A worthy (and wordy) diatribe from Al Gore

There was then, there is now and there would have been regardless of what Bush did, a threat of terrorism that we would have to deal with. But instead of making it better, he has made it infinitely worse. We are less safe because of his policies. He has created more anger and righteous indignation against us as Americans than any leader of our country in the 228 years of our existence as a nation -- because of his attitude of contempt for any person, institution or nation who disagrees with him.

He has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet's nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us. And by then insulting the religion and culture and tradition of people in other countries. And by pursuing policies that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children, all of it done in our name.

Go here and read the full text.

Comments

[Dr. Pants]

Great website...I'll be visiting more often!!

[j.j.]

meanwhile, former Commander-in-Chief of US Central Command, Marine General Anthony Zinni says:

"And what we have become in the United States, how we're viewed in this region is not an entity that's promising positive change. We are being viewed as the modern crusaders, as the modern colonial power in this part of the world."

Sadly, this was yet another of my pre-war predictions.

[j.j.]

Osama could not have wished for a more incompetent president to help further his own manical cause. The ISS estimates about 18,000 al-Qaeda members and growing steadily because of our freak Middle East policy. The men that blew up the UK Embassy in Turkey in November specifically pointed out that they did it because of the Iraq war.

Thanks for saving me from terrorism, Dubya.

[Maryann]

WOW. Has anybody else seen this?

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1085523609417&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

[j.j.]

holy cow! guess W's house of cards is collapsing on all fronts now. I guess with the Tories now more popular than Labour, Tony Bliar was finally to do something other than kiss W's ass.
As for Perle, I don't know what to make of him. All of a sudden, reality hits him deadsquare in the face. I must give him credit for being man enough to admit it this time around. But that guy can still _______ (fill in the blank.) He's the one that lied over and over to get us to fight in Iraq. Thanks a bunch.

[Chrish]

At least the Iraqi people understand the principle of Forgiveness and understanding.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3753853.stm

Gore would be well advised to look at the example
of the Iraqi people rather than going off on a
mindless rant ala Howard Dean. But then that ranting only shows how Liberals will politicize anything for their own purposes and gain.

[Maryann]

Chrish, have you been reading a lot of Anne Coulter lately? You used to have valid points to make but have descended into namecalling and baiting. I thought we'd moved past all that.

[Maryann]

And on a side note, did you actually read that article you linked to?? Speaking of politicizing everything...it's interesting that only a liberal hotbed like the BBC would print a story about how Al Sadr's followers aren't "evildoers" and "terrorists"--they're poor, dispossesed citizens who have nothing to gain from the US occupation. There's a viewpoint the Bush administration would NEVER admit.

[Chrish]

Yes Maryann,

I did read the article and yes I am aware what
Sadr's forces are made up of. Did you read the article? The point is while many were busying about making a really really big issue of the prisoner abuses, not that they aren't a big issue, and Gore's tirade ala Howard Dean the Iraqi's seem to have a better grasp of what
forgiveness and understanding are all about. Apparently you either missed or chose to ignore that point.

No, I have not read Coulter's books and have no interest in reading them anymore than I have an interest in reading her counterparts books. It's right wing vs left wing rhetoric.

And on a side note Maryann, it seems many of you have no problem doing the bait and switch thing,
the name calling but can't handle it when it's returned in kind. More of that double standard?

Be more than happy to return to valid points and
drop the baiting and name calling if it's returned in kind.

Are you of the opinion that Gore's ranting was perfectly acceptable and had a dignified presentation? Perhaps all politician's should behave in that manner?

[Maryann]

OK, great, the Iraqis are forgiving people. Good to note.

Actually I didn't see the speech. The press here didn't really cover it (or if they did I missed the broadcast). The transcript looks pretty right on though. Who was Gore supposed to be forgiving, Bush? You lost me there.

[Chrish]

The text of his speech doesn't present the manner in which Gore gave it so there's no point in continuing. Besides, your post speaks for itself,
thank you very much....

[Jeff]

I read the article that you linked to Chrish and I have no idea what you're talking about. Exactly where does it talk about Iraqis forgiving and how does this relate to Gore?

Also, I think it's incredibly lame to say that ranting and raving is the sole expertise of liberals. Conservatives are at least equally adept at ranting and raving. The problem in this instance is that the liberals have a lot of legitimate complaints!

The occupation is a disaster in lives cost, money, purpose, American credibility, and has probably created more terrorists than we've been able to kill. The only winners are the corporations that got millions in Iraqi contracts. If you were risking your life over there and your leaders were clueless, wouldn't you be a bit peeved?

Consider the link below... the Bush campaign either misleads and sometimes outright lies every time they open their mouths. Kerry has been prone to some exaggeration himself, but it's completely lopsided. I've heard the "Kerry proposed a 50 cent increase in gas tax" line so many times from the Bush campaign and can't believe they have the gall to leave out that he voted for this increase 10 years ago.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5100453/

[Chrish]

First, my apologies to Maryann for my response
as I was under the impression she hadn't read
the link I was referring to; I am sorry Maryann. The problem was I had inserted the incorrect link... Here's the link I was referring to:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3762217.stm

Secondly Jeff, yes I do consider Gore's tirade a rant just as much as I consider those on the conservative side who also go into a tirade as ranting..

Let me see if I understand you correctly, on the one hand Bush lies and on the other hand Kerry is
only "prone to some exaggeration"? Why don't you say it like it is they both lie? Besides, that's all politics and everybody knows both sides lie, both sides exaggerate, both sides mix the truth with lies. So what's so new about that? Unprecented? Please, these days everything with the news media is unprecedented, mind boggling, or the most incredulous thing to happen in the history of mankind. And they all have their line of "experts" or "unnamed sources" to tell us just how incredulous the whole thing is in the history of mankind... It's called Sensationalism. You know what I'm talking about. They come on the telly to tell us about some God awful storm of truly Biblical proportion and label it as "S T O R M W A T C H 2004" with all kinds of end of the world graphics. They then turn to some fool out in the field standing next to some waterless creek telling us how it's empty now, it's beginning to drizzle, and how that empty creek is going to turn into a raging wall of unstoppable water. The drizzle stops and "S T O R M W A T C H 2004" is over.... Sensationalism...

[j.j.]

wow! Thanks for the link, Jeff. That is really quite extraordinary. Especially since it was the same people who assailed Dean for being so negative.

There is an old saying: "The thing about being on top is that everyone else is always trying to bring you down."
While Kerry is far from being on top, Bush is realizing that he is not on top either and this temper tantrum he and his campaign are throwing are just indicative of how panicky and paranoid they are. Oh well, let them be as negative as they want - it will only turn people off.

Way I see it, Bush has maxed has reached the maximum limit of his popularity - he has nowhere to go from here but down. Kerry on the other hand, still has more potential voters. There are those for Kucinich and Sharpton, who I suspect, will drop out of the race and endorse Kerry before election. Then there are the large number of Dean supporters who have not yet decided if they will vote Kerry or not at all. One thing is for sure, they are not voting Bush. Finally, there is always hope that Nader will do the right thing. So I think that while Bush will hardly get many more voters his way, Kerry still can. And that is what is freaking the Reps out so much. All of this without Kerry even naming his VP yet.

[Chrish]

"he has nowhere to go from here but down", yep J.J
he, quite possibly, could also go back up.

[Jim]

JJ,

I really don't think in these polls that are being taken that some of the possible answers are: Kucinich, Sharpton or Dean. They all may not have officially dropped out, but I think everyone else knows they're done.

