Clown Prince von Rumsfeld

“I guess you have some facts to back up that statement, sol?”

“I sure do. And I will present my evidence when possible in the next several days. Bear with me though, it's Christmas time with much to do.
>
But if I'm going to present my case, do you think you could maybe give us one fact to prove that what I'm saying is not true?
>
Go easy on yourself cause I wouldn't want any self respecting Bush man to have to overdo himself. Just cite your source and give us the evidence that the Iraqis really did buy yellow cake from Nigeria. Hell the Prez used it in his State of the Union speech. It's got to be true. You could probably find tons of evidence on that one.
>
Don't like that subject? Maybe a little more work than you would like to take on? How about this one? Go find some evidence indicating that top military brass (ex or active) other than Tommy Franks thought you could invade and control Iraq with 150,000 men. That's one you should be able to handle.
>
Or find the facts about the Neocons, and tell me how their past and present acts have been good for the U.S.
>
I'm giving you all these topics so you can be ready. Because I'm going to present my case. But I won't be doing it for you, you're a hopeless dumba$$. I'm going to do it for other people on this site that may want to hear a different perspective on this war other than the "we're doing this to bring Democracy to Iraq and bye-the-way support the troops" BS you hear and read on FOX News, FreeRepublic.com, U.S. News and World Report, etc.
last edited: 12/17/04 8:13:51 AM”

“But if I'm going to present my case, do you think you could maybe give us one fact to prove that what I'm saying is not true?
solitary hiker
8:09:00 AM
12/17/04

I will simply insure that my posts are factual. If you would do the same we would not be having this conversation. If you care to disprove any of my posts, be my guest.”

“Sol: I see from your post (12/16 8:08:11 PM) that you are including forces well beyond Rumsfeld that were in support of the war. So perhaps you agree with me that it wasn't just Rummy.

If you remember, there were many players in the Bush administration who were supporting war on Iraq even before Bush was elected. If you read accounts like Richard Clarke, Bush seemed to be leaning towards an attack on Iraq on 9/11/01.”

“I will simply insure that my posts are factual. If you would do the same we would not be having this conversation. If you care to disprove any of my posts, be my guest.”
bbw
9:26:50 AM

I'm still waiting to hear who said there wouldn't be enough body bags for the War on Afghanistan.”

“Rumsfeld should've been flushed long ago... say 1972.


We got the Republican response to September 11 they already had in the pipe, not the the response that was called for.

You'd think they would've made the effort to think it through with all the lead time they had... a solid decade... and they still screwed the pooch.”

“pedxing,
I'm in 100 percent agreement that Rumsfeld isn't the only one that should go. Everyone he brought to the DOD when he got the job should be sent packing also. If anything they should be fired first. They're the true architects of the war. Rumsfeld is just the guy who brought them altogether in one place and let them pull it off.
>
bbw,
You're gonna let me do all the work aren't you? Sokay, I can handle it. And I predict that when it's your turn to "slay" me with the real facts, you'll tell me how everything I produced was just spin. And therefore you won't have to produce anything. But like I said, this isn't for you. It's for people who want to look at some info by some very credible witnesses and make up their own minds.”

“This was posted here before, but I think its hugely relevant now. Just look at the signatories at the bottom of the list.

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams
Richard L. Armitage
William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner
John Bolton
Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama
Robert Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol
Richard Perle
Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld
William Schneider, Jr.
Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz
R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
last edited: 12/17/04 11:19:52 PM”

“Murderer's Row.”

“pedxing,
Thanks for posting one of the key pieces of evidence. You know I used to dislike Clinton as much as I now dislike Bush. He did somethings that were just plain wrong. But you have to give it to the old rascal. He must have been under tremendous pressure from the Neocons, PFNAC, AIPAC, AEI and all the other assorted think tanks of that ilk. Yet he resisted! Never thought I'd say it but "Here's to Bill!"”

“Make no mistake about why we are in Iraq right now. This is a proxy war for Israel. And "lucky" for us, if we control Iraq we get keep some of the oil that will be pumped through the now closed oil pipeline to Haifa. Guess what country we're going to have to pay to pump the oil through?
>
Destablizing Iraq and the rest of the Arab Middle East has been the dream of Israeli right-wingers for a long time. Here's the policy paper written for Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 by some of the very same Neocons holding positons in OUR Dept. of Defense right now.
>
Note this paper addresses a number of issues facing the Israeli nation and not all of them are related to their surrounding neighbors. Nevertheless most of the paper is a formula on how to deal with the Arabs and the way that Israel can influence the USA so that we will back them up.
>
Eight years ago when the paper was written Syria was their main concern, but pay particular attention to paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 in the section entitled
"Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy"
>
And be sure to note the signatories at the bottom of the document.


