US intelligence fears Iran duped hawks into Iraq war

[zimv20]

link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1224075,00.html)


An urgent investigation has been launched in Washington into whether Iran played a role in manipulating the US into the Iraq war by passing on bogus intelligence through Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, it emerged yesterday.

Some intelligence officials now believe that Iran used the hawks in the Pentagon and the White House to get rid of a hostile neighbour, and pave the way for a Shia-ruled Iraq.

According to a US intelligence official, the CIA has hard evidence that Mr Chalabi and his intelligence chief, Aras Karim Habib, passed US secrets to Tehran, and that Mr Habib has been a paid Iranian agent for several years, involved in passing intelligence in both directions.

The CIA has asked the FBI to investigate Mr Chalabi's contacts in the Pentagon to discover how the INC acquired sensitive information that ended up in Iranian hands.

The implications are far-reaching. Mr Chalabi and Mr Habib were the channels for much of the intelligence on Iraqi weapons on which Washington built its case for war.

"It's pretty clear that Iranians had us for breakfast, lunch and dinner," said an intelligence source in Washington yesterday. "Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the US for several years through Chalabi."

Larry Johnson, a former senior counter-terrorist official at the state department, said: "When the story ultimately comes out we'll see that Iran has run one of the most masterful intelligence operations in history. They persuaded the US and Britain to dispose of its greatest enemy."

Mr Chalabi has vehemently rejected the allegations as "a lie, a fib and silly". He accused the CIA director, George Tenet, of a smear campaign against himself and Mr Habib.

However, it is clear that the CIA - at loggerheads with Mr Chalabi for more than eight years - believes it has caught him red-handed, and is sticking to its allegations.

"The suggestion that Chalabi is a victim of a smear campaign is outrageous," a US intelligence official said. "It's utter nonsense. He passed very sensitive and classified information to the Iranians. We have rock solid information that he did that."

(more)


i am positively stupefied.

[nospleen]

link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1224075,00.html)



i am positively stupefied.

WOW!

[mactastic]

Good lord, I hope that's not true. I was figuring Chalabi was playing us for suckers so he could wind up in power, but this would be disastrous for the US. This would mean Iran has plans for the destabilazation of Iraq and is likely funding an ongoing guerilla insurgency. It means Iran plans to exercise control over the future (read Shia) of Iraq. That means the Sunni and the Kurds and the Turkmens and others are all in danger if a balanced government doesn't take shape in Iraq soon.

Fine mess we're in if this is true. We can't stay and pacify Iraq as long as Iran is supporting insurgents, nor can we leave and let the Iranians run the show. Talk about getting conned.

[Zaid]

link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1224075,00.html)



i am positively stupefied.
Indeed.

If true, then the Iranian intelligence services have been (for want of a more appropriate term) masterful.

Not only did they manage to get the US to remove one of their key regional enemies, they have also managed ( through US actions) to :

1. badly harm European-US relations. In thus doing they have virtually ensured that Europe is unlikely to take the same hash ecomomic stance to Iran that the US does.

2. greatly diminish the standing of the US in international community and especially in the Muslim world. This in turn decreases the liklihood of further uni-lateral action against Iran (economic, political etc. ) by the US

3. reducing the liklihood that Israel will attack its nuclear facilities. (which Israel has threatened to do). This liklihood is reduced because Israel may be unwilling to do this without US backing. and given (2) above the US may be unwilling to give such backing or approval.

4. iprove the standing of Iran in the region and especially within Iraq. by calling for US withdrawl in Iraq, and vocally condeming the US actions. Also capitalising of the large scale resentment of the US forces in Iraq (according to the latest polls) it makes the development of an Iran friendly Iraq more likely
helping to secure Iran as a regional power.

Imagine Iran got the US to help make it more secure and influential in the ME.

if it weren't for the abs horrendus loss of life and missery caused one would be hard pressed to call this (if true) anything other than highly impressive.

Of course i'm talking about the skill of the Iranian Intelligence services, rather than praising what they have actually done

[zimv20]

[chomp]
5. tied up the majority of the US military, making it that much harder to go full scale against iran


Of course i'm talking about the skill of the Iranian Intelligence services, rather than praising what they have actually done
indeed. if true, i'll have to give them a "well played!"

[mactastic]

indeed. if true, i'll have to give them a "well played!"

And Dubya the "chump of the millenium".

