<< Did you see all that dancing and celebrating in the streets?!?!?!? Did you see all those smiling faces and happy Iraqis?!?!!?? >>

There were isolated incidences which were small. Pulling down the Saddam statue was staged. I didn't see anything on the scale of what was claimed was going to happen when we went in as "liberators."

Aslo as Chomsky points out, the Iraqis are not as happy with us as you seem to believe. MOST think we are occupiers not liberators and MOST want us to leave.

"Turning to another poll where this question was asked recently. How do you regard the coalition forces? Are they an occupying force or a liberating force? By five to one, they were called - an occupying force. Should the coalition forces leave? By five to three, Iraqis wanted them to leave. That's a remarkable figure, because about 95% of the population also reports that the security situation is much worse than it was before the invasion. And the only thing that's keeping any kind of a lid on it is the occupying forces. But nevertheless, by a very substantial majority, they want them to leave." -Noam Chomsky


Nearly all the Iraqis hated Saddam. only a very very small amount of people actually chose to work with such a man. in that small group is US policy makers who made the decision to work with this man. When will these people be held accountable? Yes, I know Iraqis that dealt with him will be held accountable but what about the US policy makers that worked with this man?

<< It must really drive MR nuts that Egypt suggested that Israel and Egypt set up an economic trade zone for their mutual benefit as well. >>

The danger to our lives is that it will drive others nuts. Answer this: why should 35% of a population get away with imposing a discriminatory system against the wishes of 67% of the people? Can you answer that or not. Your assumption that Israel is wonderful is based on ignorance or stubbornness you can't tough the question because it exposes the fundamental injustice of Israel.

Message 1 of 2 Subject 6 of 50
Subject: Re: YES it was illegal (and Richard Perle has even admitted it now)
Date: Sun, Nov 30, 2003 11:55 PM
From: MediaReform
MsgId: <20031130235555.03386.00066088@mbs-r11.aol.com>


<< Media:You just don't want to admit that the President lied to you about why America was attacked.


To me someone who wants a Taliban style Government in Afghanistan or any other country is an enemy of freedom. That simple. >>


Boy you are jumping through hoops trying to get your guy off the hook.
The fact is WE WERE NOT ATTACKED BECAUSE THEY "HATE FREEDOM" are you two years old? And what is your leap of "logic" between wanting a Taliban style of government and attacking the US? Are you pretending the motive is not objection to US polices or are you admitting it but trying to invent a sleazy excuse for why what bush said isn't a lie?

It really is sad that you are so intellectually dishonest that you would attempt such BS just so you can avoid the fact that Bush lied. And your "enemy of freedom" crap is too much. You are brainwashed. And you try desperately to twist things to conform to the official line. But of course people that wanted a Taliban style of Government in Afghanistan were "freedom fighters" when it suits the propaganda goal. So we had Reagan calling the same agenda a fight for freedom and claiming the Mujahideen were "freedom fighters", and you lap it all up because you obediently mouth the party line. what more do you need to see that you are brainwashed? you can pat yourself on the back all you want for making up excuses for your glorious leader but all you really are doing is making a fool out of yourself and hurting this country.

and you are wrong about the "they are nuts" theory. this has been discussed by experts and the terrorists were not "nuts". first of all we have had Americans willing to carry out a suicide mission so stop acting like it is so odd. second, if you want to lessen the likelihood that Americans are going to become targets then you remove the motivation of the people attacking the US. not doing so shows you are either a fool or you have some agenda.
you should look into Nat Turner and the history surrounding that. you can dance around all you want insisting that all of Nat Turners accomplices were "nuts" and that they attacked for no reason (which a newspaper at the time insisted! not much has changed has it?) the point is even if Nat Turner was saying things that were very religious and spoke of visions, the bottom line is that it was wrongs against the blacks that motivated the followers of Nat Turner to attack.
So it was the polices that really gave the motivation.
The same holds with those that carry out bin LAden's fatwa.
what I see is these guys focusing on the polices, I haven't even seen any terrorists statements fixating on setting up an Islamic State, what I have seen is them obsessed with the policies.

A German friend of Mohammed Atta quoted as describing him as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."


The shoe bomber (Richard Reid) has said:"The reason for me sending you (a document he calls his "will") is so you can see that I didn't do this act out of ignorance nor did I just do it because I want to die, but rather because I see it as a duty upon me to help remove the oppressive American forces from the Muslim land and that this is the only way for us to do so as we do not have other means to fight them."

When Nat Turner and his followers attacked, it was about objection to unjust polices, it did not make the policy of slavery OK. If you really cared about lessening the chance that dozens of blacks would from black terrorists groups to kill whites then yes ENDING THE UNJUST POLICES WAS THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION. Is the Nat Turner analogy to complicated for you?

you for some reason feel an obligation to continue to put America in harm's way so that special interests can continue their unjust polices. Bush and others have lied to us, we are under no obligation to continue with these polices. George Tenet half quotes bin Laden in order to avoid mentioning the motive! He left this out (it was part of the same sentence he quoted from, he so wants to deceive the public that he chops up the bin Laden sentence he quotes from leaving this out: "... in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim." are you frightened to admit that these people are intentionally deceiving the American people about why we were attacked?

WHAT THE HELL DOES IT TALE FOR YOU TO GET IT INTO YOUR HEAD THAT THEY ARE LYING TO US? WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR YOU TO BE A MAN AND INSIST THAT THESE PEOPLE DON'T MAKE FOOLS OUT OF US!

<< I'm pro-life, yet I find people who kill in the name of stopping abortion to be just as crazy as Osama. >>
would reporting that some "Christian terrorists attacked freedom" be legit? no mention of abortion or the circumstances, just reporting that these Christian terrorists "hate freedom," you don't think that would be really dishonest and manipulative?

From then uintil now the deal is the same. US polciy makers facing the "aganizing problem" of how to reconcile a formal commitment to democracy and freedom with the overriding fact that "the US may often need to do terrible things to get what it wanted"

The "US" being dominate wealth's policy makers.

<< MediaReform do you know any versions of history that Chomsky didn't explain? You can't even say how World War 2 started without getting your filters on first. You don't know how the US enetered WW2 without researching it? Come on.
>>

Is this really too complicated for you?
the question was not how the US entered WWII. The question was when did the US policy makers decided that Hitler had threatened US interests.
the context is that it wasn't the minute that Germany declared war on us. are you following this at all?
the point is what wrongs business elites are willing to commite in the name of profit. we are talking about how US policiy makers supported Hitler and specifically how they saw Hitler's fascsim as a way to penetrate economically Europe and to undermine much feared labor movements and the left.
"The rise of facism in the interwar period elicited concern, but was generally regarded reather favorably by the US and British governments, the busines world, and a good deal of elite opinion.

Hitler was chosen as the representative of the moderates who promised "social order, anti-Bolshevik laws, and protection for foreign capital," Schmitz observes. The American chargé d'affaires in Berlin wrote Washington in 1933 that the hope for Germany lay in "the more moderate section of the [Nazi] party, headed by Hitler himself...which appeal[s] to all civilized and reasonable people," and seems to have "the upper hand" over the violent fringe. In 1937, the State Department saw Fascism as compatible with U.S. economic interests. A report of the European Division explained its rise as the natural reaction of "the rich and middle classes, in self-defense" when the "dissatisfied masses, with the example of the Russian revolution before them, swing to the Left." Fascism therefore "must succeed or the masses, this time reinforced by the disillusioned middle classes, will again turn to the left." Not until European Fascism attacked U.S. interests directly did it become an avowed enemy.

and that includeds Italian fascism. State Department roving Ambassador Norman Davis praised the successes of Italy in remarks before the Council on Foreign Relations in 1933, speaking after the Italian ambassador had drawn applause from his distinguished audience for his description of how Italy had put its “own house in order . . . A class war was put down.” 

George Keenan wrote in April 1941 that German leaders have no wish to see other people suffer and that they are "most anxious that their new subjects should be happy in their care".

This is about what rich and powerful men are willing to do for profit. Engand was even more supportive of Hitler becasue of industrail, commercial and financial reasons and "a policy of self-preservation for the British establishment".

people screaming liberal are ignorant. I noticed that many people LIKE the idea that the media is "liberal" and by that they mean politiaclly and in relation to US policies. YET I don't think these people have ever made the efort to check their assumtions. The LA times is often given as an example. yet here is another reality check:

Yahoo! News - L.A. Times Bans 'Resistance Fighters' in Iraq News
L.A. Times Bans 'Resistance Fighters' in Iraq News
Wed Nov 5, 9:20 PM ET
Add Entertainment - Reuters Industry to My Yahoo!

