home

Condi Rice on Meet the Press

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:48:35 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Just go watch over at Crooks and Liars. Think Progress has the money quote:

The fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al Qaeda…or we could take a bolder approach.

< Was Novak's Source in the CIA or White House? | Freeh Plays the Blame Game >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Condi Rice on Meet the Press | 45 comments (45 topical)
    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    In other words, we either could've dealt with the crime at hand (the wise choice) OR we could've done what we did, which was march off into the murderous wet dreams of neo-cons who seem to have no grasp of anything genuinely human. In short, we reall f'd up.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    After they engineered Nine-eleven by standing down NORAD, they had enough of an EXCUSE, with our blood all over it, to play out their pre-published "Need a Second Pearl Harbor" illegal replacement of Iraq with three territories and fifteen US airbases. GREAT! So when does Condi Rice HANG FROM THE NECK UNTIL DEAD? Because 3,000 people died in NYC on that day, and these felons and their Shite House Iraq Treason are the other 'proximate cause.'

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    Dadler - We had tried the criminal justice approach for about 13 years prior to 9/11. All that happened was that we received more attacks on a more frequent basis of a more deadly nature. With that experience a rational person would say, "Let's do something different. Let's get rid of the root cause."

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    PIL writes:
    After they engineered Nine-eleven by standing down NORAD,
    So there you have it folks. Straight from the mouth of PIL. W did it. Moonbattiest at its very best.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#5)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    Jim, it's not that W did it. It's that everyone W ever appointed, knew, or even met did it. And you know, the explanations for the worst failure in history on all levels of government haven't exactly been forthcoming. In my opinion, when a government tries to hide information, it's the duty of the people to assume the worst. I know Jim has reading issues due to cranial-rectal inversion syndrome, but if anyone is still under the illusion that 9/11 was somehow "unpredictable" or "unpreventable" or "not a complete and total f*ckup of such magnitude that malice would really make a lot more since than incompetence" then I recommend this timeline. http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/terrorism/september_11/ Anyway. That's a very nice rhetorical device, Jim, but what is the root cause? A thinking person might say that it lies in the minor point that Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that the end of the world is not only close at hand but a really pleasant event -- as long as they control Jerusalem. You probably take the Bush Administration's more, um, creative approach, which is that we're simply fighting Snidely Whiplash who "hates our freedoms" because that's what he does in between twiddling his moustache and tying damsels to train tracks. Yes sir, they hate our freedoms, and wish they could be jailed so they'd have less freedom, ideally. That's what it's all about. Brilliant.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#6)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    With that experience a rational person would say, "Let's do something different. Let's get rid of the root cause." So, Jim, you're actually claiming that Saddam was the root cause of Al Qaeda? I agree with you that PIL's statement is an example of moonbattiest at its best. It's amazing how quickly you were able to follow it up with wingnuttiest.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    In Jim's world, there are only TWO fighter jets in the entire USA charged with protecting the east coast and Washington DC. And those flew in from NEBRASKA. Don't ask who is the Moonbat, Jim -- it tolls for thee. Attacking a disarmed country that had NOTHING to do with Nine-eleven -- a warcrime, a violation of the UN charter, an impeachable act (lying to Congress and the People), and an act which reputable authorities attest HAS MADE THE WORLD MORE DANGEROUS FOR US AND OUR ALLIES. 