[Jeff]

Well, Chrish, you're right about one thing, both sides lie or mislead. But I think in hotly contested political battles, this is probably unavoidable (though I would love to see a candidate who is above this type of thing).

However, it is incredible to see the Bush team lying its ass off all the time, particularly on non-Kerry issues. They lied about alumnimum tubes and uranium. They outed Valerie Plume, General Shinseki, and anybody else who brought up now valid criticisms (including Hans Blix). They won't let Americans see pictures of caskets being brought home, supposedly for the privacy of families, when it's to stop us from feeling that Americans are actually dying.

They flew Bush onto an aircraft by fighter jet and lied that the carrier was out of chopper range. They were forced to admit that Saddam has no link with Osama, but somehow every speech links Iraq and the fight against terror (not mentioning that this was caused byour invasion). Hell, they opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission and refused to testify before it until the public demanded it. They even made up stuff about Jessica Lynch's rescue to dramatize it before she came back and said it was false.

As far as media sensationalism, we're all used to that, but look at the stuff that's not sensationalized. No WMD have been found, thus the whole pre-war justification is gone. Our troops are being met with bullets and bombs, not roses... 800 sons and daughters are gone. The blood of probably 20,000+ Iraqis, most of whom were completely innocent is on our hands. The people of Arab nations now hate us so much that they're killing their own people to try and get to us. After the fall of Baghdad, we flew in Chalabi complete with armed posse after paying his group $100 million for defective intelligence, now we raid his office because he's an Iranian spy. On top of all this, the new government of Afghanistan is still very fragile, not a surprise since we've paid them very little attention.

I think your Stormwatch has it backwards. There wasn't supposed to be any and we were supposed to be fighting a just war that vindicate us in front of doubtful nations. It's been just the opposite and if the continuing deaths of Americans and Iraqis isn't a raging storm, then I don't know what is.

[Chrish]

Jeff,

My reference to the stormwatch thing was the sensationalism that the news media, here in the US. They were used for a time whenever an alleged huge storm was coming. Really played it up big time. Incidentally my reference to the fool reporter standing by an empty creek with a little drizzle actally happened. I believe that one was called "S T O R M W A T C H 1 9 9 8" or something like that.

The killing of Iraqi's by those so called insurgents and terrorists is for the sole purpose of preventing this handover from occurring or being successful. Their tactics didn't work on the US-led coalition so now they've turned on the Iraqi people to frighten and terrorize them. That's what they do, that's all they know how to do, that's their sole reason and intent; to inflict harm, fear, and terror. How else do you suppose one would subdue a people, or country?
Murder, Fear, and Terror. How else do you think a group like Al Qaeda could coexist with a group like the Taliban? How else would a group like the Taliban coexist with Al Qaeda even to the point of not giving into our demands? They both
existed and survived on Murder, Fear, and Terror.

It's the same tactics that were used in South America by those mongrel dogs WE put in power to Our ever lasting shame. Remember them? They weren't called terrorists they were called Death Squads. Bautista, Somosa, Noriega, and the list goes on.

My hope and prayer is that this handover is successful. That the Govt. of Iraq will rise from the ashes and stand on their own two feet
and the sooner the better. I don't really give a rats rearend about Bush, Kerry, Nader, nor the upcoming elections I am hoping and praying for the Iraqi people's sake the handover is a complete success. Everything else is irrelevant at this point in time.

As regards the landing on the carrier, the lucky bastard... I served aboard a carrier during Nam
and you have no idea how much I had wished, dreamt, and hoped for an opportunity to land and fly off the deck of that ship.... I would have given a year's pay for that opportunity; the luck bastard...

I believe we have found one thing in common Jeff.
Political candidates who would sit down and really tell the truth but, then the news media wouldn't report on it because there would be nothing to sensationalize. We dumb ass American's would stop listening because there wouldn't be anything juicy, scandalous, or senstional.... Is that a Catch 22 thing?

[This one's for Chrish]

This one's for Chrish:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3222-2004May30.html

[Jeff]

Chrish,

I guess we are in agreement on a lot of issues, except for one. You assert that the killing of Iraqis by insurgents and terrorists is for the sole purpose of preventing this handover from working. Are you sure? Fact is, I don't think anyone is sure of what the purpose is or who these people even are. Every general that is quoted about this seems to say that they don't know who they're fighting.

Bush wants us to believe that they are ex-Saddam supporters and foreign fighters... anybody but ordinary Iraqis, but why should we take his word for it when his generals say they don't know who these people are? For sure we know that Sadr and the al-Medhi army are neither foreign fighters or former regime powers. Why is he against us and why does he have enough of a following to prevent our very powerful army from just rolling over him?

I think there are a host of other reasons other than the ones that you propose for attacking either the U.S. or killing ordinary Iraqi people. For one, we're occupiers right now and many equate our actions with Israel's occupation, particularly since we side with them at every turn. If we felt that someone was going to occupy us indefinitely and turn us into Palestine, would you not fight them?

Another obvious reason... the war killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, not just now, but also in the first Gulf War. If your parents had been killed by U.S. bombs, might you not consider getting revenge any way that you could? The way you and the Bushies put it, terrorists are just formed out of thin air with the inherent motive to inflict harm. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Virtually every single time that westerners have invaded foreign countries, it has been because of greed. What happened to those great Indian civilizations in the Americas? All are virtually gone. In Asia, most countries have been occupied by western powers and same goes for Africa. Specifically with the middle east, there were several religious crusades. We have to go out of the way to prove that we're different and so far we've done a horrible job.

One last thing... attacking our troops is in fact working. Support for the war and for Bush is at an all-time low. Of course, I'm sure the insurgents want more, but getting American people feeling like our troops should come home and vote Bush out of office is a start.

[Jim]

Jeff, your support for the attacks on the American troops is so sad. Why don't we wipe out Sadr? Because despite what you might think, we'd like to limit killing of innocents and destroyint holy sites - which is why they hide in them.

[Pete]

Cold war follow-up:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/03/books/03PIPE.html

[Jeff]

Jim, I really resent these wildly off base accusations of yours. Where the hell do I even remotely imply that I support attacks on American troops. Two of my friends are out there in the field. Do you think I want them to die? If that's the kind of rhetoric you come up with instead of coming up with rational arguments to support your views, then you are not worth any time to talk to.

[Jeff]

Jim, I really resent these wildly off base accusations of yours. Where the hell do I even remotely imply that I support attacks on American troops? Two of my friends are out there in the field. Do you think I want them to die? If that's the kind of rhetoric you come up with instead of coming up with rational arguments to support your views, then you are not worth any time to talk to.

[Jeff]

Oops, hit the post button twice... one more thing, Jim, I suppose the people who attack us are simply evil. They must be evil because we're so obviously good. It doesn't matter why our troops are being attacked and you don't care to ask, do you?

As for why we don't crush Sadr, some of it is to prevent innocent deaths (though that didn't stop us during shock and awe), but even more is that killing him would draw even more to his cause. He's the son of the former Grand Ayatollah, who not only held the top cleric position, but was very popular for his opposition (and resulting death) from opposing Saddam. But this sort of analysis is just beyond you, isn't it Jim?

[Maryann]

But Jeff, don't you understand? According to Jim and Chrish, if we don't agree with every word of spin that comes out of the White House, or the attack on Iraq overall, we

1) want the whole situation to deteriorate into chaos
2) hate the Iraqi people
3) feel no outrage over terrorist atrocities
4) only want to see reality as it fits our "one-sided agenda".

You should get used to this kind of bull-headed nonsense. No matter how carefully you explain that you opposed the war in large part out of concern for Iraqis and our own troops, and how much you reiterate that terrorism is only helped by the administration's actions, you will be accused of the above, and other, insults. Apparently logic hits a wall with Jim, which triggers a barrage of pointless insults and baiting techniques. Don't take it personally.