By Dan Whitcomb

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The Los Angeles Times has ordered its reporters to stop describing anti-American forces in Iraq (news - web sites) as "resistance fighters," saying the term romanticizes them and evokes World War II-era heroism.

The ban was issued by Melissa McCoy, a Times assistant managing editor, who told the staff in an e-mail circulated on Monday night that the phrase conveyed unintended meaning and asked them to instead use the terms "insurgents" or "guerrillas."

McCoy told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday that the memo followed a discussion among top editors at the paper and was not sparked by reader complaints. The memo first surfaced on the Web site L.A. Observed (www.laobserved.com)

"(Times Managing Editor) Dean Baquet and I both individually had the same reaction when we saw the term used in the newspaper," McCoy said. "Both of us felt the phrase evoked a certain feeling, that there was a certain romanticism or heroism to the resistance."

McCoy said she considered "resistance fighters" an accurate description of Iraqis battling American troops, but it also evoked World War II -- specifically the French Resistance or Jews who fought against Nazis in the Warsaw ghetto.

"Really, it was something that just stopped us when we saw it, and it was really about the way most Americans have come to view the words," McCoy said.

McCoy said she was confident that the Times reporters who used the term had no intention of romanticizing the Iraqis who have killed more than 100 U.S. soldiers since Washington declared major combat over in May, and that the paper's Baghdad bureau had no objection to the policy change.

NOT COOL OR NEUTRAL

The policy change reflects the highly politicized atmosphere surrounding the war in Iraq, which has brought charges of biased reporting from all sides of the political spectrum.

McCoy said she did not know how many readers had made complaints about the use of the term.

"We are loath to proscribe the use of just about any word," she said. "But sometimes certain combinations of words send an unintended signal. You combine these two seemingly innocuous words and suddenly they have this unintended meaning."

Allan Siegal, assistant managing editor of the New York Times, told Reuters that he agreed with the decision made by his West Coast rivals.

"We don't have a policy but when you mentioned the phrase it sounded like romanticizing to me," Siegal said. "I don't think it's the kind of cool, neutral language we like to see."

But David Hoffman, foreign editor of the Washington Post, said his paper had used the phrase "resistance fighters" to describe Iraqi forces and had no objection to the term.

"They are resisting an American occupation so it's not inaccurate," Hoffman said. "We try to be as precise as possible and distinguish whether they are former Baath party, Fedayeen, outsiders, insiders. But that's not always possible."

According to a search of the Lexis-Nexis database, The Los Angeles Times has employed the term "resistance fighters" dozens of times in the past six months, including three references on Monday.

On Tuesday, the day after McCoy issued her memo, the paper used it in an editorial, which criticized the Bush administration for a lack of humility and candor over Iraq.

Al-qeada's motive remains the same and they are still carrying out attacks.
Bush lied about why we were attacked. Bush lied about 9/11 terrorists' motives. For those that can't get it into their heads: al-qeada's motives are not that the "hate freedom". Are we supposed to believe that al-qeada attacked Saudi Arabia because they "hate freedom"? The latest al-qeada attacks, are a continuation of attacks that included attacks within Saudi Arabia before 9/11. The lie that Bush told has been exposed by the actual words of Mohammed Atta and Osama bin Laden. Objection to specific foreign policies has been listed by the FBI as the motives for 9/11. The latest attacks against Saudi Arabia are just more evidence of the fact that is specific polices and political objectives that are the motives for al-qeada's attacks. Bush lied to America in order to serve special interests that don't want the specific foreign polices to be changed. We don't owe Bush or these special interest a damn thing. For God sakes, Bush lied to the nation about why we were attacked. I know there are many people who condemn Presidents for lying. Can there be anything lower than lying to the nation about why we are in harm's way?

Seems that people come on here desperately trying to defend the foreign policies and actions of the US. Seems they are ignorant of what agendas the US foreign policy makers serve. And it also seems that these people swallow every lie fed to them by our government.

Now the thing that gets me is fine someone may be wrong BUT when it is pointed out and proven you should have the integrity to admit it.

Here is just the latest example:

Someone here can't get it into their head that the "no fly zones" were illegal. At some point they quote a spokesman for the US Central Command who claims that UN Resolution 949 (15 Oct 1994) reinforced the legality of these no fly zones and that it bared Iraq from moving SAMs into the southern no-fly zone. http://www.dawn.com/2001/01/30/int1.htm

This person asks me "Why would the UN pass this resolution if the No Fly Zones were not condoned by them?"

OK fine, this person believes the spokesman YET the point is when I point out that UN Resolution 949 (15 Oct 1994) DOESN'T reinforce the "legality" of the no fly zones, that the resolution makes no mention of the no fly zones that the spokesman plainly lied - the person asking me disappears.

point after point is proven to these people and then they run away (and presumable continue repeating the same lies somewhere else)

It is one thing to have a wrong idea BUT is something else entirely to continue these dishonest tactics. When it is PROVEN to you that what you thought is indeed wrong, have the integrity to admit it will you please?

We need to stop generalizations like "the Saudis" do this or that.
Lets not start making excuses for another war of aggression al-qeada's goal is to overthrow the Saudi Kingdom. The Saudis are not attempting to aid al-qeda in attacking itself or its business partner the US. I would be very careful about this "go after the Saudis" talk. The involvement looks to be in the violent elements about the same as the US's involvement. So lets not distort things because I don't hear you saying lets "go after the Americans." In many respects this makes about as much sense. The Saudi Kingdom is intimately linked economically with the US and the Saudi Kingdom does not want to end the business relationship. The Saudi government does not have a reason to attack the US. The issues that bin Laden has are not an issues for the very fact that the Saudi kingdom decides to do the things bin Laden objects to. So bin Laden's complaint is that the US is backing the Saudi government. The American public has such a poor grasp of the issues that irresponsible talk like "going after the Saudis" is dangerous.
Just think a minute, bin Laden attacks the US because of the US support of Saudi Arabia in implementing polices of troops in Saudi Arabia. Also bin Laden doesn't think the kingdom is religious enough according to his tastes. If the Saudi government agreed with these bin Laden grievances then they simply would implement these polices. It is totally illogical to think that they would have to attack the main country that supports them in keeping their current polices. If they didn't want the polices they could end them. (talk as loose and vague as your is dangerous because the American public is dangerously ignorant. A freighting number of Americans don't even know why we were targeted by al-qeda. it is irrational and wrong to insinuate that the Saudi government has a goal of helping al-qeda attack the US) the issue of what individual people did what and what was happening in the interactions is something that has to be looked at fairly. I hear too many loose cannons like Michael Moore in effect giving excuses for more aggression with such a vague and unclear message. The US helped these fundamentalists too and at times with the Saudis and others. So lets not distort and selectively pick issues since that creates a false impression. What I see is talk like this as the early propaganda to lay the groundwork for more wars of imperialism.

You still have not responded to this: Notice how that contrary to the lie you were fed, Brzezinski admits that the US was stirring up the fundamentalists BEFORE the Soviet troops were there. Their lies don't bother you huh? You don't feel that the powers that be in America made a fool out of you?

<< Still don't know what "yellow rain" is? >>

a chemical. I knew, do you think that justifies using terrorism against the Afghani government before the Soviets intervened militarily?? You are desperately trying to make excuses for the US inflicting terrorism on the Afghanis. WHY IS THIS?
So what the Soviet military used after we started to inflict Afghanistan with foreign terrorists somehow makes everything done by the US OK?
What are you doing?
Being an American doesn't mean grasping at excuses for the actions of US policy makers. Was it OK what Enron did? Remember, they were Americans, you wouldn't want to be "anti-American" would you?

I have given you info that shows we were fed lies and that we supported terrorism. That we hurt the Afghanis horrible by subjecting them to what they called "the Arabs" (fundamentalist Islamist terrorists) And still you want to make excuses? I must be some world you live in, filled with self righteous excuses.


<< The trap is a reference to Vietnam, the trap we were pulled into. You have no sense of history do you? >>

Yes, I know and it was sick to do so. Notice that Brezinski says NOTHING about helping Afghanistan, he makes it clear that the motive is to give the Soviets a "trap" YET YOU CREATE THIS IDEA that "we must have been doing it for the good of the Afghanis"! you really are to much.