[takao]

this sounds bad....... ... it really starts to look like a bad movie now

i mean what's next ?

[Mike Teezie]

Wow.

This is, if true.........

Adjectives fail me.

Unbelievable? Scary?

[numediaman]

I've read about this the past few days and I have a few problems with the idea.

Many agencies of the U.S. government were aware that Chalabi was a con-man. So, why would the administration, and the neo-cons in particular, go along with Chalabi's lies? Because it supported the goals they had all along.

In other words, even if Chalabi had died of a heart attack five years ago, do you think Bush, Chaney and crew wouldn't have wanted to invade Iraq?

I think Chalabi is a bad player -- a crook who is hungary for both money and power. In other words, a fellow traveler.

I wouldn't be surprised if Iran has been working behind the scenes to damage U.S. interests. Bush called them part of the Axis of Evil, after all. The U.S., essentially, had declared a new cold war against them. To me, it just shows that Iran is better at playing big league politics than the Bush crowd.

But was the Bush administration duped into a war? No way -- they wanted this war in the worst way. Were they "played"? Sure, like a cheap fiddle.

[mactastic]

This calls to mind a need to find out where all the bad intel came from. Where did those phony Niger documents originate? Someone went to some effort to forge those, but was it done by opportunists looking to make some money, or was it something else? We know many of the WMD reports came from people with contacts to the INC, but were they aided in any way? Some 'scientists' now seem to have been giving information that exceeded their knowledge base. IOW, they appear to have been coached with knowledge they didn't have. Who coached them?

This needs to get sorted out. Something like this cannot be allowed to happen again if it did happen, and if we wern't played by the Iranian intelligence services we need to know that too. It greatly affects how we proceed from here.

[nospleen]

And Dubya the "chump of the millenium".

Maybe so, but it is not like any of us saw this one coming...

[mactastic]

Maybe so, but it is not like any of us saw this one coming...

Sure, but if they hadn't been so eager to have this war, they might have been a little more critical about the motives of some of these 'informant' types. And apparently the intel agencies had a bad feeling about Chalabi and his crowd for a long time, yet the Pentagon overrode those concerns because of their adherence to neocon gospel.

[blackfox]

Interesting possibility to be sure, but IMO, this is just another example of the administration trying to pass the buck and deflect responsibility for their own mistakes. Since Iran is a member of the "axis of evil" could this just be a convenient scapegoat? Makes me wonder who is playing who...is Iran playing us, or is the US playing the world (or at least its' own population coming into an election)? We are a nation with ADD, after all...

[3rdpath]

so let me get this straight...

a) plan war
b) surround yourself with known liars and flunkies who support the war
c) war goes terribly askew
d) blame liars and flunkies

we've just witnessed the full philosophical transfer of corporate unaccountability to our government.

[pseudobrit]

Talk about a complete and utter failure of intelligence services!

To think Iran, a charter member of the Axis of Evil, is shaping our foreign policy... the irony!

[3rdpath]

To think Iran, a charter member of the Axis of Evil, is shaping our foreign policy... the irony!

i too believe the " axis of evil" is shaping our foreign policy...but i think the axis is somewhere near crawford, texas...

[Voltron]

Talk about a complete and utter failure of intelligence services!

To think Iran, a charter member of the Axis of Evil, is shaping our foreign policy... the irony!
Clinton's Intelligence services. If memmory serves Clinton revamped the CIA and I doubt Bush had time to undo the damage. Similar to Clinton damaging our military forces and Bush being stuck with what was left and having to rebuild it.

[mactastic]

Bill Clinton's military did pretty well in Afghanistan, no? :D

[blackfox]

Clinton's Intelligence services. If memmory serves Clinton revamped the CIA and I doubt Bush had time to undo the damage. Similar to Clinton damaging our military forces and Bush being stuck with what was left and having to rebuild it.
As I remember it, the CIA did not trust Chalabi or any intel via him, stemming from a 1995 incident (attempted coup), which is discussed in another thread about him. The Pentagon and Dept. of Defense is another matter...as far as the military goes, first off, by the luxury of not having to fight a major engagement for a good long while, US forces were perhaps a little rusty in engagements and logistics, and during peace-time, there is often a shifting of priorities away from the military. I also seem to remember the military being "streamlined" by Rumsfeld, with such interesting features as merging special forces with regular units...but that is just me...