[Jeff]

You're right Maryann. But I'd like to issue this challenge to Jim anyway. Point out where I support attacks on American troops as opposed to trying to figure out possible reasons why we're being attacked (other than just saying that they're bad people)? Go ahead and quote it back to me. You can't, just like you couldn't answer my challenge in the other thread.

[Jim]

"One last thing... attacking our troops is in fact working. Support for the war and for Bush is at an all-time low. Of course, I'm sure the insurgents want more, but getting American people feeling like our troops should come home and vote Bush out of office is a start."
-Jeff

Jeff, above is your quote. You want the same thing that these "insurgents" want.

Jeff, I answered your questions.

Jeff and Maryann, now tell me honestly, which way do these personal attacks go? Anybody who disagrees with you, you call stupid, irrelevent, blind and much more. You sure can't stand people having different opinions than you can you. Why?

[Maryann]

I don't mind disagreeing. What I've taken offense to (time and time again, it's getting a little boring) are the completely made-up accusations like "you aren't outraged about terrorism" or "you support attacks on the troops", or all that malarkey about "hitler wasn't so bad". These are not arguments or even rational points; they're just random, slightly crazy-sounding generalisations based on absolutely nothing. They are the blog equivalent of saying something rude under your breath to someone as you walk away--they're cowardly and just meant to make people angry. You know exactly what kind of statements I'm talking about, and you know it has nothing to do with legitimate differences of opinion.

It's getting tedious, so I don't react to them any more, but I just wanted Jeff to know he wasn't the only one these kinds of baiting tactics get aimed at.

[Jim]

Then stop reacting.
I'm just a crazy, irrelevant, blind, dreamer.

[Jim]

I'm waiting for the left handed spin on the Tenet resignation.

[Chrish]

Maryann, Jeff,

The same thing's you've said about the baiting and switching, the name calling, the references to Hitler which, by the way, you all seemed perfectly OK and accepting when Bush was being compared to Hitler and Nazism, could also be said
of you. I'm sure you will adamantly deny that or
not remember or even see no problem with it and that's OK. But please don't put on this act that you're all being victimized nor this attitude that you don't engage in that kind of talk.

No doubt many will find the pessimistic, the negativity, the naysaying about this but, perhaps there is a return to sanity and a time for hope?
Isn't this what many of you have been complaining about? The go it alone attitude, the lack of involvement of the UN, etc?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5092761/site/newsweek/

While I'm sure many will see the negativity in this rather that hope and optimism at least Bush is attempting to change and mend fences. I don't deny that Our going alone on this was a wise move however, at least the guy is working at trying to make this handover succeed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5121770/

Bottom line is it's not what Bush nor anybody else
wants it is what the Iraqi's want. The fact that
Iraq's most influential cleric, Al-Sistani, has given a nod toward the interim government does give hope to this situation in Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5084420/

Add to that fact that they have already begun to flex their own muscles does give hope and optimism that maybe, just maybe, the handover will succeed.

You may all continue to berate, condemn, and be the pessimist or negative about it all I choose to be optimistic and hopeful that the handover will be successful for the Iraqi people's sake.

[Maryann]

Do we really have to go through all this again? This is starting to look remarkably like that ridiculous thread in which everybody talked about how upsetting the Nick Berg thing was, and Chris kept posting about how nobody was upset about the Nick Berg thing.

Chrish, PLEASE go back and look at our posts about the handover and how nobody wants it to fail. Yes, if it works, it will be good. OK? Is that clear enough? That doesn't mean we have to agree with the whole invasion, or have a 180 degree turn on everything we dislike about Bush and everything that's going on in Iraq.

I'll say it for the fiftieth time now and that's it: NOBODY IS SAYING THEY WANT THE HANDOVER TO FAIL OR IRAQ TO DESCEND INTO CHAOS.

You know what? Why am I bothering!? I'll check back with you guys in a few weeks, have a good one & stay well. Cheers....

[Jim]

Chrish,

I was just about to post the Al-Sistani link. You beat me to it. But you put things better than me anyway.

There were many reasons stated for this war. While I admit the administration has major egg on it's face about WMD, there was always more to it than that. Some people like to believe it was the only reason stated for war. But I know it wasn't JUST about liberation either. Helping the Iraqi's develop their own democracy will mean so much in the long run. Having Sistani's approval (though tacit), means a great deal.
I'm optimistic and hopeful for the Iraqi people. It will be the first time they have an election where the only candidate does not get 100% of the vote.

[Chrish]

Whatever Maryann. I have never said that you nor anyone else has outright stated their hope for failure. What I have said is that the underlying tones coming from the left suggest it. Two different things. Alright?

Jeff,

You spoke of Al Sadr and his miltia and yes, I will agree that he represents the poor and disenfranchsised. And you asked the question
"Why is he against us and why does he have enough of a following to prevent our very powerful army from just rolling over him?"

Let's not forget that he did not rear his head nor his "militia" until after an arrest warrant was issued by the Iraqi Governing Council for murder and theft. The question could also be asked is Al Sadr's reasons really as he states or is it really to avoid arrest and prosecution by an Iraqi court? Realize that cleric's in the Muslim communities carry a lot of power and influence over their followers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5079129/site/newsweek/

I am not suggesting this as fact I am only posing the question.

I am also aware of the multitude of discrepancies,
lies, and whever else you want to call them however, the fact that WMD's have not been found given the current situation in Iraq still does not mean they are not there. It is a bit difficult to concentrate on searching for WMD's when you're in the midst of a continual combat situation. Keep in mind that many in the UN, France, Germany, Russia, and even Clinton believed Hussein had WMD's.

But as you all like to say it's pointless trying to bring up these arguments, points, or ideas.

[j.j.]

yes, they all believed it, but not one of those entities or nations or people you listed tried to wage war, because they knew better. They knew that sanctions were keeping him at bay and felt his potential weapons were not a threat to anyone anymore.

You have to remember that his unaccounted arsenal was more than 12 years old at the time when we went into Iraq. That is very significant because chemical and biological weapons NEVER last more than 2-3 years, even under ideal storage conditions. Knowing that and the fact that the sanctions were keeping him from getting new armaments meant that he was not a highly likely source of threat. CIA knew this, MI-6, the Pentagon. Everyone knew this, but they chose not to highlight these inconvenient facts.
This is not some insignificant little by-story. This is exactly the reason so many people said let's just let inspectors back in and if there is something, they'll find it. They firmly believed there was a better way of doing this than invasion (remember, liberation was not the reason for war, no matter how badly Bush wants people to believe that now. It was an added benefit.) Given the state of things, I think the people who said that Iraq can be disarmed without war were right.

I happen to know quite a bit about the hard sciences and this knowledge was one of the reason I was SO incredibly skeptical of Bush's doomsday predictions of what would happen if we didn't invade Iraq immediately. I swear to you, I laughed when I saw Powell perform at the UN! But I was laughing in disgust at the twisting of the truth. Enough! Enough!

[Chrish]

J.J. and Jeff,

You both seem to be level headed and knowledgable
given the depth of your posts and have much appreciated them. They have given me pause for thought, reflection, and digging into these subjects and for that I am grateful.

I do have a question for both of you or anyone else who has an answer and one that I have asked before but, as yet, have not received an answer
here nor any other sites I yak on.

A week or so ago while listening on one of those talk shows I had a heard a very brief reference to
something called "salma pack" or "salma-pak" which
apparently had something to do with Hussein, terrorists, and the like. I have searched and searched on this topic but have found extremely little about it or what it is. Have any of you
heard of this or know where more could be found on it? Just curious.