"A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.

Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has dominated the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and shackled economy. Efforts to salvage Israel’s socialist institutions—which include pursuing supranational over national sovereignty and pursuing a peace process that embraces the slogan, "New Middle East"—undermine the legitimacy of the nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the previous government’s "peace process." That peace process obscured the evidence of eroding national critical mass— including a palpable sense of national exhaustion—and forfeited strategic initiative. The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel’s efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily functions, such as commuting to work in buses.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s government comes in with a new set of ideas. While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform. To secure the nation’s streets and borders in the immediate future, Israel can:


Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, \"comprehensive peace\" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.

Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive grip on Palestinian society.

Forge a new basis for relations with the United States—stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.
This report is written with key passages of a possible speech marked TEXT, that highlight the clean break which the new government has an opportunity to make. The body of the report is the commentary explaining the purpose and laying out the strategic context of the passages.

A New Approach to Peace

Early adoption of a bold, new perspective on peace and security is imperative for the new prime minister. While the previous government, and many abroad, may emphasize \"land for peace\"— which placed Israel in the position of cultural, economic, political, diplomatic, and military retreat — the new government can promote Western values and traditions. Such an approach, which will be well received in the United States, includes \"peace for peace,\" \"peace through strength\" and self reliance: the balance of power.

A new strategy to seize the initiative can be introduced:

TEXT:

We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behavior of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading \"land for peace\" will not secure \"peace now.\" Our claim to the land —to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years--is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, \"peace for peace,\" is a solid basis for the future.
Israel’s quest for peace emerges from, and does not replace, the pursuit of its ideals. The Jewish people’s hunger for human rights —burned into their identity by a 2000-year old dream to live free in their own land — informs the concept of peace and reflects continuity of values with Western and Jewish tradition. Israel can now embrace negotiations, but as means, not ends, to pursue those ideals and demonstrate national steadfastness. It can challenge police states; enforce compliance of agreements; and insist on minimal standards of accountability.

Securing the Northern Border

Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:


striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.

paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.

striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.
Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a \"Brotherhood Agreement\" in 1991, that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama.

Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for which local Syrian military officers receive protection payments, flourishes. Syria’s regime supports the terrorist groups operationally and financially in Lebanon and on its soil. Indeed, the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has become for terror what the Silicon Valley has become for computers. The Bekaa Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not production points, of the \"supernote\" — counterfeit US currency so well done that it is impossible to detect.

Text:

Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria’s require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side’s good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive toward its neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organizations.
Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan \"comprehensive peace\" and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting \"land for peace\" deals on the Golan Heights.

Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy

TEXT:

We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of our friendship.
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria\'s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.

But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the \'natural axis\' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria\'s territorial integrity.

Since Iraq\'s future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.

Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.

King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.

Changing the Nature of Relations with the Palestinians

Israel has a chance to forge a new relationship between itself and the Palestinians. First and foremost, Israel’s efforts to secure its streets may require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas, a justifiable practice with which Americans can sympathize.

A key element of peace is compliance with agreements already signed. Therefore, Israel has the right to insist on compliance, including closing Orient House and disbanding Jibril Rujoub’s operatives in Jerusalem. Moreover, Israel and the United States can establish a Joint Compliance Monitoring Committee to study periodically whether the PLO meets minimum standards of compliance, authority and responsibility, human rights, and judicial and fiduciary accountability.

TEXT:

We believe that the Palestinian Authority must be held to the same minimal standards of accountability as other recipients of U.S. foreign aid. A firm peace cannot tolerate repression and injustice. A regime that cannot fulfill the most rudimentary obligations to its own people cannot be counted upon to fulfill its obligations to its neighbors.
Israel has no obligations under the Oslo agreements if the PLO does not fulfill its obligations. If the PLO cannot comply with these minimal standards, then it can be neither a hope for the future nor a proper interlocutor for present. To prepare for this, Israel may want to cultivate alternatives to Arafat’s base of power. Jordan has ideas on this.

To emphasize the point that Israel regards the actions of the PLO problematic, but not the Arab people, Israel might want to consider making a special effort to reward friends and advance human rights among Arabs. Many Arabs are willing to work with Israel; identifying and helping them are important. Israel may also find that many of her neighbors, such as Jordan, have problems with Arafat and may want to cooperate. Israel may also want to better integrate its own Arabs.

Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship

In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in Israel’s domestic and foreign policy for two reasons: to overcome domestic opposition to \"land for peace\" concessions the Israeli public could not digest, and to lure Arabs — through money, forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S. weapons — to negotiate. This strategy, which required funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky, expensive, and very costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the United States in roles is should neither have nor want.

Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.