130,000 dead Iraqis? What was their crime, other than the wrong religion, the wrong color skin, and the best location for a US airbase complex. Oh, did I forget to mention GREASE? Nevermind -- Jim is pumping as much of it as he can, along with his bs artist prsznit. Just keep it off the curtains.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#8)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    Some people need a project to keep busy. Idle hands, devil's workshop. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    Jim, You and I have a chasmic disagreement about this subject that ain't goin' away. Suffice it to say, in my opinion, had we stayed intensely focused and honest (with the international community AND ourselves), instead of becoming misdirected, egomaniacal, and dishonest, we'd be looking at a much more evolved and peaceful situation today. As for "the root cause", there are many, and they converge, and the confuse. Which is why you don't go blasting into some weapons strewn foreign nation like it's just a bar with only a few customers. But right now, run by Bush, we don't seem to know the difference.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    scar - As usual you are long on insults and short on logic and facts. First,what was been withheld? We know, based on Richard Clarke's 9/15 memo. Link
    We convened on 5 July a special meeting of domestic federal law enforcement agencies because we could not rule out the possibility that the attack would be in the U.S." In fact, that was the meeting that we asked him to convene. "At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."
    So here we have all the agencies involved being warmed. Now your complaint is???? You write:
    A thinking person might say that it lies in the minor point that Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that the end of the world is not only close at hand but a really pleasant event -- as long as they control Jerusalem.
    With that claim you now take PIL's place as the writer of the most Moonbattiest assertion. Peter G - I see poverty as the root cause. We could go on for hours about what caused the poverty. PIL - Careful. You may regain the lead.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    Peter G writes:
    I agree with you that PIL's statement is an example of moonbattiest at its best. It's amazing how quickly you were able to follow it up with wingnuttiest.
    Since my only comment was that PIL's comment was the best moonbattiest, and since you agree with that, can you tell me how my comment was "wingnuttiest?" Just curious about your logic and standards.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    Dadler - Never the twain shall meet, but at least the conversation is rational. Well, mostly. ;-) As I noted, you favor a CJ approach. I say it hadn't worked, and would not have worked, so I favor the pre-emptive approach. Boiling it all down, as has often been said: Can you imagine a ME that has a chance for democtacy...and control of their terrorists...with Saddam in charge of Iraq? I can't. BTW, looks like Iraq has a new constitution. Progress continues.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    ppj-and now the gov will not even release the annual terror attack list because the number of attacks has gone exponential. The huge increase of terror attacks and war death turns their (and unsurprisingly your) argument on its head. Condi's point out that the mid-east dictators that we have been propping up for the last 60 years has not created stability, so now we are going direct and the US will be the dictator in Iraq. The new vision (pnac) of Mid-east stability would be enforced by twenty military bases all with nukes. Oh, and the dictatorships that we still prop up will get better treatment since we will be neighbors.
    We had tried the criminal justice approach for about 13 years prior to 9/11. All that happened was that we received more attacks on a more frequent basis of a more deadly nature.
    I wonder what the actual deal was between Bush Osama, how long before 9/11 had they made it?