[Jeff]

Jim, well you're definitely a "crazy, irrelevant, blind, dreamer" when you accuse people (or me, specifically) of saying things that I never said. Please tell me again where you found me supporting attacks on American troops rather than hypothesizing possible motives for the attacks? Find it or else have the courage to be a man and own up to your lies.

Chrish... same thing. No doubt, many out of control liberals have gone crazy and compared Bush to Hitler. But since you addressed your post to me, please point out where I said that Bush was a Nazi or accepted this. If you can find it, I will apologize for it. If not, please refrain from making any further false accusations.

Back to the subject at hand, Chrish, you're right that Sadr could be reacting based on his arrest warrant for murder! I had forgotten to consider this, but it very well could be the reason and I'm glad that you brought it up. The problem is, we don't know! If you are right, then that brings up the additional problem of forming a truce with a murderer.

The most important point here though, is that we don't know and we should try our best to find out so that our troops and innocent Iraqis don't die! The only thing I'm certain of is that the U.S. government line of ex-Baathists and foreign fighters is designed solely to assure the American public that nothing is wrong. They would have you believe that these people came out of the womb with terror in their hearts. Even media labels such as terrorist, insurgent, and radical cleric Sadr suggest that they are evil or criminally insane.

President Bush ALWAYS refers to our forces as the coalition, even though 85% of the troops are American and the only ones that are fighting rather than rebuilding are American and British. I'm sure the Arab media refers to us as foreign occupiers, implying that we intend to stay there forever...

If Sadr is truly a murderer, then we should present that evidence to the Iraqi people, possibly by convincing other Shiite clerics of this. Of course, any clerics that come out supporting us will be immediately suspected of being an American stooge. We might also be hypocrites considering that Chalabi is wanted for an assortment of crimes in Jordan...

Regardless, we also have to try and undermine Sadr's mob support... I'm suspect that a lot of young men are really pissed off because they have no jobs, no security, and no electricity, which makes the occupation living conditions actually worse than Saddam. Blaming and shooting the foreign army is probably a great way to express anger.

Last thing... the WMD. Yes, everyone believed that Saddam had it, including me. But in the first Gulf War, the real coalition kicked the crap out of Saddam's arsenal, then inspectors went in and eliminated a lot of WMD. Since that time, operations like Desert Fox and Southern Watch had been bombing him. So everyone was pretty sure that he wasn't a threat and if not for 9/11, with which he had nothing to do, we wouldn't have invaded.

Recall also that U.N. inspectors were doing their job and begging for more time when our tanks rolled in... now in the aftermath, we've found none, killed tens of thousands of people, and even worse, we know that our government knew that many claims of WMD, such as aluminum tubes and uranium from Niger were dubious or outright false. The British claim of Saddam being able to launch an attack in 45 minutes is just as ridiculous. If we were right, this occupation could be justified to the rest of the world and it would have saved so many lives.

But many in the Bush administration didn't care. As for Bush himself, I believe he is fundamentally a good man, but tragically unwilling to repent for mistakes of any sort or change course without being forced or spend any effort dabbling with silly details. In addition, he's never been in combat, risked death, or seen fellow soldiers die. So many Americans support him because he seems like an honest normal guy, but I wouldn't trust the average American to balance my checkbook, much less fight a war. He is probably a loyal friend and fun guy to watch football with, but a horrible war president.

p.s. - Chrish, I have no idea what salma pak is.

[Jim]

Salma Pak, Iraq was the sight of a terrorist training camp from before the war. Which is actually impossible sincere there weren't any terrorists in Iraq before the war and Saddam never gave money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers either.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.iraq09jun09,0,5051199.story?coll=bal-iraq-headlines

[Jeff]

Hey Jim,

Let's go back to that quote thing:

My quote: "One last thing... attacking our troops is in fact working. Support for the war and for Bush is at an all-time low. Of course, I'm sure the insurgents want more, but getting American people feeling like our troops should come home and vote Bush out of office is a start."

Your quote: "Jeff, above is your quote. You want the same thing that these "insurgents" want."

That's an amazing conclusion that you reach there. I presume that you want our troops to come home some day as well, so you must be in favor of insurgent attacks on the troops as well, right? If it's the same goal, you must be supporting the same method.

I'm trying to figure out the motives of the people who are attacking us and you are somehow demented enough to interpret it as me advocating death and injury to my fellow countrymen and in two instances, actual friends in the field.

It's already a popular conservative theory that the insurgents and terrorists are trying to achieve what they did in Madrid, bomb the place, get the administration changed and troop withdrawal all at the same time. This had to be a very successful operation from the terrorist viewpoint. Does analyzing this and drawing this conclusion suddenly make me a terrorist?

The ironic thing is that Republicans champion this very viewpoint so that Americans will vote to keep them in power, as opposed to the Spanish public who couldn't stomach the losses. These are the arguments of the side you support Jim!

Your last post is yet another example of your terrible translation abilities:

Sample quote: "[Bush] has exposed Americans... to a greater danger of attack by terrorists...

Jim's interpretation: There were never any terrorists in Iraq and Saddam never gave money to suicide bombers.

Don't ask to be taken seriously if you change other people's words to fit your own arguments. Everyone knows that I wasn't advocating attacks on the armed forces that protect and serve me (wouldn't that be smart?). The presence of terrorists in Iraq pre-war defeat the argument that there are more post-war and Saddam's encouragement of suicide bombers is irrelevant to justifying a war.

[Jeff]

Correction to my last post... the presence of terrorists in Iraq pre-war do not defeat the argument that there are more terrorists post-war... not that those pre-war "terrorists" were a threat to us.

[Jim]

I'm not asking you to take me seriously.

Jeff: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we need to stop dwelling on whether or no Mr. Ted Bundy killed these 30 college girls. Instead let's ask ourselves why did they make him do it."

Have you said yet that Bush provoked the terrorists on 9/11?

[Jim]

Jeff,

What have the Iraqi people that al-Sadr's "militia" killed, done to provoke him?

[j.j.]

Crish,
I gotta be honest and say that until I just read Jim's link now, I did not know what Salma-Pak specifically was. I did know about Saddam's mass-murders, I did know about his support for Palestinian terrorists, etc.
I had read (long before the war) plenty about the chemical attacks on the Iranian army and on the Kurds, I had seen photos of the aftermath as well. I specifically remember news reports from 1991 that showed Husseins tanks in the distance cracking down on the Shiites. It was not a mystery what was going on there.
Despite all of this, I felt we were making the wrong decision because, as any shrewd business person or prudent politician knows, one has to balance the risks vs. the rewards. I felt we were doing the wrong thing, the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. Not for a second did I believe that the results would be beneficial to us, the Iraqi people or the world at large. Furthermore, I felt (and believe it more now than ever before) that this war was for strategic control of the world's most important oil region. There are geo-political reasons at play here whose importance outweighs considerations for almost everything else. If you are interested in my theory, I'd be happy to lay it out for you. Just ask, you don't have to believe, but I do.
Perhaps if Bush had paid a bit of attention during his years at MBA school, he would have known as well. But his business career says a lot, every venture he has been involved in has failed. Iraq has been no different. After many years of poking around, I will start MBA school myself in fall when I finally return home. I think this risk vs. reward thing is one of the most important lessons I can take with me.

In any case, I am sorry for Salma-Pak, I am sorry for so much that has happened there. I am sorry that we are involved. This whole thing is like a bad nightmare.