As far as Vietnam, hasn't enough time past for you to finally come to terms with the fact that what the US did was outrageously wrong? The 1954 Geneva agreements did not "partition" Vietnam but separated two military zones by a temporary demarcation line that "should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary," pending the unification elections of 1956 that were the heart of the accords. Elections were supposed to be held, unifying the country. The Geneva agreement divided into two zones, not two countries; our government lied about this. The US backed Diem who refused to go through with the 1954 provision calling for nationwide elections in 1956. THIS is going against democracy! Why did Diem refuse? Because he knew as did others that he would lose the election, President Eisenhower said that Ho Chi Minh would win 90% of the vote in a free election. The CIA supported the repressive Vietnamese ruling the South--who were not only repressive but were also greedy. WE HAD NO RIGHT TO DO THIS! (The Vietnamese have a right to govern themselves and vote for the system they want!) We blocked elections in Vietnam because it was obvious Ho Chi Minh was going to win there. If the majority of the people wanted Ho Chi Min, we HAD NOT RIGHT to attack Vietnam to undermine their decisions. The Kennedy administration escalated the attack against South Vietnam from massive state terror to outright aggression in 1961-1962. We were not 'defending' South Vietnam. As Chomsky says, "I have never seen in thirty years that I have been looking carefully, one phrase even suggesting that we were not defending South Vietnam. Now, we weren't: we were attacking South Vietnam. We were attacking South Vietnam as clearly as any aggression in history. But try to find one phrase anywhere in any American newspaper, outside of real marginal publications, just stating that elementary fact. It's unstable." footnote #10Understanding Power Chapter 2 Footnotes

<< The US was fighting the spread of Communism, not attempting to spread fundamentalist Islam. >>


First of all, the Afghani system at the time was an incredible advancement for the Afghanis.
Second, the "fight against the spread of Communism" was immoral and outrageous. If people want a different system of government, they have the damn right to have one. The US has no right to attack foreign countries whose only "crime" is a different economic system.

<< Zbigniew Brzezinski was right. >>

You should be ashamed of yourself. After 9/11 your comment is really offensive, do you have ANY sense of decency?

You danced around the fact that the US inflicted Afghanistan with thousands of foreigners with a fundamentalist agenda. You don't want to admit it but yes the US did spread fundamentalist Islam.
You are in denial.

<< those silly muslims, they just didn't know what was best for them, they opposed secular Communism being forced on them, >>

Whoa, who the hell is "them"? Did you read the article or not? Did anyone ask us to topple the Afghani government using terrorism? Did anyone even ask us to topple the government by any means at all?
Where do you get this stuff that "the Muslims" wanted us to do what we did?

Even if you wanted to do something outrageous like change the political system against the wishes of the NATIVE people, Your "logic" that "gee whiz, I guess we have to use fundamentalists to do it" is CRAZY. Do you realize how insane it is what you are arguing? That is like looking at a certain situation in the US and making the leap of "guess we have to pump up the Mob to handle this".

After 9/11 can't you for a moment use your head and see the evil that the US inflicted on the Afghanis? Did you like the way 9/11 felt? No? Then why do you think the Afghanis would like it? YES the terrorists killed teachers and other civilians that were bringing modernity. GREAT JOB US PLANNERS!! It is a fact that the US recruited ex-Nazis, we can see that with the Afghanistan example US policy makers had no trouble using ruthless tactics for selfish goals. Did you miss the point Brzezinski never said the secret plan was to benefit the Afghanis? (You are too much the way you assume it "must have been for the benifit of the Afghanis since the US was doing it" EVEN AFTER YOU READ THE WORDS OF A MAIN PLANNER OF THE DIABOLICAL PLAN!!

what is this fanatical devotion to US policy makers? You really are incredibly brainwashed!! Even when you see the facts right in front of you, you can't stop falling over yourself making excuses for these men! Why? Because these men managed to get themselves into position of US policy making? So then the automatically become noble and good? You don't even mind being fed lies (like that we were responding to Soviet troops invading when the truth was we financed and trained terrorists to draw the Soviets in. why the hell are you going to start using your head?

Where do you get all these assumptions? Notice how that contrary to the lie you were fed, Brzezinski admits that the US was stirring up the fundamentalists BEFORE the Soviet troops were there. Their lies don't bother you huh? You continue along without skipping a beat. Seriously, it doesn't bother you that we were lied to? You totally ignored the massive deception!

<< Communism and leftists like Hitler killed more in the last century than we will ever know >>

Before WWII we supported Hitler in order to undermine Communism. And Hitler was not a "leftist".

<< Now you are saying in was the US who caused the USSR to invade Afghanistan? >>

Zbigniew Brzezinski: "Regret what? That secret operation [the CIA backing of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists] was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?"
Zbigniew Brzezinski: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" Quoting Zbigniew Brzezinski Jan, 1998*This interview was deleted from the version of Le Nouvel Observateur sent to the US) [this translation into English by Blum]
From 1977 to 1981, Zbigniew Brzezinski was National Security Advisor to the President of the United States.

<< You leftists are ...blah blah blah>> << If Communists drag stone age peoples into modern times, it's progressive, if Capitalist countries do the same, it's imperialistic. >>

Look, you were wrong. The Afghanis were making progress under their governments at the time. Are you totally detached from reality? The US wasn't bring modernity, THE US WAS SUPPORTING THE FUNDAMENTALIST AGENDA THAT BIN LADEN SHARES!! THe US was supporting fundamentalist terrorists. You can bury your head in the sand if you want but it doesn't change the facts.

<< That tells me a lot comrade. The good old USSR was just responding to our evil intentions, never having harmed a fly without the provocation of the "evil Americans." >>
Look, the overall effects of the Afghani government at that time were incredibly positive. Can you dispute the info I posted? No. So then you make an ass out of yourself by calling me "comrade"

The Afghanis had so many positive advancements under that government (did you read the info or not?). The CIA backed Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists with the goal of drawing the Russians into the "Afghan trap".
How nuts are you that you can't admit that yes THIS WAS EVIL TO DO!!

<< By the way, Carter was president 1976-1980, so most of what happened before 1980 was the responsibility of a Democratic regime, not Reagan >>
SO WHAT? Is this supposed to be some great revelation? Carter and Reagan were both corrupt. (I know, the idea that BOTH the Democrats and Republicans can be corrupt blows your little mind. I guess I am supposed to pick one of them then irrationally makes excuses for them right?)
Carter's NSA Brzezinski was a sick bastard. AND look at Reagan, he called these Fundamentalist Terrorists "freedom fighters"!! These terrorists were attacking the best chance the Afghanis ever had AND THE US WAS SUPPORTING THEM! Obviously you don't give a damn what was done to the Afghanis but I would think that after 9/11 you would get some sense of the evil we did to the Afghanis after the same kind of Fundamentalist Terrorists we inflicted on the Afghanis attacked us on 9/11. What the hell does it take for you to wake up?

<< Why is it that the media just lately has begun to bring up issues about Bush that we all knew a long time ago, but the media never used it against him during the last year? >>


Because it isn't about one man. The media is still operating within the parameters of the two major parties and those parties operate within parameters that the rich and powerful want.

So the media isn't telling the whole truth. When confronted with such a clear case of lies about WMD in front of everyone reporters are simply responding to that. what they haven't said is the war was illegal. what they haven't said is it violated US law as well since according to our Constitution a treaty we sigh becomes law of the land. O the media is still serving big power. the media is doing what it did in Vietnam, calling for the war to be fought better and worrying about some costs and lives. what the media hasn't done is show that it is indeed imperialism. examples don't make it into the nightly news. The main thing is those in power got the war they wanted and you notice that the top Democratic presidential candidates all want to continue the imperialism. Only Kucinich calls for an end to this and CNN gave him the least amount of time in the debates when supposedly they were to get equal time. The media is still serving the dominate forces. Enough time has passed since 9/11 that some feel more brave to nibble around the corners. Publishers were unwilling to publish a book like David Corn's a year a go. YET THE MEDIA HASN'T PICKED UP ON ONE OF THE LIES IN THE BOOK: Bush lied about why we were attacked. (this lie serves the dominate forces so it doesn't get exposure. ) The medai responds to power and Democrats have made the WMD an issue so it does get play. Even though the media questions WMD, notice the media isn't questioning the imperialism, the media plays along with the idea that the US has noble intentions.

<< I take it from this comment that you view the USSR's puppet government in Afghanistan in the 80s as "progressive"? That is the funniest thing I have ever heard. >>


That is because you haven't been exposed to the facts. First of all, I am talking about the government of Afghanistan before 1980. It is before 1980 that the US policy makers decided to support fundamentalist terrorists in order to destroy the Afghani Gov. and draw the USSR into Afghanistan.

Yes, the reforms the Afghanistan government were making were improving the lives of the Afganis. (that is progressive) The US inflicted them with misery.