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#14)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    Jim/PPJ: "Pete Guither" and "Peter G" are two different contributors to the TL comments pages. Please do not confuse us.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    The UN says that after an occupation (a legal occupation) it takes SIX YEARS MINIMUM to establish a Constitution. Shoving it down their throats is just in order to cause a civil war, which now comes. Stay tuned for Jim's Further Excuses when their time comes. This is the same Condi Rice who opined that "No one ever thought that planes could be used as missiles." When she said that, when she admitted to not reading her security briefings, when she threatened the country with "mushroom clouds" from a program that didn't exist, when she said that she didn't want to see legally-elected Aristide "in this hemisphere" -- on those days she should have been fired and investigated. We'll get to the bottom of it, and when we do, you can look up and see the bottoms of the feet of the hanging traitors who just thought they could walk away with the country, because their HATRED of Americans led them to believe it would be easy. [remainder deleted. Warning to commenter to refrain from name-calling.]

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    Going after those directly responsible for 9/11 is certainly needed and maybe by the sandards of some taking a broader approach is necessary. Yet, clearly we have gone off the deep end in the quest to conquer the world for the sake of property rights Christopher

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    Alright, I think the wingbats, and moonnuts need to take a breath, This morning, Condi the former National Security Advisor to the Pres (whose main qualification is her expertise on US Soviet relations) stated that the choice was between going after Al Queda who were responsible but have no oil, or Iraq who do have oil. Ever notice how the only people who talk about exit strategies are Dems? Thats cause the neo-cons, Condi, Rummy, Krautwheelchairquaterbacker, and the rest really believe that we can transform Iraq into a smaller, sandier, darker skinned Ohio; with bowling alleys, dry cleaners, chamber of commerce, fat mayors etc... and in their reality we are never leaving Iraq. The invasion was illegal, the lies to the American people were illegal, outing Valerie Plame was illegal. Saying that on July 5th, 2001 that at a meeting they decided to do something about the Al Queda threat is great, but then there should be some evidence of increased security, memos ordering more Air Marshalls, National Guardsmen at airports, a f*cking warning to Americans of the danger. You'll post links showing that, right?

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    Is this PPJ guy a right-wing plant? How does he complain about personal attacks while launching several to commence his every post? The root cause of 9/11 was Iraq? Oh yeah, the secular police state was a hot-bed of Islamic fervor on that date, Jim. Take your pills, dude. Condi just put the lie to Bush's repeated assertions that Iraq was a threat. She just admitted it was not. Invading Iraq was whacking the kid next to you 'cause the one who spitballed you got away. Perhaps TL has Jim on for entertainment, for if he truly believes that which he spouts, he is a riot.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    [remainder deleted. Warning to commenter to refrain from name-calling.] For the record, those name-callings were sarcastic 3rd person renderings of the prejudice abundantly evident in Bush, Bush-backers, and Bush-commenters like Jim. Rice says that in LEGAL PROCEEDINGS like declarations of war, there are proximate (i.e. guilty) causes, and then there are distal (i.e. not guilty) causes, and it's OK to use an act of war as a justification to attack the innocent, in the obviously RACIST conclusion that all Arabs may be attacked at will, because a US-installed and armed dictator was a dictator. To use a proximal hurricane to dispossess poor blacks further is another example of this 'reasoning.' Rather than "Dead or Alive" Osama bin Laden, as Bush PROMISED, he instead decided that he had the licence to violate the human rights of all Iraqis, in spite of their actual INNOCENCE in the attacks of Nine-eleven. More than that, he and she and they CONCOCTED A SERIES OF BALD-FACED LIES to promote this neocon wetdream, and sold them to all comers (slapping the rest of us in the face for listening). Jim is still a comer, still buying those lies, even after they have been extensively debunked. WHEN does the bill come due for the lying? I hear a bell ringing, but the sensations of guilt may be a long time coming for some deluded ideologues, who fail to draw the obvious correlation between PROXIMATE CAUSE 'standing down of NORAD,' and their heroes' LIES.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    Squeaky writes:
    ppj-and now the gov will not even release the annual terror attack list because the number of attacks has gone exponential.
    As I have noted probably a half dozen times, this is true. The question is why. The answer is simple. We are engaged in a war, so the number of attempts increase. I was going to expand on that point, and then I read:
    I wonder what the actual deal was between Bush Osama, how long before 9/11 had they made it?
    You have now claimed the moonbattiest statement lead from Scar. Peter - Sorry, I hope I didn't insult both of you. Johnny writes:
    but then there should be some evidence of increased security, memos ordering more Air Marshalls, National Guardsmen at airports, a f*cking warning to Americans of the danger
    . Then your complaint and questions should be going to the FAA and the FBI. Especially the FAA who appears to have done nothing. BTW - The exit strategy must be to win. If we leave now, it is a loss. As if you care. Laughing Jackal - If you think refefrring to a comment as being the moonbattiest is an attack you haven't been around here very long. You write:
    The root cause of 9/11 was Iraq?..... Take your pills, dude.
    Kindly note that Peter Guither's question re "root cause" was answered by me in my 01:56PM comment thusly;
    "I see poverty as the root cause."
    Your apology is expected. PIL - Making a statement of something you believe to be true is not a lie. et al - Poverty is the problem. Centuries of poverty, little education, oppression of women, little to no medical care... has led to a distortion of the Islamic faith by a group of Moslems. It allows the fanatics to recruit young men who have no future, so they believe the 72 virgin lies. Give them democracy and you will get rid of poverty. Give'em a CD and girls in jeans. That'll wipe out OBL. And OBL knows that.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    PPJ-Our little illegal war has unleashed a Pandora's box of world terror. All the sympathy of the world toward America received after the horror of 9/11 has turned to hatred against us. It is obvious to all but you that the Iraq war was based on lies and a conspiracy to manipulate congress. As a result America and the world is far less safe.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#24)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    Jim, You didnt like putting terrorists through the criminal justice system, because it did not stop the terrorists. Now, you justify an exponential increase in attacks, because we are "at war". The goal of this war, as you repeatedly state, is to lessen terrorism. Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#25)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    PPJ Said:
    Johnny writes: but then there should be some evidence of increased security, memos ordering more Air Marshalls, National Guardsmen at airports, a f*cking warning to Americans of the danger
    I said no such thing. Until now, I really never took seriously those who accuse you of a lack of reading comprehension. Now I stand with them. Learn to read. Particularly Condi's statements.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    this women is the president right hand person. they all lie a they back each other. our president was a good guy wood never tell a lie and wood keep use safe. will our board are open and two storm have shown that we not safe. fema is not for the poor. we had bad storm in our state and people died and hundred of homes and business where damage but no fema help for our state. and this women who has been the president friend for year can not be trusted.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    Roger - My point is that when you go from a defensive CJ position to an engaged pre-emptive position, you will have more battles. The enemy feels they must respond. Johnny writes:
    I said no such thing.
    Okay, Johnny. Johnnei, where are you??? Johnny's taking heat that he shouldn't have to! But Johnny.... Are you really that far apart on the comment? Darkly - Have I told you lately I don't care about your comments? But, if it makes you feel better, attack away. Squeaky - Look. I can't take you seriously when you write:
    I wonder what the actual deal was between Bush Osama, how long before 9/11 had they made it?
    I mean, come on. As for your typical "illegal war" bit, Read this. linda writes:
    we had bad storm in our state and people died and hundred of homes and business where damage but no fema help for our state.
    linda, can you tell us why the rest of the country should be paying for your storm damage? BTW - What "state?"