[zimv20]

Bill Clinton's military did pretty well in Afghanistan, no? :D
<wolfowitz>
**** you
</wolfowitz>

http://www.salon.com/ent/col/fix/2003/04/27/white_house/index.html

[nospleen]

Sure, but if they hadn't been so eager to have this war, they might have been a little more critical about the motives of some of these 'informant' types. And apparently the intel agencies had a bad feeling about Chalabi and his crowd for a long time, yet the Pentagon overrode those concerns because of their adherence to neocon gospel.

You are preaching to the choir here. :) I support the troops 100%, but, the more I read about our motives, the more dissapointed I am.

[skunk]

You are preaching to the choir here. :) I support the troops 100%, but, the more I read about our motives, the more dissapointed I am.
Isn't that a bit difficult? If the troops are carrying out a mission you mistrust, where do you stand? If the troops are killing people in your name, what price your support?

[nospleen]

Isn't that a bit difficult? If the troops are carrying out a mission you mistrust, where do you stand? If the troops are killing people in your name, what price your support?

I support the troops because they do not have a choice on whether to go to war or not. They did when they first signed up, but after that they must follow orders or face the consequences. I can respect their courage to risk their lives everyday, regardless of my own political beliefs.

[skunk]

I support the troops because they do not have a choice on whether to go to war or not. They did when they first signed up, but after that they must follow orders or face the consequences. I can respect their courage to risk their lives everyday, regardless of my own political beliefs.
OK. Just checking. ;)
You might like to read this:
[QUOTE]War and Death in a Bumpersticker World

A Vietnam Vet on "Supporting the Troops"

By STEPHEN T. BANKO, III


I came home from my war in 1970 with a body still riddled with shrapnel and mind still muddled with a toxic cocktail of rage and guilt and fear. I tried with every fiber of my being to become myself again but always knowing that I would never be that person again. I would never again think the world would spin off its axis if Timon lost to Canisius. Nor would I ever again believe that a beer in the South Shore Beach Club in Angola would cure everything that ailed me. As much as I wanted to be me, the face staring back at me from the mirror was someone far different from what I saw before Vietnam. Lying in a hospital bed surrounded by boys whose bodies had been broken and battered will do that. So will lying in ambush and killing unsuspecting Vietnamese. So will the constant pain and the fatigue and the filth and the loneliness of war. Once you've been exposed, you're a carrier of that virus forever. Innocence gets stripped away from your soul with all the pain of skin being peeled off your body. Any inherent goodness you might have possessed leaks out of your spirit.

I tried to pray my way out of my confusion and my anger and my pain. But those prayers were more a nostalgic genuflection to simpler prayers that asked God for a new catcher's mitt or a new pair of Converse All-Stars. I didn't really believe God would answer a killer's prayers. I stopped when I became terrified that deafening silence that greeted my prayers might, indeed, be the voice of God.

One day a few weeks after I returned to be a civilian, a husband and a father in one fell swoop, the mail carrier showed up at my door with a package. In it was a Silver Star. The Silver Star is the nation's third highest award for heroism and it was awarded to me by a mail carrier. When I told my father, he was livid. If you got that in my war, he said, you'd have a parade down Main Street. But that was the kind of war we fought: individual battles where mean survival was victory. As much as I was counseled to forget about the war and get on with my life, and as much as I really want to do so, each of us who fought in Vietnam was spiritually captured by it, and most remain to this day prisoners of their own war. In my eyes, the war was over. In my mind it was over too: over and over and over again in a continuous loop.

In all that confusion, I felt a need justify what I'd done. You can't just walk away from something like that without some sense of ratification. We looked to our peers but found none. We looked to our country and found even less. So we were left to explain our sacrifice to ourselves. In that muddle, I latched on to the immutable notion that what I did was right and just because the cause was right and just. I wrote angry essays defending American involvement in Vietnam. I castigated those who tried to cast aspersions on returning veterans. I engaged politicians who refused to vote for more jobs and more benefits for Vietnam veterans. I incurred the wrath of UB students and professors with my vigorous defense of the war. I made my support for the war literally who I was. So when public affairs television producers like Marilyn Stahlka were looking for hawks to take on the vocal left wing of the Vietnam veterans' movement, they found me lurking at every turn--only me.

