How is Iraq going?

Underseer

Diabloii.Net Member
IDupedInMyPants said:
From what I understand nobody's even pretending it's going to be a handover of sovereignty anymore. Latest I heard was we'll hand authority over to a UN envoy and keep our troops in place.
Waitaminnit.

The United Nations?

How can they turn authority over to the United Nations? I thought conservatives conclusively proved that the U.N. is totally corrupt, incompetent and irrelevant. Either they were wrong in their analysis of the U.N. or Bush is wrong to give them an increased role in Iraq. :rolleyes:
 

Suicidal Zebra

Diabloii.Net Member
Underseer said:
Waitaminnit.

The United Nations?

How can they turn authority over to the United Nations? I thought conservatives conclusively proved that the U.N. is totally corrupt, incompetent and irrelevant. Either they were wrong in their analysis of the U.N. or Bush is wrong to give them an increased role in Iraq. :rolleyes:
I think one can probably fill in their own punchline here. I however will keep an open mind, for now.
 
Sorry, it seems I read too quickly and misrepresented the article. Apparently Bush and Blair are going to co-push for a new UNSCR to help ensure the creation of a stable and democratic Iraq and US-led forces will stay in place. It's still unclear exactly who's going to be taking the reigns.
 

Underseer

Diabloii.Net Member
Bush's Pet Liar Fired

America quietly sacks its prize witness against Saddam
By Patrick Cockburn

17 April 2004

Once he was a prize witness before congressional committees, arguing that the US must invade Iraq immediately because Saddam Hussein possessed a fearsome arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Given a top job in Baghdad after the war, he has now been quietly sacked by the US authorities.

Khidir Hamza was the dissident Iraqi nuclear scientist who played an important role persuading Americans to go to war in Iraq. His credentials appeared impeccable because he claimed to have headed Saddam's nuclear programme before defecting in 1994.

After the war, Dr Hamza was rewarded, to the distress of many Iraqi scientists, with a well-paid job as the senior advisor to the Ministry of Science and Technology. Appointed by the Coalition Provisional Authority, he had partial control of Iraq's nuclear and military industries.

It was not a successful appointment, according to sources within the ministry. Dr Hamza seldom turned up for work. He obstructed others from doing their jobs. On 4 March, his contract was not renewed by the CPA. It is now trying to evict him from his house in the heavily guarded "Green Zone" where the CPA has its headquarters. He could not be contacted by The Independent but is believed to have taken up a job with a US company.

Dr Hamza's fall from grace with the US administration is in sharp contrast with the seriousness with which it took his views on WMD before the war. Speaking excellent English, he was also regularly interviewed by US television and quoted by the press.

There were always doubts that Dr Hamza had been as central as he claimed to Saddam's programme to develop a nuclear bomb. Dr Hussain Shahristani, an Iraqi nuclear scientist, tortured and imprisoned under Saddam for refusing to help build a nuclear device, said: "Hamza really was only a minor figure in our nuclear programme and always exaggerated his own importance when he got to the US."

Dr Hamza's own account of his career was that, after being educated in the US, he had been working at Florida State University in 1969 when he was approached by an Iraqi agent. He was told that unless he returned to Iraq his family would be in danger. He came back and was compelled to work for 20 years for Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission on developing an atomic bomb. Deeply opposed to the project, he defected to the US embassy in Hungary in 1994 and swiftly became a persuasive expert witness, testifying as an Iraqi insider on how Saddam was developing a terrifying arsenal. In the lead-up to the war he proclaimed: "Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical."

It was as if Dr Hamza had studied the agenda of the hawks in the US, who wanted to invade Iraq, and was willing to supply evidence supporting their arguments. Several other Iraqi defectors during the 1990s also produced information which they said proved Saddam was secretly producing WMD, but Dr Hamza was the most convincing because he was able to clothe his evidence in appropriate scientific jargon. He wrote a book, Saddam's Bomb Maker: The Terrifying Inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear and Biological Weapons Agenda.

One employer in the US decided that his account of his past simply did not stand up to examination but the US government stuck by him and made him a consultant to the US Department of Energy. Dr Hamza also hinted that Saddam had secret links to al-Qa'ida and might give them anthrax.

Back in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam, Dr Hamza's position as a senior advisor was very influential. The US-appointed advisors share control over ministries with Iraqi ministers. The ministry was, among other things, in charge of monitoring and securing the remains of Iraq's nuclear industry.

