as a terrorist state, when the US commerce department approved the sale of Italian gas turbine engines for Iraq's naval frigates.
Soon after, the US agriculture department's Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) guaranteed to repay loans--in the event of defaults by Baghdad--banks had made to Iraq to buy US-grown commodities such as wheat and rice. Under this scheme, Iraq had three years to repay the loans, and if it could not the US taxpayers would have to cough up.
Washington offered this aid initially to prevent Hussein's overthrow as the Iraqi people began to complain about the food shortages caused by the massive diversion of hard currency for the purchase of weapons and ammunition. The loan guarantees amounted to a massive US subsidy that allowed Hussein to launch his overt and covert arms buildup, one result being that the Iran-Iraq war entered a bloody five-year stalemate.
By the end of 1983, US$402 million in agriculture department loan guarantees for Iraq were approved. In 1984, this increased to $503 million and reached $1.1 billion in 1988. Between 1983 and 1990, CCC loan guarantees freed up more than $5 billion. Some $2 billion in bad loans, plus interest, ended up having to be covered by US taxpayers.
A similar taxpayer-funded, though smaller scale, scam operated under the auspices of the federal Export-Import Bank. In 1984, vice-president George Bush senior personally intervened to ensure that the bank guaranteed loans to Iraq of $500 million to build an oil pipeline. Export-Import Bank loan guarantees grew from $35 million in 1985 to $267 million by 1990.
According to William Blum, writing in the August 1998 issue of the Progressive, Sam Gejdenson, chairperson of a Congressional subcommittee investigating US exports to Iraq, disclosed that from 1985 until 1990 "the US government approved 771 licenses [only 39 were rejected] for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application ...
"The US spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted... US export control policy was directed by US foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was US foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein."
A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a "witch's brew" of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.
The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment. Among the better-known companies were Hewlett Packard, Unisys, Data General and Honeywell.
Billions of dollars worth of raw materials, machinery and equipment, missile technology and other "dual-use" items were also supplied by West German, French, Italian, British, Swiss and Austrian corporations, with the approval of their governments (German firms even sold Iraq entire factories capable of mass-producing poison gas). Much of this was purchased with funds freed by the US CCC credits.
The destination of much of this equipment was Saad 16, near Mosul in northern Iraq. Western intelligence agencies had long known that the sprawling complex was Iraq's main ballistic missile development centre.
Blum reported that Washington was fully aware of the likely use of this material. In 1992, a US Senate committee learned that the commerce department had deleted references to military end-use from information it sent to Congress about 68 export licences, worth more than $1 billion.
In 1986, the US defence department's deputy undersecretary for trade security, Stephen Bryen, had objected to the export of an advanced computer, similar to those used in the US missile program, to Saad 16 because "of the high likelihood of military end use". The state and commerce departments approved the sale without conditions.
In his book, The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq, Kenneth Timmerman points out that several US agencies were supposed to review US exports that may be detrimental to US "national security". However, the commerce department often did not submit exports to Hussein's Iraq for review or approved them despite objections from other government departments.
On March 16, 1988, Iraqi forces launched a poison gas attack on the Iraqi Kurdish village of Halabja, killing 5000 people. While that attack is today being touted by senior US officials as one of the main reasons why Hussein must now be "taken out", at the time Washington's response to the atrocity was much more relaxed.
Just four months later, Washington stood by as the US giant Bechtel corporation won the contract to build a huge petrochemical plant that would give the Hussein regime the capacity to generate chemical weapons.
On September 8, 1988, the US Senate passed the Prevention of Genocide Act, which would have imposed sanctions on the Hussein regime. Immediately, the Reagan administration announced its opposition to the bill, calling it "premature". The White House used its influence to stall the bill in the House of Representatives. When Congress did eventually pass the bill, the White House did not implement it.