I was trotted out with maddening frequency to engage two or three anti-war veterans at least once a month. Ms. Stahlka seemed more like my agent than a producer. I would take on Gail Graham on one program and go against an old St. Bonaventure classmate, Bob Godlove on another. I would rip into them questioning everything from their fidelity to fellow veterans to their loyalty to their country to their worth as human beings. I saved my most venomous vitriol for Robert Beyer, whose son Bruce had fled to Canada to avoid the draft. Bob Beyer was one of the kindest and gentlest human beings I would ever encounter before or after Vietnam and my attacks on him remain a humiliation to me to this day. I don't know whether I was more defeated by the simple soundness of Mr. Beyer1s arguments or his gentle demeanor in the face of my terrible personal attacks on him.

Many years later, when I admitted my alcoholism to myself and sought treatment, a psychiatrist asked me if I drank because of Vietnam or if I thought about Vietnam when I drank. Today, I ask myself a similar question: did I drink because of the guilt of surviving my war or did I drink because of the lies I was telling myself in defending the war?

Whatever the answer, sobriety and self-awareness helped me let go of my role as apologist for the Vietnam War. To accept my role in the war, I recalled those wonderful kids turned into men by war and turned into heroes in death. I recalled all the things we didn't fight for and accepted how bravely we fought for each other. I recognized that I could hate the war and still love the warrior, even though many in my generation lacked the intellectual sophistication to do so.

I still wonder if I could have done things differently in Vietnam. I wonder if I could have been better at protecting my men. But what I also wonder is how many kids died while I was promoting their need to be in Vietnam? Three long years passed while I was locked into the sad notion that we best supported the troops by being champions of their mission and cheerleaders for their cause. How many more boys were killed from 1970 to 1973? Did I have complicity in their deaths? These questions weigh as heavily today as did memories of the war yesterday.

The rhetoric I hear today sounds like an echo from my painful past. We are being told that we have to 'stay the course.' It's necessary for some Americans to die for Iraqi democracy. The biggest lie of all is that it is unpatriotic to oppose further suffering, further maiming and further death in Iraq.

We now live in a bumper sticker world where the only truths we accept are those simplistic enough to fit on an 18-inch adhesive placard. More and more I seem to be seeing 'Support Our Troops' stickers. That is advice well taken by me and by everyone. Support our troops indeed--bring them home now.

[indent]Stephen T. Banko III was awarded two Silver Stars, four Bronze Stars, the Air Medal and four Purple Hearts. He has long been active in veterans' affairs. He can be reached at: banko@counterpunch.org
http://www.counterpunch.org/

[Neserk]

I support the troops because they do not have a choice on whether to go to war or not. They did when they first signed up, but after that they must follow orders or face the consequences. I can respect their courage to risk their lives everyday, regardless of my own political beliefs.

Sorry, but "they told me to do it" doesn't fly. They do have other moral options. Like standing as a group and refusing to fight. And they can face the consequences of standing up for what they believe is right or wrong. I don't know how many of them even realize that what they are doing is wrong and don't want to be there.

[skunk]

I don't know how many of them even realize that what they are doing is wrong and don't want to be there.
Now THAT should be part of the training....

[Neserk]

Now THAT should be part of the training....

Instead of abusing them? It would help. But it is hard to get people to go on murderous sprees when you don't have control of their minds...

[nospleen]

Sorry, but "they told me to do it" doesn't fly. They do have other moral options. Like standing as a group and refusing to fight. And they can face the consequences of standing up for what they believe is right or wrong. I don't know how many of them even realize that what they are doing is wrong and don't want to be there.

That is much easier said than done. A lot of these soldiers have kids and wives that they have to think about as well as support. If they were to stand up and refuse to go, they would be discharged from the military. I cannot imagine how hard it would be to find work after doing so. I know they CAN say no, but can they really? The sad part is when they joined, some did so to do something honorable. But, since we are not there, we do not know if they are fighting an honorable cause. I would like to think so, but everyday those hopes I have are getting dimmer and dimmer.

[IJ Reilly]

It isn't up to the individual soldier to decide whether his or her mission is honorable or not, and we should not be expecting any of them to make these sorts of judgments. This is the job of their government, and in turn, our jobs as citizens and voters. Went through this precise agony with the Vietnam War, and many people came out not just against their government for prosecuting an unjust war, but against the soldiers, who's job it was to fight it. This was wrong. Let's not make that mistake again.