"Afghanistan was a backward nation: a life expectancy of about 40, infant mortality of at least 25 percent, absolutely primitive sanitation, widespread malnutrition, illiteracy of more than 90 percent, very few highways, not one mile of railway, most people living in nomadic tribes or as impoverished farmers in mud villages, identifying more with ethnic groups than with a larger political concept, a life scarcely different from many centuries earlier.
    Reform with a socialist bent was the new government's ambition: land reform (while still retaining private property), controls on prices and profits, and strengthening of the public sector, as well as separation of church and state, eradication of illiteracy, legalization of trade unions, and the emancipation of women in a land almost entirely Muslim."-William Blum p339 Killing Hope

Yes, I call what the government was doing progressive compared to what it was and then what it became thanks to the US.

"The Afghan government was trying to drag the country into the 20th century. In May 1979, British political scientist Fred Halliday observed that "probably more has changed in the countryside over the last year than in the two centuries since the state was established." Peasant debts to landlords had been canceled, the system of usury (by which peasants, who were forced to borrow money against future crops, were left in perpetual debt to money-lenders) was abolished, and hundreds of schools and medical clinics were being built in the countryside."-William Blum p340 Killing Hope

 The new government reforms tackled issues like "Islamic subjugation of women by outlawing child marriage and the giving of a woman in marriage in exchange for money or commodities, and teaching women to read, at a time when certain Islamic sectors were openly calling for the reinforcement of purdah, the seclusion of women from public observation. Halliday noted that the People's Democratic Party saw the Soviet Union as the only realistic source of support for the long-overdue modernization.{7} The illiterate Afghan peasant's ethnic cousins across the border in the Soviet Union were, after all, often university graduates and professionals.
    The argument of the Moujahedeen ("holy warriors") rebels that the "communist" government would curtail their religious freedom was never borne out in practice. A year and a half after the change in government, the conservative British magazine The Economist reported that "no restrictions had been imposed on religious practice". -William Blum p340-341 Killing Hope

The people were definitely benefiting. WE TURNED IT INTO A FULL SCALE WAR ZONE. We supported terrorists whose goal was to undo the progress of the government. US policy makers plotted that if we backed these terrorist, the Soviets would be drawn into the conflict. (we subjected Afghanis to hell for purely political reasons of giving the Soviets a hard time)

"AFGHANISTAN 1979-1992 America's Jihad
His followers first gained attention by throwing acid in the faces
of women who refused to wear the veil. CIA and State Department
officials I have spoken with call him "scary," "vicious," "a fascist,"
"definite dictatorship material".{1}
    This did not prevent the United States government from showering the man with large amounts of aid to fight against the Soviet- supported government of Afghanistan. His name was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. He was the head of the Islamic Party and he hated the United States almost as much as he hated the Russians. His followers screamed "Death to America" along with "Death to the Soviet Union", only the Russians were not showering him with large amounts of aid.{2}
    The United States began supporting Afghan Islamic fundamentalists in 1979 despite the fact that in February of that year some of them had kidnapped the American ambassador in the capital city of Kabul, leading to his death in the rescue attempt."
From the chapter AFGHANISTAN 1979-1992 America's Jihadin Killing Hope by Willaim Blum

How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen 

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries

<< However, you just can't get around the fact that the policies Bin Laden said the US held that he objected to were WRONG! >>

No Cookie. You made this "fact" up. Show me a link where bin Laden complains about a policy that the UShas nothing to do with and says the US is to blame for it.

Just because bin Laden complains about a particular thing it doesn't mean that everything he complains about he is saying the US is at fault. Show me a link to your "proof."
<< Because I proved to you that Bin Laden was wrong >>
Again, no you haven't.

<< But the ONLY ones Bin Laden got right were our support for Israel and the fact we had a military presence in Saudi Arabia. All the others were wrong. >>

we don't prop up undemocratic and oppressive leaders?

<< That means it was NOT our policies that led to his desire to attack us after all. >>
this is not logical at all. If bin Laden mistakenly thought that the US was guilty of a specific policy and it turns out the US isn't, it doesn't mean he isn't reacting to what he thinks is US policies.
you seriously need to take a class in basic logic.
What you are saying doesn't make sense at all.
Bin Laden says and the FBI says that Al-Qeada are reacting to specific foreign polices.

<< that we need to alter our policies in favor of murderous thugs >>

Whoa whoa don't sell that crap here. The polices are wrong. Those polices are wrong whether we were attacked because of them or we weren't. The polices don't become good just because we were attacked over them.
Should we have never ended salver because some slaves dared to use terrorism? Use your head.
bin Laden said: "The Western regimes and the government of the US bear the blame for what might happen. If their people do not wish to be harmed inside their very own countries, they should seek to elect governments that are truly representative of them and that can protect their interests."
So does that mean we shouldn't seek to elect governments that are truly representative of our interets? ANSWER THAT PLEASE. SHould we not seek truly representative leaders since bin Laden called for us to do so?
GIVE ME AN ANSWER.

<< You are an apologist for Bin Laden >>

I never made excuses for bin Laden. The method (terrorism) and the governmental agenda is not something to support. The difference is I say is the method and governmental agenda was always something not to support. You guys make excuses for when the US supported the same agenda: funding and training terrorist to attack the progressive government of Afghanistan in order to establish a fundamentalist government.

Insisting on legal and moral actions from US policy makes is not "despising America." It is no more "despising America" than insisting that other members of our society obey the law and act morally. Is it "despising America" to point out that Enron was crooked? Of course not. Don't sell such a foolish idea that when people get into government that they must be excused for any actions they are responsible for.

Your tactic of labeling people that insist on proper and moral conduct in carrying out US polices of the government is really sick and stupid. Was it "despising America" to say that Clinton should not have lied? Of course not. For God sakes could you make a damn effort to act decently and honestly?
Bush lied to American about why we were attacked.

<< The U.S.-led occupation authority is taking initial steps toward selling off the first of Iraq (news - web sites)'s scores of state-owned companies to investors, but will stick to small enterprises until a sovereign Iraqi government takes over the job, >>


I hope people can see that this selling of these companies can certainly wait until the Iraqis themselves are running their own government. this is so oblious that I would hope everyone can see it. The life and death needs can be addressed now but there is no necessity to grab these companies. It is plunder by the powerful, pure and simple. It is insane to insist that these decisions can't wait until the Iraqis can make them for themselves.

MOST of the media is not making this clear to the public. This is imposing things on people and ripping them off. Kucinich saved his city Millions of dollars bt not doing what these guys are doing to Iraq. (part of the influence of the powerful is Kucinich isn't getting heard by most Americans)This is what our soldiers were used for.

On Sep 25, 2003, Paul Vitello, a Newsday collumnist, wrote an article called "For Bush, Truth Is Buried". Here are the opening paragraphs:

"The Washington Post ran the story on page 18, The New York Times on page 22, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post not at all last Friday, according to Editor & Publisher, the weekly magazine of the newspaper industry.

It was a story contradicting what almost 70 percent of Americans are said to believe about the metaphysics of Sept. 11 - namely that Saddam Hussein was personally involved.

Yet USA Today ran it on page 16.

Debunking this misperception was President George W. Bush himself, one of the people most responsible for planting it in Americans' heads in the first place: On that day, Bush said unequivocally - for the first time - that there was "no evidence" linking Hussein to the attacks."

I think Mr. Vitello thinks he is uncovering some failings of the media. The problem is it is far worse than he describes and his own article contains a falsehood that covers up the media's game in selling the war before it was started. here is my letter to him (I never received a reply)

Dear Mr. Vitello,

You wrote, "On that day, Bush said unequivocally - for the first time - that there was "no evidence" linking Hussein to the attacks."
This is incorrect. Bush made it clear at the White House on 31 January 2003.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html

[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

Of course it took a foreign reporter to ask the question because American reporters didn't want to ask it. And the question and answer was available to reporters just as it was available to me, US media CHOSE not to report it. Bush replied to the British reporter at the White House, American reporters were there. I think you underestimate how corrupt American media really is. Adam Boulton asked the question before the war, American reporters didn't and they ignored it when it was asked by Adam Boulton right in front of them, so the situation is worse than you describe it in your column.

The corruption is over the top. Take for example that Bush Lied to American about why we were attacked on 9/11. Not one mainstream reporter dared point out that Bush lied about the 9/11 terrorists' motives. Not one. How about you write a column about that? How about you make it clear to your readers that Bush lied when he said we were attacked because we are a "beacon of freedom." How about telling the public the truth, as the FBI testified before the Senate, we were attacked because of specific foreign polices. Bush serves the special interests that don't want the American public to question these policies. Bush robs Americans of the chance to decide for themselves if they wish to continue to be put in harms' way because of these specific foreign polices.