To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform. [Military aid is separated for the moment until adequate arrangements can be made to ensure that Israel will not encounter supply problems in the means to defend itself]. As outlined in another Institute report, Israel can become self-reliant only by, in a bold stroke rather than in increments, liberalizing its economy, cutting taxes, relegislating a free-processing zone, and selling-off public lands and enterprises — moves which will electrify and find support from a broad bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders, including Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

Israel can under these conditions better cooperate with the U.S. to counter real threats to the region and the West’s security. Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States on anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose to either state. Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel’s survival, but it would broaden Israel’s base of support among many in the United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much about missile defense. Such broad support could be helpful in the effort to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996.

Conclusions: Transcending the Arab-Israeli Conflict


TEXT: Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them.
Notable Arab intellectuals have written extensively on their perception of Israel’s floundering and loss of national identity. This perception has invited attack, blocked Israel from achieving true peace, and offered hope for those who would destroy Israel. The previous strategy, therefore, was leading the Middle East toward another Arab-Israeli war. Israel’s new agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response.

Israel’s new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are most needed: to rejuvenate its national idea, which can only come through replacing Israel’s socialist foundations with a more sound footing; and to overcome its \"exhaustion,\" which threatens the survival of the nation.

Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace its seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition leader said recently: \"Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important — if not the most important--element in the history of the Middle East.\" Israel — proud, wealthy, solid, and strong — would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East.

Participants in the Study Group on \"A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000:\"

Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader

James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University
last edited: 12/19/04 9:12:55 AM”

“You should really read this document at the site because of the italics. Here's the site.
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
>
Note that paragraphs under the word "TEXT" are the high-minded stuff which would be probably be fed back to the American press and general public. The real meat of the document is the methodology laid out elsewhere in the document to implement their agenda.”

“Be sure to see this TEXT passage under the
"Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy" section.

"... Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."

It doesn't get any plainer than this.
last edited: 12/19/04 11:02:21 AM”

“Several links about the old oil pipeline to Haifa and what Israel wants.

From Ha'aretz, March 31, 2003. I think that Ha'aretz is one of the major newpapers in Israel. Don't know what it's daily readership is but must be fairly large.

"Infrastructure Minister Paritzky dreams of Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa

By Akiva Eldar

National Infrastructures Minister Joseph Paritzky has requested an assessment of the condition of the old oil pipeline from Mosul to Haifa, with an eye toward renewing the flow of oil in the event of friendly post-war regime in Iraq.

Paritzky explained to Haaretz yesterday that resurrecting the pipeline to Haifa could save Israel the high cost of shipping oil from Russia. He is certain that the Americans would respond favorably to the idea, since the pipeline would bring Iraqi oil directly to the Mediterranean.

The flow of oil from Mosul was redirected from Haifa to Syria after the British Mandate for Palestine expired in 1948. There were several attempts to renew the flow of oil to Haifa in subsequent years. One such effort occurred during the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s, after Syria acceded to a request from Iran to block the flow of Iraqi oil to the Mediterranean. (Iran was then preventing oil tankers from moving Iraqi oil via the Persian Gulf.) The prime minister at the time, Yitzhak Shamir, proposed to Iraq to renew the flow of oil through the pipeline to Haifa.

Hanan Bar-On, then the deputy director-general of the Foreign Ministry, confirmed yesterday that Israel was involved in talks during the mid-1980s on a plan for an Iraq-Jordanian pipeline to the Red Sea port of Aqaba. Among the participants in these talks was Donald Rumsfeld, then an adviser to U.S. president Reagan and currently secretary of defense. The American corporation Bechtel was slated to build the pipeline. According to the deal, which eventually fell through, Israel was to receive about $100 million a year via former Israeli businessman Bruce Rappaport in return for a commitment not to oppose the construction or operation of the new pipeline.

In 1987, energy minister Moshe Shahal reportedly looked into the idea of helping Iraq export its oil via the Golan Heights to Haifa. But this plan also failed to materialize.

Bar-On recalled that during the same period, the possibility of laying a pipeline along the Jordan Valley and Arava, and then along the Egyptian border to the Mediterranean. "We wanted to ensure the economic interests of the Iraqis, Jordanians, and Egyptians in order to create motivation to preserve the stability in the region and as a foundation for peaceful relations"
>
Talk about chutzpah! That last sentence is unreal. What a joke!
>
This one is from the August 26, 2003 issue of the Scottish newspaper "The Scotsman"
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=938452003
>
I love this part about Ariel Sharon.
>
"The office of the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, sees the pipeline project as a "bonus" in return for Israel’s backing of the US-led campaign in Iraq, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported yesterday."
>
What a favor the Israelis are doing us!!!