[Chrish]

Jeff,

Regarding Al Sadr's motives, it wasn't the US that
issued the arrest warrant it was the Iraqi Council that issued it. At this time I don't know if what us who presented the evidence or if they, themselves, had gathered it. I agree that,
if guilty, he needs to be tried. However, it would seem to me, given the resistance his followers have shown, it would be prudent to leave the guy alone and not provoke his followers for now and let the Iraqi Government deal with him at the appropriate time. Appropriate time would be after the handover and Our involvement in their affairs is greatly reduced or we are out of there whichever comes first.

I would also agree with you that Al Sadr's followers are those who are comprised of the poor,
the disenfranchised, etc. and most probably are filled with anger and resentment not only over our presence there but, with their plight as well.
Perhaps, in a way, this is there way of making everyone aware that they too are Iraqi's, they also have a stake in the future of their country and want to be included. If so, then it's sad that the only way they, disregarding Al Sadr, could be heard or noticed is by force of arms.

Perahps the best thing, as I said before, is to
back off of them and Al Sardr, for now, and both
the Iraqi interim Government and US-led coalition
start listening to their grievances and strive to
give them a stake and hope in their future.

J.J. OK, I'm asking you to layout your theory.
I realise there are a lot of geo-political reasons
not just about Iraq but, the whole Middle East
which does, at times, seem overwhelming. There are so many inter-connected, multi-connected facets of that area of the world it's like looking
into a diamond.

Jim, thanks for that post I've not read it yet but, believe me, will read more.

[Jeff]

Jim, you're hilarious... just by coincidence, I happen to be a lawyer! So I happen to have uttered the "Ladies and Gentlement of the jury..." line for real. Your analogy is also terrible. Even though you say that you're not serious, you're suggest that I want our troops to sit there and take fire while asking bad guys who they're killing us. Get a grip.

So regarding Ted Bundy, you stop him from killing any more people, by killing him if necessary. But after you do that, you study him or perhaps his corpse to see what set him off so that other cases can be prevented. Is it mental illness? Is it abuse as a child? Is it pure evil? There's a reason that motive is an important part of a prosecutor's case in our legal system.

The set of serial killers, horrible as they are, isn't very big. Terrorists are capable of increasing their numbers in very short order. I firmly believe that terrorists multiply when foreign armies occupy their homeland and can't bring security or welfare. I believe terrorists multiply when we seem very one sided on the Israeli occupation. I believe terrorists multiply if they think we abuse Iraqi prisoners, regardless of whether it's one incident or widespread. I believe terrorists multiply when we occupy a country with half the troops that are needed to maintain the peace.

The atmosphere of Iraq is still one of tremendous uncertainty and I believe all of us agree on that. Many of these uncertainties could have been prevented if our leaders had been less arrogant or done more homework. Paul Bremer now admits that the de-Baathification process and the disbanding of the Iraqi army was done incorrectly. If we had gotten it right in the beginning, how many lives would we have saved? A lot of these people had guns and since they were given no future by the occupation, let's say they went ballistic and killed 10 American troops. In return, we blew them away and their family members got angry and killed another 15 American troops, etc.

Is it so horrible that I advocate defending ourselves with force if necessary, but using our brains to put forth the ounce of prevention instead of curing it with a pound of blood from our soldiers and/or Iraqis?

As for 9/11, again, you're being silly. Obviously, Bush didn't provoke the attack, but I suspect our foreign policy of supporting corrupt and unpopular regimes for our self interest has something to do with it. The popular theory is that Bin Laden hates our presence in Saudi Arabia and hates our support of a royal family that is outrageous with its opulence and corruption. Does this excuse terrorism? Hell no! I don't understand why you draw this conclusion every time I bother to ask why. The more we know about our enemies, the more effectively we can fight them.

At the beginning of the war, Bush didn't care to ask and he went in with guns ablaze hoping to establish a middle eastern country that would be American friendly with oil and an alternate military base to the one in Saudi Arabia. He also had a personal vendetta against Saddam on behalf of his father.

I would love it if he had accomplished that goal without taking innocent lives. Unfortunately, he didn't do much thinking and never questioned advice that was either false or self-serving. Behavior like that is understandable from a soldier, but it's unacceptable from the commander in chief. People are dying because of bad decisions and Jim, through all of this, I have never heard any indication that any of these deaths bother you.

As for why Sadr would kill ordinary Iraqis, I have no idea. My best guess is that he doesn't have that intent, but his mob is like any mob... get them going and they'll attack any target. I'm sure if there were twice as many soldiers, American or even better international, there would never have been a mob. But when General Shinseki suggested this, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz said he was wildly off the mark. Now our troops are paying for that mistake.

[Jim]

Jeff,

"As for why Sadr would kill ordinary Iraqis, I have no idea. My best guess is that he doesn't have that intent, but his mob is like any mob... get them going and they'll attack any target" -Jeff
This is crazy. He has in fact intentionally targeted civilins for working with us who have no military value.

To say I don't care about the lives of the people in Iraq, both Iraqi and American is crazy and couldn't be further from the truth. This is the whole point.

This war is about many things, whether you want to think so our not. I'll accept oil could be part of it. But you want to make believe it's the only reason. If anything, that was a greater reason during the first Gulf war. It's about what it is. It's about making an example of someone who defied 18 U.N. sanctions and publicly endorsed terrorism. It is about freedom and democracy. It's about WMD, which admittedly blew up in our face. (though some terrorist found one lucky shell filled with sarin. I guess there's only one in the country). And for arguments sake I'll give you that it could be in part about oil. But you think that's all it is.

By the way, thanks for clearing things up. I was wondering what kind of person could constantly come up with such venemous, condescending, arrogant, personal attacks. But now I know. You're a lawyer. Congrats.

[j.j.]

ok, so here is my conspiracy theory...

the whole thing revolves around oil, obviously. But it is not as simple as that. It is a misconception by many who say this when they think that we went in to "get cheap oil." Iraq's oil was never going to come to us, just like most of the oil from the middle east. The vast majority of it goes to places like Europe, Japan and other Asian countries. We only get about 12% of our oil from that entire region. So why then, are we dependent on middle eastern oil? The answer is that oil is truly the most global commodity in the world! What happens to oil in Japan has a direct impact on oil prices in S. America, Europe, US, anywhere. Thus, as long as our machines operate on petroleum-based fuel, we will never be independent.

That is what the key to all of this is. Those who would tell us that we need to be independent of middle eastern oil are feeding us a spoon full of shit and they know it (Kerry has been particularly vocal about this lately.) But it sounds nice to the voters, so there you go.

Our invasion of Iraq had much less to do with threats, terrorists, liberation, UN resolutions than it did with this strategic control of oil. Important to note that I am not saying we wanted to sell the oil and make money ourselves or bring it over to us or whatever a lot of people always claim Bush wanted. The key idea is to have a government in power in Iraq that is malleable to our "concerns." Iraq is the 2nd largest source of crude in the world and having a sympathetic government would allow us to regulate the oilflow. Iraq would be enough of an influence to upset OPEC all by itself. When we wanted it, we would just have a sympathetic Iraqi government increase/decrease production or set new standards, etc.

So I haven't said anything groundshattering. The reason this is so important to the neo-cons is the increasing economic threat from China. I imagine you are well aware of how strong the chinese economy is growing (+8% growth every year for the past 8 years and continuing.) If this trend continues, then within a decade or so, China will have the world's largest economy. They also have the 2nd highest oil import in the world now. Though their needs now pale in comparison to our consumption, China's imports increased an astounding 35% last year! Many economists predict that within 40-50 years, the chinese Yuan will be the standard currency, not the dollar. Obviously a serious economic threat. Why did the administration reclassify China from "strategic partner" to "strategic competitor" in it's first month in office?