How about writing a column about this big lie? The American people deserve to know that the President lied to them. You can contact me about this. Visit my web page too:Bush lied about 9/11 terrorists' motives You will notice that Tenet goes out of his way to hide the motives:9/11 Intelligence Report. I hope you won't continue to "play the game" and instead report the truth.

<< Only when you start holding ALL other nations responsible for THEIR policies as well. >>
stop playing games. I hold ALL parties responsible. the thing you can't get into your head is the evil done by US policy makers. We don't have to guess or wonder about it becasue today we have the proof. You may need to sit down for this: records get declasssifed after a certain amount of time and now we know (those that actaully do the research) what the ugly realities have been.


[Noam Chomsky]  The United States , to its credit, is a very free country, maybe the freest country in the world in many respects. One result of that is that we have extremely rich internal documentation. We have a rich record of high level planning documents which tell us the answer to your question. And that’s an achievement of American democracy. However, almost nobody knows about it and that is a failure of democracy.


So the information is there. It’s in the scholarly literature. It’s in the declassified record ...

... [US policy makers] are concerned about, virtually quoting, the spread of the Castro idea of taking matters into one’s own hands which will have a lot of appeal to suffering and impoverished people around the hemisphere who are facing very similar problems. We [US policy makers] don’t want that idea to spread. If you go on in the declassified records, you find descriptions by the CIA and the intelligence agencies of how the problem with Cuba is what they call its successful defiance of US policies going back a hundred and fifty years. That’s a reference to the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine, which the US was not powerful enough to implement at the time, stated that the US would become the dominant force in this hemisphere and Cuba is not submitting to that. That is successful defiance of a policy that goes back a hundred and fifty years and that can’t be tolerated. They make it very clear. They are not worried about Cuban aggression or even subversion or anything. They are worried about Cuba ’s successful defiance and that’s not just Cuban. That’s common.
 

When the US overthrew the government of Guatemala in 1954 - again we have that rich record of declassified documents - what they explain is that the threat of Guatemala was that its the first democratic government had enormous popular support. It was mobilising the peasantry, instituting social reforms and this was likely to appeal to surrounding countries that might want to do the same thing. And that couldn’t be tolerated or else the whole framework of US domination of the hemisphere would collapse.
read it and take responsibility. Most Corrupt US Military Plan Ever: http://cryptome.org/jcs-corrupt.htm
Cookie11814, just becasue someone rapes or murders someone doesn't mean you have the right to do so. Wrong is wrong, it isn't conditional on first looking at every other wrong under the sun.

<< Sorry, but the original platform of the Ba'ath party did NOT include mass murder of their own citizens >>

Soory but that is not true. some of the mass graves are filled with people whose names the US handed over to the Baathists.
US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time. Mr. Akins said, "I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them".

"The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often.

"Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us".

do people deserve to be rounded up and shot becasue of their politics? The Nazis did the same thing. are you a Nazi?

OBL: We saw the Riyadh and al-Khobar bombing as a sufficient signal for people of intelligence among American decision-makers to avoid the real battle between the nation of Islam and the American forces, but it seems that they didn't understand the signal.

ABA: What was it intended to signify?

OBL: If they understood the signal it would mean withdrawing all troops from the region. We believe the American government has committed the greatest mistake in entering a peninsula that no religion from among the non-Muslim nations has entered for 14 centuries, despite the presence of imperialist troops in the region. They were all too awestruck to enter the region of the two holy places and remained on the edges, such as in Yemen and Oman.

The British and others used to respect the feelings of more than a billion Muslims, and therefore did not occupy the land of the two holy places, and America's interests were not harmed by it not entering it. The oil was sold to it - we are not going to drink it - and they were still able to impose a policy that depressed prices to an ideal level.

Their arrival [on the Arabian peninsula] was an aberration and a reckless act, for it brought them into confrontation with a nation numbering a billion Muslims.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,591810,00.html

Thomas Friedman is a dishonest manipulative bastard. Look how he attempts to deceive the American public about the motives behind the terrorism: Terrorists, he wrote in 1998 after terrorists attacked two US embassies in Africa, "have no specific ideological program or demands. Rather, they are driven by a generalized hatred of the US, Israel and other supposed enemies of Islam." This is bullshit. This is the same game that has been played by those that serve corrupt powers that create the terrorism backlash. When Nat Turner and fellow terrorists attacked in American in 1831, the press played the SAME GAME of denying what was behind the terrorism. Describing Nat Turner in 1831 the Richmond Enquirer wrote, "He was artful, impudent and vindicative, without any cause or provocation"
WITHOUT ANY CAUSE OR PROVOCATION!
It is the same game they play baout 9/11.

Dear Mr. Lockard:

In your review of Noam Chomsky's 9/11 you wrote, "They did so for their own reasons, apparently religio-cultural xenophobia, and certainly not out of compassion for the struggles of other peoples for self-determination. "

If you had taken the time you could have found out what the motives actually were. The terrorism we face is a matter of life and death and it is a necessity to do the research into why these things are happening.

The FBI testified as to motive before the Senate. As any criminal investigator they looked at what bin Laden has actually said. What is provoking the terrorism is not complicated and bin Laden has explained it many times for several years: Opposition to U.S. military forces in the Persian gulf area, most notably Saudi Arabia, U.S. support of corrupt Middle Eastern countries, U.S. support for Israel’s brutal occupation and the ongoing assault on civilians in Iraq.

Your assertion about what they "certainly" didn't attack us because of compassion for the struggles of other peoples for self-determination is unnecessary demonization. The fact is horrible wrongs are being carried by U.S. foreign polices and it is arrogant to think it is not possible that people could be reacting to this fact. When you wrong peoples you can't expect to dictate how some will respond, even if their responce is wrong. Yes bin Laden wants a certain form of Islamic rule but he uses a braod appeal to very real and very legitimate grievances and in so doing gains support from even those that may not want exactly the version of government he seeks to estabish in the Muslim world.

Nat Turner convinced several other blacks to engage in terrorism, killing dozens of whites. It would be dishonest not to admit the role slavery had in motivating these blacks to do what they did. It was an example of two wrongs. But it is important to keep in mind that to claim that these blacks did it becsue they were religious freaks is dishonest. It would be manipulative to claim that all these blacks believed in Nat Turners "signs from God" and that a religious and "anti-white" motive was all there was to it. Today I think we can see clearly that the wrongs of slavery were the motivating reasons for Nat Turner and his fellow terrorist's terrorism. And we can see that it is possible for two wrongs to take place.

Every time I read an article that doesn't acknowledge that President Bush had the audacity to lie to America about why we were attacked, I am reminded just how extreme the political environment is in America today.

The bottom line is Bush lied to America about why we were attacked. Representative Press (you will find a link to the FBI's testimony there) The corrupt polices (a case of two wrongs) are kept safe from public scrutiny by a President who prefers to feed the public a huge lie (so that people don't question what it is they are being put in harm's way for)

From what I remember, the book 9/11 wasn't the best presentation of Chomsky's analysis (although it was good) I suggest you read more of Chomsky because what he says makes sense here is a page I transcribed, it includes a link to the whole audio interview with Chomsky. http://www.representativepress.org/ChomskyInterview.html Here is a key part of it:

Dick Gordon: But you do that from a very clinical academic point of view.

Noam Chomsky: It’s not academic. I don’t want to have other terrorist atrocities in the United States. And if you want to reduce terrorist atrocities, if you’re even sane, the first thing you do is look at their causes. If you don’t want to look at their causes you’ll just increase the atrocities. I mean that’s just elementary, there’s nothing academic about it. I mean that’s for my grandchildren. I don’t want them to be attacked. So therefore I want to know the reasons why things like this happen. If we want to know the reasons why things like this happen we are going to have to search the record. And there we will find the reasons.

As I had started to say, you can go back 40 years and find President Eisenhower talking about the campaign of hatred against us in the Middle East and you’ll find the National Security council giving the reasons. People in the region perceive the United States, rightly they say, as supporting oppressive harsh governments which block democracy and development and doing it because we want control of their oil resources. You can find the same things when the Wall Street Journal does analyses of opinion there today. Yeah, we caught to pay attention to that.

<< I accomplished getting a rise out of a person that I believe is not an American. >>

you are wrong again, and you proved my point.
I knew there had to be something going on year. You guys are not too bright and now you have admitted that you are not even trying to use your head. You stupidly get this wrong idea in your head and you set off in refusal mode acting like an ass. Never even occurred to you that you are wrong did it?