Dr Hamza's life in Baghdad was not entirely happy. At first he lived outside the Green Zone with his family until a remotely detonated bomb exploded near his car on the morning of Christmas Eve, buckling the doors and blowing out the windows.

He and his son were in the car at the time but were not injured. Dr Hamza asked for and was given a house in the Green Zone. It is this which the CPA is now trying to recover.

Of the Iraqi defectors after the Gulf War in 1991 who built a career in the US by providing evidence that Saddam Hussein was covertly building up an arsenal of WMD, Dr Hamza was the most successful. Once the war was over and no WMD had been found, he was something of an embarrassment, all the more so since he could not do his job.
Can't say I'll miss the [bad word].
 

cleanupguy

Diabloii.Net Member
America's Most Trusted News Person

Mr. Cronkite's take on Bush, Jr.'s Administration in terms of its secrecy and credibility:



http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0405-08.htm
Published on Monday, April 5, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Secrets and Lies Becoming Commonplace
by Walter Cronkite

The initial refusal of President Bush to let his national security adviser appear under oath before the 9/11 Commission might have been in keeping with a principle followed by other presidents -- the principle being, according to Bush, that calling his advisers to testify under oath is a congressional encroachment on the executive branch's turf.

(Never mind that this commission is not a congressional body, but one he created and whose members he handpicked.)

But standing on that principle has proved to be politically damaging, in part because this administration -- the most secretive since Richard Nixon's -- already suffers from a deepening credibility problem. It all brings to mind something I've wondered about for some time: Are secrecy and credibility natural enemies?

When you stop to think about it, you keep secrets from people when you don't want them to know the truth. Secrets, even when legitimate and necessary, as in genuine national-security cases, are what you might call passive lies.

Take the recent flap over Richard Foster, the Medicare official whose boss threatened to fire him if he revealed to Congress that the prescription-drug bill would be a lot more expensive than the administration claimed. The White House tried to pass it all off as the excessive and unauthorized action of Foster's supervisor (who shortly after the threatened firing left the government).

Maybe. But the point is that the administration had the newer, higher numbers, and Congress had been misled. This was a clear case of secrecy being used to protect a lie. I can't help but wonder how many other faulty estimates by this administration have actually been misinformation explained as error.

The Foster story followed by only a few weeks the case of the U.S. Park police chief who got the ax for telling a congressional staffer -- and The Washington Post -- that budget cuts planned for her department would impair its ability to perform its duties. Chief Teresa Chambers since has accepted forced retirement from government service.

Isolated incidents? Not really. Looking back at the past three years reveals a pattern of secrecy and of dishonesty in the service of secrecy. Some New Yorkers felt they had been lied to following the horrific collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Proposed warnings by the Environmental Protection Agency -- that the air quality near ground zero might pose health hazards -- were watered down or deleted by the White House and replaced with the reassuring message that the air was safe to breathe.

The EPA's own inspector general said later that the agency did not have sufficient data to claim the air was safe. However, the reassurance was in keeping with the president's defiant back-to-work/business-as-usual theme to demonstrate the nation's strength and resilience. It also was an early example of a Bush administration reflex described by one physicist as "never let science get in the way of policy."

In April 2002, the EPA had prepared a nationwide warning about a brand of asbestos called Zonolite, which contained a form of the substance far more lethally dangerous than ordinary asbestos. However, reportedly at the last minute, the White House stopped the warning. Why? The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which broke the story, noted that the Bush administration at the time was pushing legislation limiting the asbestos manufacturer's liability. Whatever the reason, such silence by an agency charged with protecting our health is a silent lie in my book.

One sometimes gets the impression that this administration believes that how it runs the government is its business and no one else's. It is certainly not the business of Congress. And if it's not the business of the people's representatives, it's certainly no business of yours or mine.

But this is a dangerous condition for any representative democracy to find itself in. The tight control of information, as well as the dissemination of misleading information and outright falsehoods, conjures up a disturbing image of a very different kind of society.

Democracies are not well-run nor long-preserved with secrecy and lies.

Walter Cronkite was anchor of "CBS Evening News" for 19 years.
 

cleanupguy

Diabloii.Net Member
Well, I knew it was only a matter of time before the Republicans started talking about conscription.