How do you keep that threat at bay? The answer is, you guessed it, oil oil oil. With our hand on the spigot, so to speak, we've got China by the balls in the future. They will not be able to do much without us giving a tacit approval. It's like a chessplayer anticipating an opponent's move 5 moves earlier and setting up a trap.

The idea is not that we sell Iraq's oil for our own profit, but that we have strategic control of the most important region of the world. Why do you think Bush wanted 14 permanent military bases in Iraq? Certainly not to prevent Saddam from uprising 35 years down the line. It gives him force projection over not only Iraq, but hte whole Gulf region (and at the same time, he can claim that we are no longer in S. Arabia, the home of Islam.) If the crude ever hits the fan, we are sitting in control, not anyone else. That is the way I see it. It is written out in plain english at the Project for New American Century, the American Enterprise Institute, and in our current national security doctrine. Gotta hand it to the neo-cons, they do look ahead 20 years down the road.

When 9/11 happened, neo-cons jumped at the opportunity to invade Iraq. They wanted it immediately. Why? Terrorism, liberation, threats, resolutions, blah blah blah. Us and the arabs, we are all just pieces in a great chessgame that the neocons are actively playing against China (without China at the table, of course) and those reasons I just listed, those are strategies to get us to win.

Maybe it all sounds crazy, but I am convinced that this goes beyond just democracy. I think there are, of course, other factors, but in the end, this is what Cheney/Rumsfel/Perle/Wolfowitz and the rest of that sinister lot are going for. I don't give Bush credit for being intelligent enough to be able to think of any of this - Cheney is is puppetmaster (case in point, Bush would not testify before the 9/11 commission without Cheney by his side.)

I am usually not a big conspiracy theorist, but this time....

[Chrish]

Jeff, Jim,

I don't believe it is Al Sadr's militia that are killing Iraqi's or at least that's not my belief.
I think we can all agree that Al Qaeda is represented in Iraq by the presence of Zaraqawi,
correct? If he is there then it's fairly obvisou there would be more who are present and it is they and those whom they are exploiting who are killing Iraqi's. What do I mean by exploiting?
I believe with most terrorist groups like Al Qaeda
or, for that matter, any group call it Al Qaeda or call it a government they entice, encourage, and make promises of rewards for committing acts that no rational person would ever consider. These people are generally those who are living in poverty, suffering, cast out, or disregarded in many ways, shapes, and forms, and they are angry. Terrorist groups or invidivuals use that
poverty, suffering, and anger, and religion to entice people to carry out their orders.

Just yesterday or day before some Middle Eastern man came out and said that he had gone to the FBI
to tell them that he had been trained by Al Qaeda to hijack and fly planes a year before 9/11. That's not the real point what is important is that he had stated that he was at rock bottom, he
was seriously in debt, making little money while
working at some curry shop in London. He went on to say that he was desperate and had absolutely no hope for his future. Desperate, in despair, without hope.

I think Jeff has made some very good points regarding how do you deal with this? Go in guns blazing, blow them all away, or do you offer them real hope for their future and give them a reason
to turn away and reject Jihad as those terrorist
groups offer it? Quite frankly I am of the opinion it would be far better to present a real offering of hope and salvation from their poverty, and suffering. A real hope in their future. Who knows, if Sadr has created this insurrection in order to avoid being arrested perhaps some good will come from it and his followers have, unbeknownst to Sadr and to his followers, have opened a door for their own involvement in the future of Iraq and their own future. Sadly, the cost in lives of Our people there is the question; was it worth it?

J.J., man that's some theory and no I don't think it would fall under the mantle of just another "conspiracy theory". It is all plausible, that's what is scary. A question I
do have regards how will we be able to control what the Iraqi's do with their oil? Yes,
I would expect that initially they would but, what's to stop them from joining OPEC? That's something I would expect them to do since they are also part of the Arab world.

In one of the other headings on this site where we are all arguing .... where aren't we
arguing .... someone had posted this link for both Jeff and Jim. I don't know if you
read it J.J.? It was both extremely interesting, plausible, but had a slightly different take on it. What are your thoughts?
http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/sovereign/dollar/2003/03oil.htm

Could it also be that all of them Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, the Republican, and the Democrats are all puppets being controlled by someone or some group behind the scenes? For example, we say "it's the Governments fault", or "it's a scam by the oil industry" or "They planned it that way" but there are never really any names or faces put on them or who, exactly, "they" are.
When you really look at it doesn't all come down to "Power", who's in control, or wealth?

[Chrish]

Jim, thanks again for that link as well as the name. I thought it was "Salm-Pak" not "Salman-Pak".

Jeff and J.J.,
I'm not trying to create a furor but I am posting
this link as an FYI and perhaps further discussion
or more information on the subject.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

[Jeff]

Jim, you accuse me of making personal attacks while making one yourself. In case you aren't aware of the definition of "personal", it's picking on specific traits of a person, such as the fact that I live in Singapore or that I am a lawyer by profession.

Let's look at it again:

"By the way, thanks for clearing things up. I was wondering what kind of person could constantly come up with such venemous, condescending, arrogant, personal attacks. But now I know. You're a lawyer. Congrats."

This paragraph is a venemous, condescending, arrogant personal attack. It's just about as ironic as you can get. The funny thing is that my specialization is mediation or dispute resolution without going to court, but of course, you already know everything about me that you need to.

Back to the relevant stuff, you say that Sadr "in fact" has attacked civilians who are working for us. Why are you so certain of this? If you are right, then we have "in fact" identified a motive. See, it ain't so hard. But I'm with Chrish, I don't believe that he's targeting Iraqi civilians. Please show me what source it was that led you to this conclusion.

I also didn't mean to imply that you didn't care about Iraqi and American lives in general, so I'm sorry if you took that the wrong way. But the fact is that they're dying every day. Not only do we need a plan to stop those deaths, but we also need to look back and see where we went wrong. Our leaders bungled so many things that they couldn't flip-flop more. First, we don't need the U.N., now we beg the U.N. to do more. We don't need Baathists, now we ask ex-Saddam generals to help keep the peace.

I'm pretty sure if you're incompetent at your job, Jim, you run the risk of being fired. Well, I see a lot of incompetence, some of it so stupid that it runs afoul of common sense, yet no one has been fired and only Tenet has resigned. Consider the prison abuse scandal, I remember you argued that it was only a handful of U.S. soldiers. That may be, but is besides the point when you consider that Rumsfeld was caught completely off guard by this.

Our military needs all the public support it can get whether it be American, Iraqi, or internationally, and our president and defense secretary had the ability to deal with this before it hit the airwaves... and looked like they were completely clueless. Furthermore, you could argue that they caused it, since they were so hard line as to get Pentagon lawyers to conveniently conclude that they didn't need to follow the Geneva Convention.

I don't want to leave the fate of my fellow citizen soldiers or the Iraqi people in the hands of these people. This is non-partisan. If Clinton were still in power and these things were happening and all he had to say to us was that terrorists are bad people and we're making progress, I'd want him thrown out too.

The more time passes, the more it's obvious that this current administration is more focused on saving their own jobs than saving lives. Anyone find it suspicious that after two years of complete silence about Jose Padilla (a U.S. citizen) where no one is privy to any details, that Justice suddenly drops as many accusations as they can to the media? Two years of silence and now as the Supreme Court is about to decide whether we can be thrown in jail forever without access to lawyers, they begin a very public campaign to convince us that they're right and put all the pressure they can on the court.