Washington's political, military and economic sweetheart deals with the Iraqi dictator came under even more stress when, in August 1989, FBI agents raided the Atlanta branch of the Rome-based Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) and uncovered massive fraud involving the CCC loan guarantee scheme and billions of dollars worth of unauthorised "off-the-books" loans to Iraq.
BNL Atlanta manager Chris Drougal had used the CCC program to underwrite programs that had nothing to do with agricultural exports. Using this covert set-up, Hussein's regime tried to buy the most hard-to-get components for its nuclear weapons and missile programs on the black market.
Russ Baker, writing in the March/April 1993 Columbia Journalism Review, noted: "Elements of the US government almost certainly knew that Drougal was funnelling US-backed loans--into dual-use technology and outright military technology. The British government was fully aware of the operations of Matrix-Churchill, a British firm with an Ohio branch, which was not only at the centre of the Iraqi procurement network but was also funded by BNL Atlanta... It would be later alleged by bank executives that the Italian government, long a close US ally as well as BNL's ultimate owner, had knowledge of BNL's loan diversions."
Yet, even the public outrage generated by the Halabja massacre and the widening BNL scandal did not cool Washington's ardour towards Hussein's Iraq.
On October 2, 1989, US President George Bush senior signed the top-secret National Security Decision 26, which declared: "Normal relations between the US and Iraq would serve our long-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East. The US should propose economic and political incentives for Iraq to moderate its behaviour and increase our influence with Iraq... We should pursue, and seek to facilitate, opportunities for US firms to participate in the reconstruction of the Iraqi economy."
As public and congressional pressure mounted on the US Agriculture Department to end Iraq's access to CCC loan guarantees, Secretary of State James Baker--armed with NSD 26--personally insisted that agriculture secretary Clayton Yeutter drop his opposition to their continuation.
In November 1989, Bush senior approved $1 billion in loan guarantees for Iraq in 1990. In April 1990, more revelations about the BNL scandal had again pushed the department of agriculture to the verge of halting Iraq's CCC loan guarantees. On May 18, national security adviser Scowcroft personally intervened to ensure the delivery of the first $500 million tranche of the CCC subsidy for 1990.
According to Frantz and Waas' February 23, 1992, LA Times article, in July 1990 "officials at the National Security Council and the State Department were pushing to deliver the second installment of the $1 billion in loan guarantees, despite the looming crisis in the region and evidence that Iraq had used the aid illegally to help finance a secret arms procurement network to obtain technology for its nuclear weapons and ballistic-missile program".
From July 18 to August 1, 1990, Bush senior's administration approved $4.8 million in advanced technology sales to Iraq. The end-users included Saad 16 and the Iraqi ministry of industry and military industrialisation. On August 1, $695,000 worth of advanced data transmission devices were approved.
"Only on August 2, 1990, did the agriculture department officially suspend the [CCC loan] guarantees to Iraq--the same day that Hussein's tanks and troops swept into Kuwait", noted Frantz and Waas.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on January 12, 2007 12:43:08 PM new
So again we see that kiara takes a 'sound bite' and can't answer a simple question. tsk tsk tsk
Then logansdad, thinking he's coming to her rescue, tries to help out by posting an article from the treason times...[NYT] who has NEVER supported anything the U.S. has done in this war. And i the VN war....and probably EVER.
Nope...that's NOT answering the question, kiara.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 12, 2007 12:50:58 PM new
And although the treason times has over and over again PROMISED not to use these 'anonymous sources....they continuing doing just that.
"Quoting anonymous US "senior military officers"
====
And on that exact SAME note....we're STILL waiting for the Associated Press to let us in on who THEIR 'reporter Hussien' really is.
He's written at least 60 negative articles about what's happening in Iraq....but the problem is no one can find an actual person who is this source that has been quoted so many times
Michele Malkin and another journalist are currently in Iraq trying to find him....since the AP won't/can't PRODUCE any such person.
Yep, continue basing your OPINIONS on false reports from the NYT and now, sadly, the AP.
They sure help our ENEMIES to change the minds of UNINFORMED Americans. tsk tsk tsk
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