[wwworry]

blame Iran, blame Clinton. I think blackfox hit it right.

[blackfox]

It isn't up to the individual soldier to decide whether his or her mission is honorable or not, and we should not be expecting any of them to make these sorts of judgments. This is the job of their government, and in turn, our jobs as citizens and voters. Went through this precise agony with the Vietnam War, and many people came out not just against their government for prosecuting an unjust war, but against the soldiers, who's job it was to fight it. This was wrong. Let's not make that mistake again.
You are quite right, IJ...I do try and make a distiction. Thankyou for bringing such an important reminder to the discussion.

[diamond geezer]

This thread should read

"US Govt dupes US public into supporting War"

A war they wanted years before 911.

They new Chalabi was dodgy, but they didn't care, al long as he said the right things to get the war they hungered for.

At least the NYT has the balls to admit their mistakes, unlike the chickenhawks running your country.

link (http://www.iht.com/articles/521850.html)

The New York Times on Wednesday faulted some of its reporting on the information it received from Iraqi defectors for past articles about Iraq’s purported weapons of mass destruction.
.
In a letter from its editors entitled ‘‘The Times and Iraq,’’ the paper said that ‘‘we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been.’’
.
‘‘In some cases,’’ it said, ‘‘information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.’’
.
The Times cited five articles, including several on Page 1, published from 2001 to 2003 that had accounts of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq that have never been independently verified or were discredited by its own reporters or reporters at another news organization.
.
When reporters wrote articles that challenged the original reporting, they were printed on inside pages, The Times said.
.
The articles depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants and exiles bent on ‘‘regime change’’ in Iraq, The Times said.
.
Ahmad Chalabi, once a favored Iraqi exile of the Bush administration whose headquarters in Baghdad were raided last week by the Iraqi police, was cited as a source who introduced Times reporters to exiles.
.
‘‘Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq,’’ The Times said, adding that administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes were taken in by misinformation from these exile sources.
.
The letter said that editors should have challenged reporters and pushed for more skepticism, but that they were ‘‘perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper.’’
.
‘‘Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted,’’ The Times added.
.
The paper said it considered ‘‘the story of Iraq’s weapons, and of the pattern of misinformation, to be unfinished business’’ adding that ‘‘we fully intend to continue aggressive reporting aimed at setting the record straight.’’
.
Some of the articles based on faulty information from The New York Times and other sources appeared in the International Herald Tribune, which is now fully owned by The Times.
.
Further information on The Times’s letter: www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html
NEW YORK The New York Times on Wednesday faulted some of its reporting on the information it received from Iraqi defectors for past articles about Iraq’s purported weapons of mass destruction.
.
In a letter from its editors entitled ‘‘The Times and Iraq,’’ the paper said that ‘‘we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been.’’
.
‘‘In some cases,’’ it said, ‘‘information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.’’
.
The Times cited five articles, including several on Page 1, published from 2001 to 2003 that had accounts of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq that have never been independently verified or were discredited by its own reporters or reporters at another news organization.
.
When reporters wrote articles that challenged the original reporting, they were printed on inside pages, The Times said.
.
The articles depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants and exiles bent on ‘‘regime change’’ in Iraq, The Times said.
.
Ahmad Chalabi, once a favored Iraqi exile of the Bush administration whose headquarters in Baghdad were raided last week by the Iraqi police, was cited as a source who introduced Times reporters to exiles.
.
‘‘Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq,’’ The Times said, adding that administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes were taken in by misinformation from these exile sources.

[Neserk]

I was browsing Newsweek yesterday and there is a Military guy who refused to fight in Iraq because he opposes the war. I guess some didn't lose their ability to think for themselves.

[blackfox]

I was browsing Newsweek yesterday and there is a Military guy who refused to fight in Iraq because he opposes the war. I guess some didn't lose their ability to think for themselves.
If it is the guy I am thinking of, he got court-martialed for his effort...

[Neserk]

If it is the guy I am thinking of, he got court-martialed for his effort...

I need to start taking notes when I read this stuff :rolleyes: He might have been. Even so, he stood up for what he believed in. I'm proud of him. I wish more service personnel would do the same. They will pay to, just in different ways like guilt and PTSD... it is all very sad.

[IJ Reilly]

I need to start taking notes when I read this stuff :rolleyes: He might have been. Even so, he stood up for what he believed in. I'm proud of him. I wish more service personnel would do the same. They will pay to, just in different ways like guilt and PTSD... it is all very sad.