As far as Israel, you obviously never have made the effort to research a damn thing, have you?
Suicide Bombers Kill 2 Israelis; Shatter Truce Calm
Aug. 12
— By Rami Amichai
ROSH HA'AYIN, Israel (Reuters) - Two Palestinian suicide bombers killed two Israelis in attacks barely an hour apart Tuesday, shattering six weeks of relative calm ushered in by a cease-fire declared by Palestinian militants.

You glide along assuming that the media is being straight with you. They aren't.
The above deceptive and manipulative reporting is just the most recent example of the game played when reporting about Israel. The headline is actually a double deception and lie. Would you know from the above headline that the "truce" was in fact not shattered by the suicide bombers because it was already shattered by Israel? Would you think that what is called a "truce" is considered by Israel to mean that Palestinians agreed to a ceasefire but that it doesn't apply to Israel? The word truce is used so that you would actually think what most people think when they hear truce. They think two sides have agreed to a cease-fire.
What the press is doing is crooked. What is called "reporting" by mainstream media today is a sick joke and off the wall. It is as Chomsky has written, "When the intellectual history of this period is someday written, it will scarcely be believable."
Because you make these wrong assumptions, you don't have a clue what is really going on because you have just swallowed the crap that the mainstream media has fed you.
As far as America, I am America. Get it? You don't grasp what this country is supposed to be. A country of, by and for the people. It is supposed to be my government, those sitting in Washington are supposed to be my representatives and were selected to do the people's will.
Having people lied to and deceived about what is going on and using the government to serve the agendas of special interests is never what this country was supposed to be about. When you write something as stupid as "Why do you hate America so much? ", it shows how extremely ignorant you are.
It is extremely ignorant to label a citizens desire for truth and justice as "hate." Use your head you brainwashed simpleton. Is calling for an end to Enron's corruption "hate"? Do you even know what Enron did to this country? Being a citizen is more that sitting on your ass making IGNORANT comments and playing lowclass games. "getting a rise out of a person"? You really lack basic social skills. Educate yourself and learn some manners, you are making a spectacle out of yourself.

<< I got the fact that the inspectors were kicked out straight from the horses mouth, like from former cheif weapons inspector, Richard Butler, and YES, even Scott Ritter, both of whom said the inspectors were KICKED OUT when they had their deabte on the now defunked Phil Donahue show on MSNBC >>

No Dbetter, you are wrong. I happened to have saved the transcript of that show and put it on my web site, so don't even try it. http://www.representativepress.org/USinvolved.html Scott Ritter DID NOT SAY THE INSPECTORS WERE KICKED OUT.

"Understand that, in December 1998, it wasn't Iraq that kicked the inspectors out. It was a phone call from Peter Burleigh to you that got the inspectors out, so the United States could initiate a bombing campaign,Desert Fox, which used U.N. intelligence to target Saddam Hussein. That destroyed the credibility of the inspection." - RITTER on Donahue January 13 US involved in Saddam's gassings

Dbetter, how come you are always spreading disinformation and lies? I also posted a link to several media sources who AT THE TIME reported the truth but NOW it serves the agendas of the powerful to lie so the lie. did you look at the link or not?

By the way there is something that Butler and Ritter both agreed on: (NOTE THAT THE MEDIA DID NOT FOCUS ON AMERICA'S INVLOVEMENT IN THESE WAR CRIMES!!!)

US involved in Saddam's gassings!: Facts like these are not too popular with the US mainstream media now. 'Donahue' for January 13
       HAIG: If I may-if I may ask these two this question because this is a-this is a fallacy that is put out a lot, that we gave chemical, biological or nuclear technologies to Iraq. Is that true?
       BUTLER: Actually, we gave Iraq technical advice on how to use its chemical weapons against Iran.
       HAIG: Do you know for a fact we gave them technical advice on how to use chemical weapons?
       BUTLER: Absolutely undisputed.
       HAIG: In what sense?
       RITTER: Wafiq Samarai (ph), the former head of the Iraqi intelligence service responsible for Iran-I have met with him many times, and he has said that U.S. advisers were sitting there as Iraq planned the inclusion of chemical weapons in the Anfal (ph) offensive.
       HAIG: I will never believe that. (yep, for some they can't get it into their heads. Here is Butler and Ritter AGREEING and this clown still doesn't get it. do you get it?)

Consequently, although the Soviet threat is often portrayed as the major concern, there is reason to believe that since World War II the primary target of U.S. involvement in the Persian Gulf has been internal upheaval jeopardizing U.S. influence in this highly coveted area. The gulf has long been seen as "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history."[ Foreign Relations of the United States, vol. 8 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1945) Volume 8, p. 45. ]

In sum, U.S. policy toward the Middle East is characterized by an intention to ultimately control the oil there, strengthen key allies to do the United States' bidding, and keep other powers--not just the Soviet Union, but also Britain and France--away, if not dependent on the United States. The fruits of this policy, which took up where earlier French and British policy left off, have been the prolonged Arab-Israeli dispute, the fundamentalist Muslim uprising in Iran, and other assorted conflicts, including the Iran-Iraq war.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa046.html

Chomsky : Absolutely. The smarter guys like George Kennen were pointing out that control over the energy resources of the middle east gives the US what he called 'veto power' over other countries. He was thinking particularly of Japan. Now the Japanese know this perfectly well so they've been working very hard to try to gain independent access to oil, that's one of the reasons they've tried hard, and succeeded to an extent, to establish relations with Indonesia and Iran and others, to get out of the West-controlled system.

Actually one of the purposes of the [post World War II] Marshall Plan , this great benevolent plan , was to shift Europe and Japan from coal to oil. Europe and Japan both had indigenous coal resources but they switched to oil in order to give the US control. About $2bn out of the $13bn Marshall Plan dollars went straight to the oil companies to help convert Europe and Japan to oil based economies. For power, it's enormously significant to control the resources and oil's expected to be the main resource for the next couple of generations. http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/12/1555839.php

<< You know something Media, the far left isn't left enough for you, which is quite telling, and your comments about Mathews are BIZZARE >>


What is bizarre is how conditioned you are to think Israeli policies are OK. No wonder it was so hard to end slavery and establish equal rights, people like you JUST DON'T GET IT. (or are too intellectually lazy or to cowardly to even try)

I have seen Matthews question a political candidate for Palestinians and fuss about what will happen to the demographics of a Jewish State, will it maintain enough of a Jewish majority? (could you imagine today an interviewer fretting over if South Africa can remain "white enough"? It would be so racist and disgusting the interviewer would most likely lose his job.

The U.S. used to view South Africa differently, seeing Mandella as a terrorist. Not concerned about the oppression of the blacks. Today the same is true with the Palestinians. What is bizarre is not seeing this.

What is bizarre is that you admit what the motives were for 9/11 but you think it is OK to allow Bush to get away with deceiving the public about why they are in harm's way. This is your idea of a good citizen. Seems to me there are far to many with your mindset, so full of it with your "far liberal" talk and yet allow this country to wallow in corruption without lifting a finger to hell set the record straight and allow the public to why things are actually happening to them.
What kind of sick idea do you have in your head about what AMERICA should be? You think it is OK for a NATION to be made fools of about the most important event in their lifetime? To be made ignorant because powerful people prefer the public not to know and therefore possibly question foreign policies? WHY aren't you doing something?

<<>>

thank you. now we need to wake America up to the fact that the President and others lie about why we were attacked and that we don't owe these liears a damn thing. We need to be honest and admit that the real reason was hidden from the public. How noble and jus can these polices be if these leaders are unwilling to admit that these polices are the reason we were attacked. Clearly Bush and others don't admit that it is the policies that are the issue becasue they want to shield these polcies from public scrutiny. Bush and company are serving the interests of those that want these foriegn polcies to continue.

It looks like "Jihad in America" was put together with the intention of serving special interests. Emerson appears to have an agenda and a problem with being honest.
"When one can check the source that Emmerson cites. it does not always lend credence to his claims. When he appeared on WBAI's Radio Broadcasting (12/ 5/ 94), the host of the programme noted that, according to the Council on American Islamic Relations, a Muslim Community School in Maryland that was mentioned in "Jihad In America" had been vandalised shortly after the show was aired. Emmerson demanded, "Did you check with the Montgomery County Police Department to verify the report of vandalism ? because I did and in fact they never received a report."

But in a Feb., 18 letter to the New York Times, Emmerson made reference to the same vandalised attack. "Maryland police revealed that Islamic students at the Mosque were responsible." He claimed. He did not indicate how the police could close a case that had never been reported to them.

