ON TO SYRIA!

“What makes you think that al qaeda or, for that matter, the arab street expects the U.S. to succeed in its efforts to rebuild a freer Iraq? The whole world seems to have very low expectations, as has been played out in American and International media. Why then would a failure in Iraq create a sea-change in arabs when in fact the U.S. has systematically failed to produce a positive post-war construct since WWII? The Arabs are going to concentrate on the Americans being hugely successful with violence before they consider America's weakness to create a positive diplomatic solution to this conflict.”

“Strat. Sorry, but anyone who was in the White House at the time of 9/11 would have had to reckon with the intensity of that reality and would have to have made the same adjustments to the funding of fighting terrorism and such. This wasn't a move that was unique only to the ability of the omnipotent George W. Bush. And as far as being affected by 9/11, come up from Arkansas and live here for a while and I guarantee you will see some realities that you haven't any concept of, obviously. F__k Kid Rock! I don't see him living here either...”

“I must hope the ecomony and the military situation work out as well as he says."
pedxing


the left in america will do everything in it's power to see that the economy and the military situations both go bad. they want disaster, because it benifits them & it's their only hope of regaining power. every leftist on this board will(already do) constantly mention how bad the economy is. the left media will harp on it day after day. they will show some dood that got laid off, and how it's bush's fault. as treebeard said, 9-11 effected the economy alot, and the ripples are still bouncin off our borders. but that doesn't matter to the hardcore liberals , as long as bush gets blamed.


mutt, i don't understand your logic there......wtf are you talking about? since wwII? how many have we tried since WWII? and the last sentance still has me dizzy......who's sucessful with violence? try and just talk normal....”

“"the left in america will do everything in it's power to see that the economy and the military situations both go bad. they want disaster, " stratdewd
05:49:05 PM
04/19/03

How dare you!
Your arguments are so weak you resort to name calling!”

“uhhhm........huh?”

“5 buttons can cure the whole area over there”

“Syria on Neocons' Hit List

By Jim Lobe, Foreign Policy in Focus
April 18, 2003

Many of the same people who led the campaign for war against Iraq signed a report released three years ago that called for using military force to disarm Syria of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to end its military presence in Lebanon.

Among the signers are several senior members of the administration of President George W. Bush, including the chief Middle East aide on the National Security Council, Elliott Abrams; Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith; Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky; and senior consultants to both the State Department and the Pentagon on Iraq policy, Michael Rubin and David Wurmser. Also signing were Richard Perle, the powerful former chairman of the Defense Policy Board (DPB); Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former United Nations ambassador; Frank Gaffney, a former Perle aide who heads the Center for Defense Policy; Michael Ledeen, another close Perle collaborator at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI); and David Steinmann, chairman of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

The study, Ending Syria's Occupation of Lebanon: The U.S. Role, was co-authored by Daniel Pipes, who has just been nominated by Bush to a post at the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP), and Ziad Abdelnour, who heads a group founded by him called the United States Committee for a Free Lebanon (USCFL). The study was released by Pipes' group, the Middle East Forum.

The USCFL, whose 67 "Golden Circle" members include virtually all of the 31 signatories of the report, has been a major force behind the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act that was just reintroduced in the House of Representatives last Friday by Reps. Eliot Engel, a USCFL member, and Ileana Ros Lehtinen. The legislation, which had 150 cosponsors in the House last year, would impose far-reaching economic and diplomatic sanctions against Syria until the president certified that it has stopped all support to Lebanon's Hezbollah militia and other groups that Washington considers "terrorist," the government withdraws its estimated 20,000 troops from Lebanon, and takes other measures long demanded by Washington.

"Now that Saddam Hussein's regime (in Iraq) is defeated," Engel said April 11, "it is time for America to get serious about Syria. The United States must not tolerate (its) continued support of the most deadly terrorist organizations in the world, its development of weapons of mass destruction, and its occupation of Lebanon." He said a companion measure, cosponsored by Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer and Republican Sen. Rick Santorum will soon be introduced in the Senate. The action comes amid a two-week-old flurry of threats by top administration officials against Syria over its alleged failure to cooperate with Washington's military campaign against Baghdad.

Those threats culminated Sunday when Bush himself accused Syria of having chemical weapons, although he did not specify whether they were home-grown or received from Iraq for safe-keeping, as alleged by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon earlier this year and repeated by senior Pentagon officials. Last week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accused Syria of harboring members of Hussein's regime, and, asked whether Damascus was "next" after Iraq, replied that "it depends on people's behavior."

Intelligence officials told reporters last week that Rumsfeld had ordered the drawing up of contingency plans for a possible invasion of Syria and that Feith, the Pentagon's number three official, had begun work on a policy paper about Syria's support of terrorist groups.