So you really think it should be up to individual members of the armed forces to decide which wars are just and which are not?

[Neserk]

So you really think it should be up to individual members of the armed forces to decide which wars are just and which are not?

Yup. If you can't make moral decisions for yourself then what good are you?

Seems to me the military talks out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand you are suppose to follow orders on the other hand you are not allowed to use "I was following orders" to justify your own behavior. What the hell is that? You either follow orders or you follow your conscience. They can't have it both ways.

[blackfox]

So you really think it should be up to individual members of the armed forces to decide which wars are just and which are not
Yup. If you can't make moral decisions for yourself then what good are you?

Seems to me the military talks out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand you are suppose to follow orders on the other hand you are not allowed to use "I was following orders" to justify your own behavior. What the hell is that? You either follow orders or you follow your conscience. They can't have it both ways.
I believe there might be a misunderstanding here...I believe what IJ was commenting on, is that our Military should think carefully about each potential engagement we consider entering into, and have a plan of action for dealing with the consequences...some of these "individual choices" of our soldiers made would not have to be made if the US had a pragmatic strategy of engagement and had properly trained and staffed various non-combat positions. The use of ill-screened private contractors, un-trained GIs for intelligence gathering, and a host of other such issues, are all policy/planning problems that should have been dealt with at the organizational level...it is also worth considering the policy of the Administration, that if not actively encouraged, were at least complicit in sanctioning, the methodology of prisoner treatment/interrogation...which were also made at an organizational level...in all cases, it left the average GI in a disorganized, if not unethical climate.

But I digress, IJ will probably tell it better...

[IJ Reilly]

I believe I said my piece about this in post #29 above. I'll add that members of a professional, volunteer military should not be griping publicly about where they're sent and for what mission, let alone refusing to go, no matter what misgivings they might have personally. When they signed on the dotted line, that was the deal they made with us. As for "just following orders," I believe the military has specific set of guidelines for how a soldier is supposed to respond to being asked to carry out orders which violate rules of engagement. They're not supposed to be automatons, but they're not supposed to be making their own foreign policy, either.

[Neserk]

As for "just following orders," I believe the military has specific set of guidelines for how a soldier is supposed to respond to being asked to carry out orders which violate rules of engagement. They're not supposed to be automatons,

Well, apparently they are unable to do this.

[mactastic]

Well, apparently they are unable to do this.

Your brush is too broad. Don't forget, the pictures of torture were turned in by a soldier.

[skunk]

Your brush is too broad. Don't forget, the pictures of torture were turned in by a soldier.
One out of 135,000 doesn't exactly fill one with confidence...

[Neserk]

One out of 135,000 doesn't exactly fill one with confidence...

There are people out there who are in the military who for whatever reason retain their conscience. We have 2 examples from the US military now. The one who refused to fight and the one who talked to the media! I'm sure there is more. Just not enough more.

Teachers have a similar problem. I would love to see us all walk out of the classroom in protest of the ridiculous things we are expected to teach and the circumstances under which we are expected to teach it. We prefer to just bitch and moan about it...

[mcfudd]

I makes perfect since to me that the pro-Israel New York Times would jump on the Iraq war bandwagon during the build-up.

It makes even more since to me that now the war is so unpopular they take the opportunity to "sanitize" their past stories by admitting they were not based on solid sources.

I don't think there will be much reporting on whether or not Iran tricked Rummy/Bush/Cheney and the US Congress into a war with Iraq by feeding the intelligence community false information. Only the most liberal, Bush-bashing media will ever follow this story through to the finish line.

It is a classic move --- one I think happened. Bush was looking for a reason to go to war --- Iran just gave him one.

But the Bush administration is too arrogant to admit it could have been played for such fools.

[Neserk]

I have no problems with being pro-Israel. When I visited I fell in love. Considering the history of oppression Jews have endured I can certainly understand them wanting their own country. What I *do* have a problem with is the warring against the Palestinians. Seems to me giving them back (?) a small bit of terrority is the way to go. Live in peace. There is nothing that says *all* of Israel has to be occupied by Jewish people. Problem solved. Now, where should I go next to instill peace?

[Voltron]

It is a classic move --- one I think happened. Bush was looking for a reason to go to war --- Iran just gave him one.