(Fairness And Acuracy IN Reporting) (FAIR) took Emmerson's advice and checked with the Montgomery County Police. "I don't have any information of anybody that did it." Sgt Frank Young the department's chief press liaison, told us. Officer Robin Xander, Who took the police report, said she suspected that the vandals were students, but said that they could have been from a number of schools.

After FAIR pointed to these discrepancies in a letter published in the New York Times (3/ 4/ 1995), Emmerson produced yet another version of the vandalism attack (New York Times, 3/ 11/ 1995) - again without indicating that any other version had existed."Maryland Police officers... told me students at the school were likely responsible," Emmerson now claimed. (emphasis added)

On One of the few of Emmerson's claims that could be independently checked, his position shifted continually as the facts emerged: from non - existent attack on a Muslim school, to an attack perpetuated by Muslim students, to an attack that may have been committed by Muslim students.

It's this sort of slippery use of evidence that makes people wary of Emmerson's report." http://www.islam.co.za/themessage/docs/S_emerson.html
http://www.freeworldalliance.com/newsflash/pre_2002/newsflash252.htm

As far as Baath party. the BBC did have an article on the web about it http://212.58.226.18/1/hi/world/from_our_own_correspondent/2694885.stm

I am looking into Atkins (stange that he would lie don't you think? What would he gain? He was even our Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. The logical conclusion is that Atkins is telling the truth. )
Also PBS's frontline writes this: 1963 American diplomats encourage Kurdish leaders to support the new Ba'ath government in Baghdad, following a U.S.-supported coup. (See interviews with Jalal Talabani and James Akins) The Ba'ath Party leadership issues a statement saying it "recognized the rights of the Kurdish people." (these is more to this than current U.S> leaders have let on)
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/kurds/cron.html+%22James+Akins%22+%22Baghdad%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Seems to me that Atkins is telling the truth. I will try to contact him. perhaps you will do the same?

<< I agree, I read and listened to all the sruff Bin Laden said, however there are Muslims like Bin Laden who've in many interviews have said they hated the U.S way of life for the reson I stated, and PBS did a special by Steve Emerson, called Jihad in Amerca >>

thank you. now we need to wake America up to the fact that the President and others lie about why we were attacked and that we don't owe these liears a damn thing. We need to be honest and admit that the real reason was hidden from the public. How noble and jus can these polices be if these leaders are unwilling to admit that these polices are the reason we were attacked. Clearly Bush and others don't admit that it is the policies that are the issue becasue they want to shield these polcies from public scrutiny. Bush and company are serving the interests of those that want these foriegn polcies to continue.

Exerpts from the REPORT OF THE JOINT INQUIRY INTO THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 – BY THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE:
Bin Ladin drew on a broad network of Islamic radicals fighting in the Balkans, Chechnya, and Kashmir in an attempt – in their eyes – to defend Islam against its persecutors.Fighters from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and many other countries took up arms to aid their co-religionists, while Muslims from around the world contributed money. Although the specific actions of al-Qa'ida often did not enjoy widespread support, the causes it championed were viewed as legitimate, indeed laudable, in much of the Muslim world. (p194)
On page 195 of the report it says, "According to DCI Tenet's testimony before the Joint Inquiry, "[o]nce Bin Ladin found his safehaven in Afghanistan, he defined himself publicly as a threat to the United States. In a series of declarations, he made clear his hatred for Americans and all we represent." The Tenet quote is refered to as "testimony before the Joint Inquiry", it appears to be the written statement: Statement of DCI George Tenet Before the Congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11: October 17, 2002.
The quote carries over the deceptive quoting that Tenet used in his statement to the Joint Inquiry because it leaves out what bin Laden "made clear". By ommitting what it is that is behind the hatred, Tenet avoids informing the reader about the motives for bin Laden's terrorism. Here is the section of Tenet's statement from which the 9/11 report quotes highlighted below in blue:
Later in 1996, it became clear that he had moved to Afghanistan. From that safehaven, he defined himself publicly as a threat to the United States. In a series of declarations, he made clear his hatred for Americans and all we represent.
* In July 1996, Bin Ladin described the killing of Americans in the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in June 1996 as the beginning of a war between Muslims and the United States.
* One month later, in August 1996, Bin Ladin issued a religious edict or fatwa entitled "Declaration of War," authorizing attacks against Western military targets on the Arabian Peninsula.
* In February 1998, six months prior to the US Embassy bombings in East Africa, al-Qa'ida-under the banner of the "World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders"-issued another fatwa stating that all Muslims have a religious duty "to kill Americans and their allies, both civilian and military" worldwide.
- (from Statement of DCI George Tenet Before the Congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11: October 17, 2002. )
In this section of his statement, Tenet refers to the February 1998 fatwa. Tenet quotes from that fatwa, BUT HE LEAVES OUT THE WHY BY NOT QUOTING THIS FULL SENTENCE: "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."
Tenet wrote in his statement to the Joint Inquiry Committee, "In February 1998, six months prior to the US Embassy bombings in East Africa, al-Qa'ida-under the banner of the "World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders"-issued another fatwa stating that all Muslims have a religious duty "to kill Americans and their allies, both civilian and military" worldwide."
Tenet is refering to the above quoted sentence highlighted in green above. (It is clear Tenet is refering to this particular sentence since it is the only sentence in the fatwa that mentions "civilians and military".)
But when Tenet refers to the sentence he quotes only part of it and avoids writting the reason why bin Laden targets American civilians and military. Looking at the sentence we can see that Tenet has left off the section highlighted in red below (the part that explains "in order to ...", where it is explicietly stated WHY the "rulling to kill" is issued in the first place. Notice Tenet has focused only on the part highlighted here in gray: "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."

Below are quotes from bin LAen that make it clear what the motives for 9/11 were.

Question: What do you seek?
Osama bin Ladin: What I seek is what is right for any living being. We demand that our land be liberated from enemies. That our lands be liberated from the Americans. These living beings have been given an inner sense that rejects any intrusions [of their lands] by outsiders.
Let us take an example of poultry. Let us look at a chicken, for example. If an armed person was to enter a chicken's home with the aim of inflicting harm to it, the chicken would automatically fight back. - Interview Osama bin Ladin gave to Al-Jazeera Arab television channel in 1998 http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_aljazeera.htm
Question: What is the meaning of your call for Muslims to take arms against America in particular, and what is the message that you wish to send to the West in general?
Osama bin Ladin: The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target. And not exempt of responsibility are those Western regimes whose presence in the region offers support to the American troops there. We know at least one reason behind the symbolic participation of the Western forces and that is to support the Jewish and Zionist plans for expansion of what is called the Great Israel. Surely, their presence is not out of concern over their interests in the region. ... Their presence has no meaning save one and that is to offer support to the Jews in Palestine who are in need of their Christian brothers to achieve full control over the Arab Peninsula which they intend to make an important part of the so called Greater Israel. - Osama bin Laden answers questions posed to him by some of his followers at his mountaintop camp in southern Afghanistan. May 1998 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html
John Miller: Mr. bin Laden, you have issued a fatwah calling on Muslims to kill Americans where they can, when they can. Is that directed at all Americans, just the American military, just the Americans in Saudi Arabia?
Osama bin Ladin: Allah has ordered us to glorify the truth and to defend Muslim land, especially the Arab peninsula ... against the unbelievers. After World War II, the Americans grew more unfair and more oppressive towards people in general and Muslims in particular. ... The Americans started it and retaliation and punishment should be carried out following the principle of reciprocity, especially when women and children are involved. Through history, American has not been known to differentiate between the military and the civilians or between men and women or adults and children. Those who threw atomic bombs and used the weapons of mass destruction against Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the Americans. Can the bombs differentiate between military and women and infants and children? America has no religion that can deter her from exterminating whole peoples. Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says ... . The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims. - Part of the mountaintop camp interview in May 1998. ABC reporter John Miller is videotaped asking questions of bin Laden. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html#video



The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.*This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah." -"Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders", World Islamic Front Statement, February 23, 1998 http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

*NOTE: This the sentance from the 1998 fatwa that George Tenet, Director of the CIA, refers to in his written statement of October 17, 2002. BUT HE LEAVES OUT THE WHY BY NOT QUOTING THIS FULL SENTENCE: "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."
Tenet wrote in his statement to the Joint Inquiry Committee, "In February 1998, six months prior to the US Embassy bombings in East Africa, al-Qa'ida-under the banner of the "World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders"-issued another fatwa stating that all Muslims have a religious duty "to kill Americans and their allies, both civilian and military" worldwide."
Tenet is refering to the above quoted sentence highlighted in green above. (It is clear Tenet is refering to this particular sentence since it is the only sentence in the fatwa that mentions "civilians and military".)
But when Tenet refers to the sentence he quotes only part of it and avoids writting the reason why bin Laden targets American civilians and military. Looking at the sentence we can see that Tenet has left off the section highlighted in red below (the part that explains "in order to ...", where it is explicietly stated WHY the "rulling to kill" is issued in the first place. Notice Tenet has focused only on the part highlighted here in gray: "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."
�

<< don't beleive the U.S put the Baath party into power for common sense reasons
1. It didn't come out in the Church hearings, and a lot of strange stuff came out of the hearings >>
did the Church hearings mention the "Health Alteration Committee"?
your "common sence" reasons ignore the fact that the U.S. did not want Kassem in power.
Both Roger Morris and James Akins say the CIA was involved.