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    OK, PPJ, 1st there is a Jonny, and a Johnnei, so please direct any invective to the proper source. 2nd, Then your complaint and questions should be going to the FAA and the FBI. Especially the FAA who appears to have done nothing. Well, since George W is the President, isn't he the Commander in Chief, top dog, CEO President? His wonderful leadership skills should have oozed out from his vacation ranch in Crawford and permeated every level of the Fedrul Govint. 3rd, read Condi's comments. Understand that she is admitting that they let Osama, the murderer of 3000 American's off the hook, because it's hard work, being President. Sometimes ya gotta read. Even on weekends.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    How about.... John... Yes. The Pres is all of that. And like a CEO telling his staff to build a factory, he told them to look out. Surely you don't think he is involved in the details. You are smarter than that. And I read. And no, I don't believe that is what she meant. Darkly - Keep trying. Your fans are depending on you.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#32)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    Sorry Jim, that dog won't hunt. You can't read. No excuses. Also, reading back through this topic, it was you that hurled the first insult. Time for your pill.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#33)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    Jim, I get that point, and it could have some validity, except that's exactly what you were complaining about. Some get jailed = more attacks= not working Some get killed = more attacks = working Doesnt add up

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    Hmmm, well let us see. Johnny writes:
    Also, reading back through this topic, it was you that hurled the first insult. Time for your pill.
    1:04PM – Thread started by Dadler. 1:19PM – PIL writes:
    GREAT! So when does Condi Rice HANG FROM THE NECK UNTIL DEAD? (He also notes:) After they engineered Nine-eleven by standing down NORAD,
    1:22PM – Jim notes:
    So there you have it folks. Straight from the mouth of PIL. W did it. Moonbattiest at its very best.
    Now, let me see. PIL opined that “They” caused 911 and wanted to know when Sec of State Rice gets hung. I said that was moonbattiest at its very best. I stand by my statement. BTW - In all of the above, bad reading ability and all, I managed to put up two links to support my statements. Your side put up none, just statements claims and venom. Roger - It's the quantity that counts. Jail 20, 30 or kill 20,000, 30,000. But it isn't about that. The strategy, as you know, is to stabilize Iraq as a democracy, and pressure the rest of the countries into reform. Will it work? I think so. Because if it doesn't, it is going to get very ugly.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#36)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    Jim, I think that your numbers are off. Quite a few terrorists were locked up, worldwide. I believe that Israel jailed at least 1,000. I also think that we have killed far fewer than 20,000, while at the same time creating conditions favorable to the recruitment of new jihadists. Iraq as a democracy? Stratfor (subscription, so no link, sorry) considers that quite the long shot scenario. I tend to agree with their position. Quantity has been the argument (so far) for the exact opposite of what you state. There were so many attacks, that it seemed that the criminal system was ineffective. Now you are willing to accept a creater number of attacks. I think that you should re-think your position. BTW- see, debate can be insult free!

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#37)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    BBC reports:
    The US military says it has killed 70 insurgents in west Iraq, although witnesses say most were civilians.
    Progress continues, and continues.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    One of the most intrepid war journalists, Robert Fisk, has been reduced to becoming a mouse. He is one of the few journalist still writing from the ground nn in bed with the troops. Roger, I think your casualty figures are off by quite a bit.
    The strategy, as you know, is to stabilize Iraq as a democracy, and pressure the rest of the countries into reform. Will it work? I think so. Because if it doesn't, it is going to get very ugly.
    Well PPJ stability seems out of the question, unless you call anarchy stablle. The one thing that has united the Iraqi people is their hatred of America and Britian. having Iraq as a base is out of the question. Bush's imperial greed is the big problem. He is blinded by the PNAC plan to controling the Mid-East.
    "It has got to the stage where, for example, when I went to have a look at the scene of a huge bomb in a bus station, I jumped out of the car and took two pictures before I was surrounded by a crowd of enraged Iraqis. "I jumped back in the car and fled. I call that ‘mouse journalism' — and that's all we can do now. "If I go to see someone in any particular location, I give myself 12 minutes, because that is how long I reckon it takes a man with a mobile phone to summon gunmen to the scene in a car. "So, after 10 minutes I am out. Don't be greedy. That's what reporting is like in Iraq." He continued: "This country is nowhell — a disaster. You cannot imagine how bad it is. Nothing of the reporting I see generally, except The Guardian and Patrick Cockburn in The Independent, really conveys the absolute agony and distress of Iraq. "The Ministry of Health, which is partly run by Americans, will not give out any figures for civilian casualties; staff are just not allowed to give us these figures. "When I went to the city morgue in Baghdad one day nearly four weeks ago, I arrived at 9am and there were nineviolent death corpses there. "By midday there were 26 corpses. When I managed to get access to the computer system of the mortuary, I discovered that in July 1,100 Iraqis had been killed in Baghdad alone. "Multiply that across Iraq and you are talking about 3,000 a month or more, which means 36,000 a year. "So these figures claiming 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties are not necessarily conservative at all. But no-one wants to report on this. That's Iraq today — it's in a state of anarchy, and many areas of Baghdad are in fact now in insurgent hands." He added: "This is a war the like of which I have never reported before. And it is getting much worse, not better — don't believe what Blair is telling you.
    Emphasis mine Fisk

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#39)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    Squeaky, I was talking about dead terrorists, not dead Iraqis. They are not neccessarily the same, but there must be some overlap. I am sure that Iraqi dead are way over 20,000. I am also sure that dead terrorists (of any nationality, and not even in Iraq) number well under 20,000. That number came from Jim, PPJ. It was never my number for anything. Sorry for the confusion, I could have been clearer

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    Roger- Here are some stats on insurgent deaths:
    According to the military, it kills or captures 1,000 to 3,000 insurgents a month. Its estimate of the insurgency, however, is a mere 12,000 to 20,000 fighters. Something is clearly wrong. Simple math indicates we have destroyed the insurgency several times over since it started.
    NYT

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    The truth will not set us free; thoughts on the psychology of political attitudes.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#42)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    Squesky, And you believe that?