But the Bush administration is too arrogant to admit it could have been played for such fools.
Odds are that is exactly what happened, he was looking for a reason to fix previous mistakes, like allowing Saddam to remain in charge of Iraq.

Iran just gave him another reason to go into Iran, and Syria is consistently giving us reasons to go into their country as well. Go figure sometimes I wonder if maybe someone else is pulling this crap so we can go finish them off. First thought in my head when I heard plane hit the twin towers is that Israeli's did it to get us to go to war against Arabs for nobody in their right mind would do something like that and think we would do nothing afterwards.

Bush administration might admit to bad intelligence in the future. But it could be political suicide to do so too soon or too loudly even if true. But then some people will argue anything nomatter what the Bush's do because they only care about getting rid of the Bush and not actually thinking what would be best for them to do.

[Voltron]

I have no problems with being pro-Israel. When I visited I fell in love. Considering the history of oppression Jews have endured I can certainly understand them wanting their own country. What I *do* have a problem with is the warring against the Palestinians. Seems to me giving them back (?) a small bit of terrority is the way to go. Live in peace. There is nothing that says *all* of Israel has to be occupied by Jewish people. Problem solved. Now, where should I go next to instill peace?
I have a problem being pro a country that commonly establish laws based on their own narrow religion, ie theocracies. However the suicide bombings against the Jews automatically makes me take Israels side of all issues.

As far as Israel giving back some of the land in the name of peace. They offered Arafat 98% of the land he wanted and he turned them down. Another time they negotiated such land trade for peace and while they were still negotiating some suicide bomber blew up a bus stop cancelling any hope of talking it out. If Israel gave back the land that most people suggest (1967 borders) they would be incapable of defending themselves. It would become extremely easy to blitz them and they would have to be at war level of alert at all times in order to insure their own survival.

Besides Hamas won't rest as long as a single Jew is in any of the area that they call Israel for they want the complete removal of the country. As long as they have that hardcore attitude there is no hope for peace.

[Neserk]

I have a problem being pro a country that commonly establish laws based on their own narrow religion, ie theocracies. .

Israel is a bit "weird." Most of the Jews are not relgious Jews but are secular Jews. The Jews who are religious are the Hasidic and do not participate in politics. So it is hard to say where the religion is used to justify the political practices (ie Israel being the promised land) and where it is a legitimate part of a relgious belief system.

My sympathy for Jews in general comes from being a student of Judaism and having studied their history in the diaspora. I could never understand how Hitler was so successful getting people to treat Jewish people like he did until I went further back in history and saw the pogoms and realized that others have been treating the Jews like crap for centuries. It is really quite disturbing. While this doesn't justify their treatment of the Palestinians, some of the policies make more sense.

The government is certainly not blameless on either side. The sad thing is when it comes to the actual people the Jews, Christians, and Muslims get along very well. Government sucks. I recall several stories of Christians acting as go betweens for Jews and Muslims so that they could get to know one another personally and realize that they both wanted the same thing. A country that is safe for their children to live in, a home, a job, and stability. I also recall hearing of Jews who would "sell" their business to the Muslim neighbor for Shabbat and the Muslim neighbor would run the business for a day and then sell it back to his Jewish friend. There are other stories but I can't recall them at the moment.

[mcfudd]

But then some people will argue anything nomatter what the Bush's do because they only care about getting rid of the Bush and not actually thinking what would be best for them to do.

I think there were probablly people during the Vietnam conflict that would have argued anything to get LBJ and/or Nixon out of office.

Things like the Pentagon Papers helped pour gasoline on the fire.

The question is: Did Bush send us to war to further his father's goal to form a New World Order. Was it payback for daddy? Did he do it to make his oil buddies richer? Perhaps he just cannot say NO to Cheney and Rummy.

Maybe we need someone in office who can. I know --- Kerry as President and John McCain (R-AZ) as Secretary of Defense. ;)

[wwworry]

I was browsing Newsweek yesterday and there is a Military guy who refused to fight in Iraq because he opposes the war. I guess some didn't lose their ability to think for themselves.

Did you know the punishment he recieved is the exact same punishment one of the prison torturers recieved? Kind of funny, don't you think?

[Neserk]

Did you know the punishment he recieved is the exact same punishment one of the prison torturers recieved? Kind of funny, don't you think?

Ironic, yes. I'll have to go back and get his name and more info on him.