Jim, once again, I'm not saying that Padilla isn't guilty, just that our current administration is totally hypocritical. They're so concerned about privacy when it comes to showing caskets, but not at all when it comes to wiretaps your house for no reason. It's all self-serving, we should not trust them, and we should vote them out.

[j.j.]

I, once again, find myself in agreement with Jeff. Much as I'd like the leave Padilla and his ilk rotting in jail for eternity, we CANNOT do that. If we do, how are we different from other nations that do do that? How are we a democracy and an example for everyone else? We are not. Period. That is what was the worst about the prison abuse scandal. Not to mention that soon enough, we'll start putting away innocent people, like most of those at Abu Ghraib. This reminds me of the McCarthy era; in a few years, we will be looking back at this time with great shame.

Crish,
regarding OPEC, that is, I believe, where Chalabi was supposed to come in. I think that the neocons envisioned him as their puppet (I remember him, two days after the war, going on camera and literally screaming at specifically France and Germany.) If they decided to join OPEC, now we would have a major player under our "control" (for lack of a better word). Iraq could do a lot to influence and tilt new policies towards the way we would want them. True enough that eventually someone else would be leader of Iraq, but presumably they would be thankful to us as their liberator and protector, etc.

hadn't read the links until you just pointed them out. I think the EU is a long-term economic threat as well, but not nearly as much as China. You have after all, 25 different countries (for now) with over a dozen major languages and many different cultures/attitudes coming together. There will be/already is strife and I don't think it will be as united as some want it to be for quite a while. They Eurozone is off to a rocky start right now, but who knows, 10-15 years from now, maybe it will be in much better shape. But it is already a force to be reckoned with. The neocons are wary of it: note their/Bush's opposition to a european defense force and the Galileo Global Positioning System. It is about keeping these countries in control. I will tell you this, there is plenty of talk over here about distancing themselves from our sphere of influence in the sense that they do not want to be dependent (actual word used) on us anymore. There is no question there is a power struggle going on, albeit just the beginnings of it. I think the article is quite plausible in many ways. And it agrees with the notion about much larger geo-political forces at play here than democracy, etc.
By the way, two points I wanna make.
1. the guy that overthrew Chavez a couple of years ago, it is a known fact that he met Cheney 2 days before the coup. No new evidence has come to light that I am aware of, but this is highly suspicious.
2. the article also spoke of Iran as a member of the Axis of Evil right during their own internal reform! I had been trying for so long to figure out why on earth we would antagonize them just like that during such a critical time! It was absolutely beyond me. Here we had a country that was doing everything the democratic world could have hoped for and, BAM, out of the blue, we blindside Khatami and undermine his entire reform movement. I couldn't figure it out. Not saying the article is correct, but it is a possible explanation. Have you followed events in Iran for the past 2 years? Since the Axis of Evil speech, the reform movement that was gathering momentum - and had been for 5 years prior- came to a crashing end. Khatami is powerless and will probably see his presidency come to an end soon. The Hardliners swept the reformers out of Parlaiment a few months ago. It is a sad, sad tragedy. Though there are other reasons as well, we certainly contributed to these results with our stance. Best thing to have done was nothing. Organic reform the way it was happening in Iran is the best thing that could have possibly occurred. Did you know that Iran's reformist Parlaiment had a higher percentage of female representatives than our own Congress? I think we messed up big time here.

As for the the other link, I now clearly remember what Salman Pak was. I did hear about it way back when, I do remember watching a show about it and there was much speculation in the media about it. But I also recall that those reports were mostly discredited soon afterwards. Most turned out to be bs, not verifiable, plain wrong or just heresay. Nothing concrete ever came out of this, if I recall right. The link you sent was from Oct 2001. I don't think you'd start a furor by posting something like this, but I'm not sure where this is leading us. Are there new concrete links between Salman Pak and 9/11? We already know that Osama had declared Saddam his enemy twice before 9/11 and once since. And again, Saddam may have supported terrorism, but I don't think he'd be dumb enough to be behind 9/11. He would have known what the response would be.

[j.j.]

while we are on this EU thing, it had been my observation that since day one, the Bush administration had been doing various things, from small to big, in regards to its policy that seemed to me almost to divide them. There are so many examples, I can't even remember them. But it almost seems like a divide and conquer strategy and it came to a head in the run-up to war last year. I think they are trying to do just that.
I am kind of dismayed at our weak response to the coming together of the EU and it's new member states as well. After all, this represents the fruitition of our efforts for 60 years when we tried to keep the Soviet Union from taking over wholesale in Europe. At best, there was quiet ignorance in the US. Our government should have been much more vocal in praising the accomplishments of the EU.

Atrocities in Iraq: 'I Killed Innocent People for Our Government'
By Paul Rockwell
Sacramento Bee

Sunday 16 May 2004

For nearly 12 years, Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey was a hard-core, some say gung-ho, Marine. For three years he trained fellow Marines in one of the most grueling indoctrination rituals in military life - Marine boot camp.

The Iraq war changed Massey. The brutality, the sheer carnage of the U.S. invasion, touched his conscience and transformed him forever. He was honorably discharged with full severance last Dec. 31 and is now back in his hometown, Waynsville, N.C.

When I talked with Massey last week, he expressed his remorse at the civilian loss of life in incidents in which he himself was involved.

Q: You spent 12 years in the Marines. When were you sent to Iraq?

A: I went to Kuwait around Jan. 17. I was in Iraq from the get-go. And I was involved in the initial invasion.

Q: What does the public need to know about your experiences as a Marine?

A: The cause of the Iraqi revolt against the American occupation. What they need to know is we killed a lot of innocent people. I think at first the Iraqis had the understanding that casualties are a part of war. But over the course of time, the occupation hurt the Iraqis. And I didn't see any humanitarian support.

Q: What experiences turned you against the war and made you leave the Marines?

A: I was in charge of a platoon that consists of machine gunners and missile men. Our job was to go into certain areas of the towns and secure the roadways. There was this one particular incident - and there's many more - the one that really pushed me over the edge. It involved a car with Iraqi civilians. From all the intelligence reports we were getting, the cars were loaded down with suicide bombs or material. That's the rhetoric we received from intelligence. They came upon our checkpoint. We fired some warning shots. They didn't slow down. So we lit them up.

Q: Lit up? You mean you fired machine guns?

A: Right. Every car that we lit up we were expecting ammunition to go off. But we never heard any. Well, this particular vehicle we didn't destroy completely, and one gentleman looked up at me and said: "Why did you kill my brother? We didn't do anything wrong." That hit me like a ton of bricks.

Q: He spoke English?

A: Oh, yeah.

Q: Baghdad was being bombed. The civilians were trying to get out, right?

A: Yes. They received pamphlets, propaganda we dropped on them. It said, "Just throw up your hands, lay down weapons." That's what they were doing, but we were still lighting them up. They weren't in uniform. We never found any weapons.

Q: You got to see the bodies and casualties?

A: Yeah, firsthand. I helped throw them in a ditch.

Q: Over what period did all this take place?

A: During the invasion of Baghdad.

'We Lit Him up Pretty Good'
Q: How many times were you involved in checkpoint "light-ups"?

A: Five times. There was [the city of] Rekha. The gentleman was driving a stolen work utility van. He didn't stop. With us being trigger happy, we didn't really give this guy much of a chance. We lit him up pretty good. Then we inspected the back of the van. We found nothing. No explosives.

Q: The reports said the cars were loaded with explosives. In all the incidents did you find that to be the case?

A: Never. Not once. There were no secondary explosions. As a matter of fact, we lit up a rally after we heard a stray gunshot.

Q: A demonstration? Where?