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    Roger-Do I believe what? I think the NYT article is good but I certainly do not believe the military propaganda about insurgent numbers. The military reports look foolish. What is troubling though is that the US military is dressing up as arabs in order to terrorize the Sunni's and inflame a civil war. Remember the two Brits that were caught in Basra with a remote bomb device in their car. They were dressed in arab garb, arrested, and 'rescued' by British tanks that broke down the prison wall.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    Roger - That's nits and frits. You know what my point is. ;-) Insult free? What would PIL have to say??? Squeak - Let me summarize his comments. War is hell. In the meantime, progress is made. You just continually look for any excuse to criticize. No problem. That is your right. But don't think that people don't understand that, and discount your comments accordingly.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#45)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    So condilair once again spouts the bushco lie that 9/11 = iraq. A proven lie that the admin had admitted to, but still trots out. Uhhh, under that same illogic, we should have attacked ... ahh heck, there's no justifying what we did.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    "ahh heck, there's no justifying what we did" Sure there is, and Jim knows it. We invaded Iraq to make a LOT of money for the Bushco Companies, to remove the National Guard from the country in case it becomes possible to institute a regional federal martial law, and to install fifteen airbases, to support the new pipeline-airbases in Afghanistan, and the Tajik oil complex, as well as a base for further illegal operations against ME countries, to wit: "(Iraq), Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Somalia" and "partition Saudi Arabia." Left off the list is the eventual destruction of Israel, but why rush things?

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    Thanks Jim for proving that the Iraq war could indeed be considered an illegal war. I actually read the Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 that you used to say that Iraq was a legal war. First, no where in the "whereas" in the authorization does it say "we need to free Iraq and set up a democracy". Here is the part that stated what the president was authorized to do: SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to— (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Gosh, Jim where does it say the US should set up a democracy in Iraq? You do realize that this is now the "reason" we invaded Iraq. Under "Presidential Determination" I found this little gem:
    (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that— (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. Again nothing about giving the Iraqis "God's gift of freedom". Bush himself has said that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Also, this shows that congress gave Bush "a stick" in dealing with Iraq, but the when, how, and if was left to the president. This "war" was a dream of the Bush administration since 1998.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    Before Jim cries, I need to correct something in my last post. I should have said "some in the Bush administration", because the letter was signed by many people that were in the Bush administration when it invaded Iraq and was involved with the planning and executing of the war.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    Gee debbie, it's not my party, so why should I cry?? BTW - That government document has been around for quite sometimes, and I find it funny that you are the first to say that it proves the war illegal... Oh, but you're not saying that. You're saying we should have just left when we didn't find WMD's... Perhaps you should pay attention to the continuing threat thing and then read the Kay Report, or just this CNN transcript of Kay. Read it. They were working on some pretty nasty stuff.

    Re: Condi Rice on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    You're right again Jim:
    we didn't find WMD's That was my point. The authorization was given to the president to use force to protect the US from WMD's not "spreading democracy". The site that you linked was what Kay had to say on October 2, 2003 before he completed the investigation. In this transcript he said:
    We are still very much in the collection and analysis mode, still seeking the information and evidence that will allow us to confidently draw comprehensive conclusions to the actual objectives, scope, and dimensions of Iraq's WMD activities at the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom. David Kay testified on January 28, 2004 in a Senate hearing about not finding WMD's:
    Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.
    See, you were right we didn't find WMD's. Jim, you read the authorization, you linked it. Did it authorize Bush to invade Iraq to free the Iraqis and set up a democracy? NO IT DID NOT, thus this invasion could indeed be called illegal. You should really read stuff before you use it.

    Condi Rice on Meet the Press | 45 comments (45 topical)