"There's got to be a change in Syria," said Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz last Sunday on a TV network news program. "It is a strange regime, one of extreme ruthlessness." At the same time, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director James Woolsey, a favorite of Wolfowitz and Perle who may be tapped to play a top political role in post-war Iraq, declared that Washington was fighting enemies in a "World War IV" that includes "fascists of Iraq and Syria," a reference to Syria's ruling Baath Party.

These statements have contributed to the growing impression that administration hawks do indeed consider Syria next on the list, although some have also made clear that if President Bashar Assad � who CIA sources have said has generally cooperated with U.S. efforts against the al Qaeda terrorist group of Osama bin Laden � meets a number of demands, possibly including turning over Iraqi officials who may have entered Syria, he is unlikely to face the full force of U.S. military power, at least for now.

Still, there is no question that the hawks, boosted by the easier-than-expected victory in Baghdad, are eager to throw their weight around, particularly in Syria's direction. This is especially true of the neoconservatives closest to the right-wing Likud Party in Israel who, 19 years after U.S. Marines completed a humiliating withdrawal from Beirut in the wake of a series of deadly bombings committed by Syria-backed Hezbollah, appear to be itching to get revenge.

Indeed, it was Assad's father Hafez who single-handedly frustrated U.S. efforts to convert the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon into a major strategic advance in the region. At the time, Abrams, Perle, Kirkpatrick, Gaffney, and Ledeen were all serving in the Ronald Reagan administration. Syria intervened in Lebanon's civil war in 1975 and has kept tens of thousands of troops there since, although they have become less conspicuous over the past decade. Except for the 18 months that followed Israel's 1982 invasion (which was led by Sharon), Damascus' influence has been decisive in Beirut's foreign and defense policy.

The 2000 study by Pipes' Middle East Forum stressed that "Syrian rule in Lebanon stands in direct opposition to American ideals," and it rued Washington's habit since 1983 of engaging rather than confronting the regime, the only government on the State Department's "terrorism" list with which Washington has full diplomatic relations. The "Lebanon Study Group" urged a policy of confrontation, beginning with tough economic and diplomatic sanctions that could not be waived by the president and, if necessary, military force.

"The Vietnam legacy and the sour memories of dead American Marines in Beirut notwithstanding," the group wrote, "the United States has entered a new era of undisputed military supremacy coupled with an appreciable drop in human losses on the battlefield." The group also warned that, "This opens the door to a similar decision to act for Lebanon's endangered freedoms and pluralism. But this opportunity may not wait, for as weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities spread, the risks of such action will rapidly grow," in an argument eerily similar to those the hawks deployed prior to the Iraq invasion. "If there is to be decisive action, it will have to be sooner rather than later."

The USCFL, which lists Amin Gemayel � who as Lebanon's president signed an aborted peace treaty with Israel in 1983 � as the top figure in the Lebanese opposition on its website, appears to enjoy strong backing from both the Christian Right and far-right Jewish neoconservatives, such as Perle, Ledeen, Steinmann, Pipes, and Gaffney. While a handful of the Lebanese-Americans listed in its "Golden Circle" are Muslim, most, including Abdelnour, an investment banker, are Christian.

Editor's Note: This piece was commissioned under the auspices of the Project Against the Present Danger.

Jim Lobe is a political analyst with Foreign Policy in Focus. He also writes regularly for Alternet and Inter Press Service.”

“from the "Foreign Policy In Focus" website;

U.S. national interests should be more broadly conceived.

(this means we should give everybody our money)


U.S. national security should be more narrowly conceived.

(this means we shouldn't protect ourselves)


National interests and national security of all countries increasingly depend a system of global governance (norms, treaties, international cooperation, and institutions) that further global peace, prosperity, and environmental sustainability.


(this means kofee anon should decide how we should live)



we are tha worlllllld, we are tha childreannnnn.....[PUUUUKE}”

“Strat, instead of consistently trying to discredit the source, take on the argument for once. Read the article.”

“i read it pheaddy.....every time it reffered to republicans it called them hawks or neocons or whatever.


the source is a socialist organization.


the article does nothing for me, i think syria is a greasy spot on humanities backside and should be erased from this world. who cares about lebenon anyway! syria is the disneyworld of terrorism....no alqueda you say? you think alqueda is the only group that has attacked us?


send them to allah in a handbasket!”

“It names the neocon hawks specifically. Not every republican is a neocon. Bone up.

The point of the article is that Syria is next on the list: the list that was created and put in writing BEFORE 9/11/01.”