So, here you go. God help us all.


It was time for someone to say it
Hagel: It's Time To Talk About A Military Draft



By ED HOWARD
April 22, 2004


Someone finally said it aloud and it turned out to be Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
Sen. Hagel.

The country needs to think about drafting young people into the military, Hagel said.

He added that even certain rodents in D.C. know that the war is going to require lots more of the public treasure.

Hallelujah! The king is as obviously naked as a streaker on the 50 yeard line.

America's far-flung interventions and its role as bodyguard in many nations have stretched the military too thin, Hagel said.

You can't argue with that view. You can debate whether the U.S. should pull back from some of those deployments; but not that the military is a too-thin khaki line.

The senior Nebraska senator also said that it isn't right that the sacrifices of war are falling on the poor, the lower middle class and the middle class.

That was a somewhat politically correct way of saying that people with money seldom see their young trodding the deadly roads of Fallujah with other grunts.

Hagel, a sometimes-maverick Republican, softened the texture of this reality check. He did so by saying "national service" would be a good thing, whether it was in the military or doing something else around the country.

He might be correct, but it hardly matters. Putting more people in the military is the real issue.

During several interviews from Washington, Hagel said talking about the draft is a "nuclear" political issue and that "no one around here will touch it."

Hagel can talk about it because he is not up for re-election and because he is from a hard core Republican state where his position might be applauded more than criticized.

Critics can accuse Hagel of floating a trial balloon for the Bush administration, but his motive hardly matters.

Hagel is correct in saying it is time to discuss conscription or "mandatory national service," or whatever you want to call it.

Clearly the U.S. can't revert to a Vietnam-era system. That's the one that put mostly more white folks and black people in harm's way, while letting those who could swing deferments for college spend the war in ivy-covered foxholes.

How would America's young people – and their parents – react to the notion of a draft?

Like a rocket-propelled grenade hitting a brick wall, most likely.

A song performed by the late Phil Ochs in the 1960s noted:

"It's always the old who lead us to the war; it's always the young who fall ..."

It has been ever thus, for reasons that are obvious.

There was also a slogan: What if they gave a war and nobody came?"

Through a voluntary military the government responded, in effect: If we give a war, no one has to come who hasn't volunteered!"

The military is running short of volunteers, and something has to give in terms of policy. It will come down to a choice of fewer military deployments, or requiring mandatory military service for some.

On the money side of the war:

The cost of the war isn't obvious to Americans, and thus not much of a hot political issue, because it is being financed via credit card. Future generations will have to pay, and pay and pay for it. Like Lyndon Johnson, Bush isn't billing taxpayers who might take a dim view of a conflict that boosts their taxes. Both presidents enjoyed a public sense that the nation could simultaneously support guns and butter.

Officials of the Bush administration have said they won't know how much additional money will be needed for the war effort until (guess when?) until after the November election.

However, it appears the war effort might need lots more money very, very soon to keep things properly replenished over there. The top military brass is saying so. Loud and often.

Every ground squirrel in the nation's Capitol knows that a whopping increase in spending, far more than previously projected by the administration, is going to be needed for the war, Hagel said.

Administration spokesmen began acknowledging Wednesday that more money will be needed, but they declined to name figures.
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
cleanupguy said:
Well, I knew it was only a matter of time before the Republicans started talking about conscription.

So, here you go. God help us all.
That article is crap. And Hagel is full of same. The Dems talk about conscription in order to scare the kiddies into supporting them against "The Man"; any Repub doing so is just an ignorant fool.

If conscription is forced on our military for social reasons (as have many agendas like equal rights and drug testing), it will damage our preparedness horribly. I worked with people who were stationed in Europe during the late 1960's, and they told me some horror stories - the number of "join the Army or go to jail" types that actually did well are small.
 

cleanupguy

Diabloii.Net Member
jmervyn said:
That article is crap. And Hagel is full of same. The Dems talk about conscription in order to scare the kiddies into supporting them against "The Man"; any Repub doing so is just an ignorant fool.

If conscription is forced on our military for social reasons (as have many agendas like equal rights and drug testing), it will damage our preparedness horribly. I worked with people who were stationed in Europe during the late 1960's, and they told me some horror stories - the number of "join the Army or go to jail" types that actually did well are small.
For all of our sake, I truly hope so.
 
Top