A: On the outskirts of Baghdad. Near a military compound. There were demonstrators at the end of the street. They were young and they had no weapons. And when we rolled onto the scene, there was already a tank that was parked on the side of the road. If the Iraqis wanted to do something, they could have blown up the tank. But they didn't. They were only holding a demonstration. Down at the end of the road, we saw some RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) lined up against the wall. That put us at ease because we thought: "Wow, if they were going to blow us up, they would have done it."

Q: Were the protest signs in English or Arabic?

A: Both.

Q: Who gave the order to wipe the demonstrators out?

A: Higher command. We were told to be on the lookout for the civilians because a lot of the Fedayeen and the Republican Guards had tossed away uniforms and put on civilian clothes and were mounting terrorist attacks on American soldiers. The intelligence reports that were given to us were basically known by every member of the chain of command. The rank structure that was implemented in Iraq by the chain of command was evident to every Marine in Iraq. The order to shoot the demonstrators, I believe, came from senior government officials, including intelligence communities within the military and the U.S. government.

Q: What kind of firepower was employed?

A: M-16s, 50-cal. machine guns.

Q: You fired into six or ten kids? Were they all taken out?

A: Oh, yeah. Well, I had a "mercy" on one guy. When we rolled up, he was hiding behind a concrete pillar. I saw him and raised my weapon up, and he put up his hands. He ran off. I told everybody, "Don't shoot." Half of his foot was trailing behind him. So he was running with half of his foot cut off.

Q: After you lit up the demonstration, how long before the next incident?

A: Probably about one or two hours. This is another thing, too. I am so glad I am talking with you, because I suppressed all of this.

Q: Well, I appreciate you giving me the information, as hard as it must be to recall the painful details.

A: That's all right. It's kind of therapy for me. Because it's something that I had repressed for a long time.

Q: And the incident?

A: There was an incident with one of the cars. We shot an individual with his hands up. He got out of the car. He was badly shot. We lit him up. I don't know who started shooting first. One of the Marines came running over to where we were and said: "You all just shot a guy with his hands up." Man, I forgot about this.

Depleted Uranium and Cluster Bombs
Q: You mention machine guns. What can you tell me about cluster bombs, or depleted uranium?

A: Depleted uranium. I know what it does. It's basically like leaving plutonium rods around. I'm 32 years old. I have 80 percent of my lung capacity. I ache all the time. I don't feel like a healthy 32-year-old.

Q: Were you in the vicinity of depleted uranium?

A: Oh, yeah. It's everywhere. DU is everywhere on the battlefield. If you hit a tank, there's dust.

Q: Did you breath any dust?

A: Yeah.

Q: And if DU is affecting you or our troops, it's impacting Iraqi civilians.

A: Oh, yeah. They got a big wasteland problem.

Q: Do Marines have any precautions about dealing with DU?

A: Not that I know of. Well, if a tank gets hit, crews are detained for a little while to make sure there are no signs or symptoms. American tanks have depleted uranium on the sides, and the projectiles have DU in them. If an enemy vehicle gets hit, the area gets contaminated. Dead rounds are in the ground. The civilian populace is just now starting to learn about it. Hell, I didn't even know about DU until two years ago. You know how I found out about it? I read an article in Rolling Stone magazine. I just started inquiring about it, and I said "Holy s---!"

Q: Cluster bombs are also controversial. U.N. commissions have called for a ban. Were you acquainted with cluster bombs?

A: I had one of my Marines in my battalion who lost his leg from an ICBM.

Q: What's an ICBM?

A: A multi-purpose cluster bomb.

Q: What happened?

A: He stepped on it. We didn't get to training about clusters until about a month before I left.

Q: What kind of training?

A: They told us what they looked like, and not to step on them.

Q: Were you in any areas where they were dropped?

A: Oh, yeah. They were everywhere.

Q: Dropped from the air?

A: From the air as well as artillery.

Q: Are they dropped far away from cities, or inside the cities?

A: They are used everywhere. Now if you talked to a Marine artillery officer, he would give you the runaround, the politically correct answer. But for an average grunt, they're everywhere.

Q: Including inside the towns and cities?

A: Yes, if you were going into a city, you knew there were going to be ICBMs.

Q: Cluster bombs are anti-personnel weapons. They are not precise. They don't injure buildings, or hurt tanks. Only people and living things. There are a lot of undetonated duds and they go off after the battles are over.

A: Once the round leaves the tube, the cluster bomb has a mind of its own. There's always human error. I'm going to tell you: The armed forces are in a tight spot over there. It's starting to leak out about the civilian casualties that are taking place. The Iraqis know. I keep hearing reports from my Marine buddies inside that there were 200-something civilians killed in Fallujah. The military is scrambling right now to keep the raps on that. My understanding is Fallujah is just littered with civilian bodies.

Embedded Reporters
Q: How are the embedded reporters responding?

A: I had embedded reporters in my unit, not my platoon. One we had was a South African reporter. He was scared s--less. We had an incident where one of them wanted to go home.

Q: Why?

A: It was when we started going into Baghdad. When he started seeing the civilian casualties, he started wigging out a little bit. It didn't start until we got on the outskirts of Baghdad and started taking civilian casualties.

Q: I would like to go back to the first incident, when the survivor asked why did you kill his brother. Was that the incident that pushed you over the edge, as you put it?

A: Oh, yeah. Later on I found out that was a typical day. I talked with my commanding officer after the incident. He came up to me and says: "Are you OK?" I said: "No, today is not a good day. We killed a bunch of civilians." He goes: "No, today was a good day." And when he said that, I said "Oh, my goodness, what the hell am I into?"

Q: Your feelings changed during the invasion. What was your state of mind before the invasion?

A: I was like every other troop. My president told me they got weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam threatened the free world, that he had all this might and could reach us anywhere. I just bought into the whole thing.

Q: What changed you?

A: The civilian casualties taking place. That was what made the difference. That was when I changed.

Q: Did the revelations that the government fabricated the evidence for war affect the troops?

A: Yes. I killed innocent people for our government. For what? What did I do? Where is the good coming out of it? I feel like I've had a hand in some sort of evil lie at the hands of our government. I just feel embarrassed, ashamed about it.

Showdown with Superiors
Q: I understand that all the incidents - killing civilians at checkpoints, itchy fingers at the rally - weigh on you. What happened with your commanding officers? How did you deal with them?

A: There was an incident. It was right after the fall of Baghdad, when we went back down south. On the outskirts of Karbala, we had a morning meeting on the battle plan. I was not in a good mindset. All these things were going through my head - about what we were doing over there. About some of the things my troops were asking. I was holding it all inside. My lieutenant and I got into a conversation. The conversation was striking me wrong. And I lashed out. I looked at him and told him: "You know, I honestly feel that what we're doing is wrong over here. We're committing genocide."

He asked me something and I said that with the killing of civilians and the depleted uranium we're leaving over here, we're not going to have to worry about terrorists. He didn't like that. He got up and stormed off. And I knew right then and there that my career was over. I was talking to my commanding officer.

Q: What happened then?

A: After I talked to the top commander, I was kind of scurried away. I was basically put on house arrest. I didn't talk to other troops. I didn't want to hurt them. I didn't want to jeopardize them.

I want to help people. I felt strongly about it. I had to say something. When I was sent back to stateside, I went in front of the sergeant major. He's in charge of 3,500-plus Marines. "Sir," I told him, "I don't want your money. I don't want your benefits. What you did was wrong."

It was just a personal conviction with me. I've had an impeccable career. I chose to get out. And you know who I blame? I blame the president of the U.S. It's not the grunt. I blame the president because he said they had weapons of mass destruction. It was a lie.