“i agree. the underlying point should make you realize that bush is no reactionary.”

“Main Entry: re�ac�tion�ary
Pronunciation: rE-'ak-sh&-"ner-E
Function: adjective
Date: 1840
: relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics
- reactionary noun
- re�ac�tion�ary�ism /-"i-z&m/ noun


How exactly does it prove that? If you're trying to say that he had this planned, I certainly don't recall him being up front about it with the American public when he was running for office...”

“just 5 easy buttons to push.....ahhhhh”

“Visability is low ,but I can see through the jello enough to forget that remark.”

“2 weeks ago there were 46 dictatorships in the world.....today, there are only 45......

DO I HEAR 44?”

“No answer, strat?”

“nope, i guess it's true what they say......”

“What'd I miss? Damn, I hate trying to play catch up when I go away for the weekend.”

“"the left in america will do everything in it's power to see that the economy and the military situations both go bad. they want disaster, "
- stratdewd
05:49:05 PM
04/19/03

Since you didn�t understand The-Naviguesser�s objection, try this: Why don�t you take that particularly stupid argument and shove it up your ass? Disagree with someone � fine. Argue why you think your point of view is correct and theirs wrong � fine again. Say that anyone who feels that the current administration�s policies are wrong is anti-American and hopes for the worst for our country � someone is liable to #&%!$ you up.

Clear now?”

“Violin - Burn!

mutt, i don't understand your logic there......wtf are you talking about? since wwII? how many have we tried since WWII? and the last sentance still has me dizzy......who's sucessful with violence? try and just talk normal....

Stratdewd, I can't say I'm surprised you don't understand logic. Does the Gulf War I ring a bell? How about Afghanistan? Bosnia? The U.S. has been successful with violence in Iraq. Will we be successful with peace? My point was that Arabs don't expect the U.S. to be successful, and therefore AQ won't see appreciable support coming from a failure - particularly when the Arabs are beginning to see how violently successful America can be at war. Simple, no?”

“viOLin, you look funny these days...you gettin your beer gut back? lol at you post btw, but i never called anybody unamerican at all, BEECH!


mutt you inferior slut;
you said we haven't been sucessful in establishing a democracy since WWII.....hasn't been tried. afghanistan is just getting started. the others were UN jobs....


geesh, everybodies so combative....”

“the U.S. has systematically failed to produce a positive post-war construct since WWII?

That's what I said, genius. Do you see the word "democracy" in there? Is mis-paraphrasing the only way you can win a point?”

“Listen to Fresh Air interview with David Frum and Richard Perle:
http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?display=day&todayDate=01/08/2004”

“Yep. I heard it thursday....



surprise surprise.”

“No time to listen today. Someone give me a summary?”

“'Prince of Darkness' is a pretty concise summary.”

“Arrogance, Thy Name Is Perle.”

“Well, okay, but I saw his interview on Frontline, and I pretty well knew THAT already. What did he say in this interview about Syria?”

“Frontline - Perle interview

FRONTLINE:Does that mean that, once you've done with Iraq, you need to turn your attention to Iran and to Syria?

PERLE: There are a number of countries that have been supporting terrorism. Many of them get very little benefit out of it. On the other hand, there's been no cost. So as they look at the costs and benefits of offering hospitality, safe haven to terrorists, they have concluded that on balance it's a good thing for them to do. If now we impose serious costs, if we say to them, "If you support terrorism, you're going to be at war with the United States, and you may be destroyed in the process," I think several of these governments will simply get out of the support of terrorism business. It will be too costly, the risks will be too great, and they will exercise some rational judgment and decide they're not going to do that anymore.


FRONTLINE:But isn't there an example of basically going after another terrorist state? The attacks on Libya during the Reagan administration didn't seem to dissuade other terrorist states.

PERLE:It is true that when the Reagan administration went after Libya, it succeeded only in repressing Libyan terrorism. It wasn't followed up when terrorism began to show up elsewhere, and that was the mistake. Because we didn't say when we went after [Qaddafi] [that] we will go after anyone else who supports terrorism. The ball was dropped at that point, particularly during the long period of the Clinton administration.



-- It sounds to me like the doctrine of pre-emptive war is going to be pushed as a continual part of foreign policy by this particular idealogue.”

“The USSR is trying to take over the world. USA=USSR”

“What I want to know is when the hell are we going to take care of the Mexican problem?

ON TO MEXICO!!”

“Turn em into mellicans.”

“Seriously, this guy is a hardliner in ways that should make every moderate American scared.

If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now.

--Richard Perle”

“YIKES!”

“�If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now.