Roger Morris, a former State Department foreign service officer who was on the NSC staff during the Johnson and Nixon administrations, says the CIA had a hand in two coups in Iraq during the darkest days of the Cold War, including a 1968 putsch that set Saddam Hussein firmly on the path to power.

Morris says that in 1963, two years after the ill-fated U.S. attempt at overthrow in Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs, the CIA helped organize a bloody coup in Iraq that deposed the Soviet-leaning government of Gen. Abdel-Karim Kassem.

David Wise, a Washington-based author who has written extensively about Cold War espionage, says he is only aware of records showing that a CIA group known as the "Health Alteration Committee" tried to assassinate Kassem in 1960 by sending the Iraqi leader a poisoned monogrammed handkerchief.

"Clearly, they felt that Kassem was somebody who had to be eliminated," Wise says.

US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time. Mr. Akins said, "I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them".

"The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often.

<< So much for just ignoring the fact that you have called me a liar HOW many times about Bin Laden saying the bit about "our work targets world infidels in the first place". How....typical of you. >>

NO, Cookie. No. You quoted: "but first of all our war is against the world infidels" THAT was the "quote you wrote, not "our work targets world infidels in the first place" so don't even try to pull your usual crap. Do you know what a quote is?


<< WERE WRONG except for two. >>
you have yet to provide that "proof", I have read bin LAden reapeatedly listing things the U.S. did as reasons he targets the U.S.
bin Laden and THE FBI (so the FBI is wrong and you are right?) have made it clear.

"We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel." -bin Laden, Oct. 2001 Bin Laden doesn't say "until the U.S. is gone, or until the U.S. converts to Islam." what he says explicitaly is: until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula and until it stops its support of Israel.

You have got to be kidding me if this isn't clear to you.

bin Laden was asked specifically about how this can end:
Question: As you call it, this is a war between the crusaders and Muslims. How do you see the way out of this crisis?

BIN LADEN: We are in a decisive battle with the Jews and those who support them from the crusaders and the Zionists. We won't hesitate to kill the Israelis who occupied our land and kill our children and women day and night. And every person who will side with them should blame themselves only. Now how we will get out of the tunnel, that is the [unintelligible] of the other side. We were attacked, and our duty is to remove this attack. As far as the Jews are concerned, the prophet has announced that we will fight them under this name, on this land. America forced itself and its people in this [unintelligible] more than 53 years ago. It recognized Israel and supported its creation financially. In 1973, under Nixon, it supported Israel with men, weapons and ammunition from Washington all the way to Tel Aviv. This support helped change the course of history. It is the Muslim's duty to fight. ...

[America] made hilarious claims. They said that Osama's messages have codes in them to the terrorists. It's as if we were living in the time of mail by carrier pigeon, when there are no phones, no travelers, no Internet, no regular mail, no express mail, and no electronic mail. I mean, these are very humorous things. They discount people's intellects.

We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel. This equation can be understood by any American child, but Bush, because he's an Israeli agent, cannot understand this equation unless the swords threatened him above him head. http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/05/binladen.transcript/
you cookie apaprently "don't understand" this too.

He is attacking becasue of the action of U.S. foreign policy. When you screw people over you can't expect to dictate how they will respond. Ever here of two wrongs?

Here is what the shoe bomber (Richard Reid) has said:"The reason for me sending you (a document he calls his "will") is so you can see that I didn't do this act out of ignorance nor did I just do it because I want to die, but rather because I see it as a duty upon me to help remove the oppressive American forces from the Muslim land and that this is the only way for us to do so as we do not have other means to fight them."

"We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel." -bin Laden, Oct. 2001

does this say until the "US coverts to Wahabism or Islam"? NO. your theory means you must ignore the above quote from bin Laden.

and I have expalined to you why Bush doesn't tell the public the truth. the public might question the foreign policies. they might question if it is wroth putting our lives at risk for them.

<< >It is proven here: Bush lied about 9/11 terrorists' motives

You JUST do not GET IT! This is an OPINION piece. >>


Forget the article look at the facts. U.S. Intelligence agencies has stated the motives and bin Laden has made it clear why America was targeted.
BUSH LIED, he claimed we were targeted because we simply are what we are. This is BS and you have got to be kidding me if you don't understand this.
THE LIE BUSH TOLD KEEPS THE AMERICAN PUBLIC FROM QUESTIONING THE POLICIES THAT WERE THE MOTIVE FOR 9/11. THIS IS SICK. IT IS SICK TO ROB THE AMERICAN PUBLIC OF THE CHANCE TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES IF THEY WANT TO BE PUT IN HARMS WAY FOR THESE POLICES.
PEOPLE WHO ARE DUPED BY BUSH'S LIE THINK WE WERE ATTACKED BECAUSE "WE ARE A BEACON OF FREEDOM"
(THE SPECIAL INTERESTS THAT MAKE MILLIONS OFF OF THESE POLICES CAN BE HAPPY WITH BUSH THAT HE KEPT THE PUBLIC FROM UNDERSTANDING 9/11.
BELIEVE ME, HISTORY WILL MAKE SURE THAT BUSH IS SEEN AS ONE OF THE DIRTIES BASTARDS IN HISTORY.
HOW DARE YOU DEFEND A MAN LIKE BUSH WHO HAD THE AUDACITY TO LIE TO AMERICA ABOUT WHY WE WERE ATTACKED.

Bush doesn't have a clue about recent events concerning Saddam and Iraq! The Media fails to inform the public about Bush's extreme cluelessness

A Bush fan trys to explain it away by claiming the whole thing is just an opinion in an opinion piece, "Sorry, but an opinion piece by ..."

I am not talking about an opinion peice! What Bush said is totally off the wall>Does he have ANY idea what he is talking about? He is clueless about Iraq and the press kept that from most Americans. DEAL WITH IT.
Visit the whitehouse website for the quote President Reaffirms Strong Position on Liberia
See how I provided the link? it isn't an opinion, it is a fact.

While the world continues to parse President Bush's 16 little words in his State of the Union message on Iraq's alleged try to buy nuclear fuel in Africa, it seems to have ignored his latest contribution to, as he likes to say, "revisionist history."

In an exchange with reporters the other day after the White House visit of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the president offered this to explain why he invaded Iraq:

"The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."

What? Unless memory fails, Mr. Hussein did let the weapons inspectors in, and they had to be withdrawn for their own safety when Mr. Bush decided to bypass them and the U.N. Security Council and proceed with his invasion of Iraq.

Surprisingly, neither The New York Times nor many other newspapers paid any attention to this colossal misstatement. The Washington Post, in a Page One story focusing on the faulty intelligence controversy, did note that Mr. Bush had said he had given the Iraqi dictator "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

But the Post story merely observed that "the president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to the war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective."
"appeared to contradict the events leading up to the war"!! can this reporter bend over backwards any more! talk about downplaying!
At the regular White House press briefing the next day, the presidential press secretary, Scott McClellan, was asked why Mr. Bush had said what he did -- a patently false reconstruction of what had happened, in justification of going to war.

Mr. McClellan put this evasive spin on Mr. Bush's clear words: "Yes, I think he was referring to the fact that Saddam Hussein had a long history of deceiving inspectors. Saddam Hussein was not complying with [U.N.] Resolution 1441, and he was doing everything he could to thwart the inspectors and keep them from doing their job. So that's what he was referring to."

A reporter later asked Mr. McClellan whether he was "clarifying" what Mr. Bush had said "or conceding that he misspoke." Mr. McClellan repeated his answer. Well, a reporter said, "people misspeak all the time. It's possible that he did misspeak." McClellan replied: "It's what I've said. I've addressed this two or three times now." (this is another lie, McClellan had just started that day!!! we saw him BS an answer then when he was asked to clarify he said this crap!! these guys are liars and the press goes out of its way not to call attention to it.)
source:
http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.witcover.18jul18,0,7002303.column?coll=bal-home-columnists