--Richard Perle"

Ok, a serious post now. This is scary shlt! I am all for vanquishing our enemies that pose a threat but I do not nor will I ever go for world domination. I am a very big proponent of the preservation of other cultures. I absolutely HATE seeing Coke ads in other cultures. Our culture is OK for us but for others�leave �em the hell alone. If their governments rule with a death filled fist may they be overthrown that the people may live free and have the basic rights given them by G-d but this is no reason to replace their ways with our own.


Who gives a shlt what our children sing about us.”

“So much for the argument that the evidence for Iraqi WMD was viewed through the prism of Sept 11.

From 60 minutes:

The Bush Administration began making plans for an invasion of Iraq, including the use of American troops, within days of President Bush's inauguration in January of 2001 -- not eight months later after the 9/11 attacks, as has been previously reported.

That's what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says in his first interview about his time as a White House insider. O'Neill talks to CBS News Correspondent Lesley Stahl in the interview, to be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, Jan. 11 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," he tells Stahl. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do is a really huge leap."

O'Neill, fired by the White House for his disagreement on tax cuts, is the main source for an upcoming book, "The Price of Loyalty," authored by Ron Suskind.

Suskind says O'Neill and other White House insiders he interviewed gave him documents that show that in the first three months of 2001, the administration was looking at military options for removing Saddam Hussein from power and planning for the aftermath of Saddam's downfall -- including post-war contingencies such as peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals and the future of Iraq's oil.

"There are memos," Suskind tells Stahl, "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"

A Pentagon document, says Suskind, titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from...30, 40 countries, and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq," Suskind says.

In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting questioned why Iraq should be invaded. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill in the book.”

“"Who gives a shlt what our children sing about us." - Nigel

I just want them to name a few universities after me. :O)”

“Who would've figured Perle for a Folk Music fan?”

“If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now.

--Richard Perle

From what context was this quote pulled? Total war against whom? The world? Radical Islamists? China?”

“Here's the new Bush Admin Spin: The WMD's were seceretly moved from Iraq, by Syria, to Lebanon, and buried there by the Syrians. Maybe we could get Scooby-Doo and his gang to solve this mystery.

Zionkies!”

“It was in The Colder War by John Pilger where he was being interviewed about the war on terror.

I found a link to an article by Pilger.

You have to admit, it does sound like he's advocating recurrent pre-emptive strikes.”

“Thank you, phaedrus - I have not read the book. The article you link to is heavily slanted to the extent of propaganda. To wit:

The recent statements of British Ministers about the "vindication" of the "outstanding success" in Afghanistan would be comical if the price of their "success" had not been paid with the lives of more than 5,000 innocent Afghani civilians and the failure to catch Osama bin Laden and anyone else of importance in the al-Qaeda network. .

Sure, that's a tragedy, but the true summary explanation of the Afghanistan war is the Taliban's engagement in a strategic retreat. Otherwise, it would have been much bloodier for the civilians and soldiers alike. If anything, it's to Bush's credit there was so little bloodshed, although obviously that wasn't a conclusion manifest of Bush & Co's plans. But so much the better.

Of course that's neither here nor there regarding the context of the quote, but the article you quote and the book you reference are of no help to me to determine Perle's intended meaning.

Just what exactly was Dickhead Perle advocating?”

“Sorry for the butchered English.”

“"Here's the new Bush Admin Spin: The WMD's were seceretly moved from Iraq, by Syria, to Lebanon, and buried there by the Syrians."
-- Buddha Bear
11:15:00 AM
01/11/04

Depends on the day and who is doing the spinning. To paraphrase a stratdewdism: �The Bush administration is in disarray!�


Rice: No Evidence Iraq Moved WMD to Syria

WASHINGTON -- The United States has no credible evidence that Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria early last year before the U.S.-led war that drove Saddam Hussein from power, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said Friday.

Rice said, "Any indication that something like that happened would be a very serious matter.

"But I want to be very clear: we don't, at this point, have any indications that I would consider credible and firm that that has taken place, but we will tie down every lead," she said...

*snip*”

“I plan on vacationing in Syria in June, I'll look around for them with my metal detector. If I find them, I'll post on TT before reporting it to the authorities.”

““The UN Inspectors found more weapons than Bush has."
The-Naviguesser
07:08:15 PM
04/16/03

You are correct.

If no weapons are found the United States has a lot to answer for.”
bacpac
9:45:20 PM
4/16/03
ignore this user
report this message”

“Based on his own admission, It's about time for bacpac to start questioning the current administration.

I fully expect him to have an Obama '08 sticker on his vehicle in another week or so.”

“I don't want to use the expression "slam dunk" but,”