>
Here's another more recent Ha'aretz article.
It's a re-hash of the first article but dates from August 2004. The gameplan has't changed one bit.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=332835&sw=Haifa%20Mosul
last edited: 12/19/04 11:44:36 AM”

“After Outcry, Rumsfeld Says He Will Sign Condolences
Report Reveals His Signature Was Stamped on Letters to Dead Soldiers' Families

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20041217081609990015”

“Funny how when you start bringing out the facts of Iraq certain blowhard chickenhawks that infest TT seem to disappear.”

“I don't think anyone would deny that one of the reason's for invading Iraq was to establish a democracy in an Arab country to stabalize the Mid-East. That is a good thing, isn't it?”

“Except that it's not for the sake of democracy.

It seems that "establishing democracy" is the excuse for securing the oil........at what ever cost.”

“I guess that's why gas is $2 a gal. LOL
Yea, we stole they oil. LOL”

“Stay tuned....LOL !!”

“bbw quoting you:
>
“I don't think anyone would deny that one of the reason's for invading Iraq was to establish a democracy in an Arab country to stabalize the Mid-East. That is a good thing, isn't it?”
>
Yeah using Bush logic it's fine, since all his other reasons for invading a country turned out to be fabrications. Even the Republican controlled Congress would have laughed Bush out the door if he had come to them saying "We need to invade Iraq to give them democracy." Face the hard facts, Bush played the "democracy card" because he had no other hand to play. He can't tell the average American the truth.
>
Truth is IMO Bush has a fatal character flaw and that is he cannot admit to anyone that he was wrong or that he has been played for a fool by the Neocon/Israeli 5th Column in his own administration.
>
The way this Rumsfeld thing is going to play out is that Bush will continue to back his Sec of Defense right up to the end. The congress has started to complain, the media has begun to pile on, the Neocons have already started to stab him in the back. Sometimes right after the Iraqi elections Rumsfeld will make a statement something like this:
>
"I have decided to step down because I have become a lighting rod for unjust criticism of the Bush administration. President Bush doesn't deserve this as he is the best yada yada yada...."
>
The Weasel in Chief will sadly accept his resignation and award Clown Prince von Rumsfeld America's highest civilian award, The Medal of Freedom.
>
End of Rumsfeld saga except for the GIs stuck in Iraq and the Americans who have to pay for this whole sordid affair.
last edited: 12/20/04 8:54:26 AM”

“Face the hard facts, Bush played the "democracy card" because he had no other hand to play. He can't tell the average American the truth.
solitary hiker
8:48:06 AM
12/20/04

These are not the hard facts, they are your opinion.”

“No it's a fact. He only started talking democracy when he has no other justification for his acts.
last edited: 12/20/04 9:07:44 AM”

“War IS a racket.”

“This will be a quote that will live on through the ages. Trust me, I have insight about these sort of things.

"Iraqi patriotism and democracy is the last refuge of a Bu$hite scoundrel."

signed,
solitary hiker, 2004
last edited: 12/20/04 9:24:34 AM”

“Signature on death letters fuels Rumsfeld criticism
Hagel: Signing letters to next of kin is 'least we could expect'

Sunday, December 19, 2004 Posted: 6:01 PM EST (2301 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld faced renewed criticism Sunday from lawmakers, including one prominent Republican, after he said he has not personally signed letters sent to family members of troops killed in action.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/19/rumsfeld.signature/index.html

Very Nice!”

“Damn Matt your anti-cursing software is causing havoc in this battle for the truth.
Bu$hite is not a bad word! Well it is a bad person, but not a bad word.”

“Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html”

““I guess that's why gas is $2 a gal. LOL
Yea, we stole they oil. LOL”
StoveStomper
7:42:39 AM
12/20/04



Did you expect they would give it away?”

“bbw - to be fair and balanced, can you also quote the stuff the admin said about WMDs and the threat they were to America?”

“bbw,
What a joke. You're becoming the laughingstock of Trail Talk. The Weasel in Chief devotes 44 paragraphs on the dangers of Saddam, the WMDs, the nuclear threat etc. and you bring one crummy sentence out of the 40th paragraph in which the main part is "If military action is necessary" to tell me that democracy is what Bush was trying to do in the first place. The word doesn't even exist in the entire document.
>
Go back and read the documents that pedxing and I provided. Come back with some other documents that have some meat to defend your position. Otherwise give it up.”

“But sol! This whole Operation Iraqi Democracy thing is going so well. It's not like the neoCons are a bunch of wild-eyed ideologues or something.


”

“It just occurred to me that only 11% of the country reads a newspaper and I'm sure FAUX News didn't carry that story.

AP's caption for the photo is: "A gunman kills an electoral worker on Baghdad’s Haifa Street after the man was pulled from a car. The man on his knees was shot moments later, as was a third man."”

“If we don't make democracy work in the mid east then people might remember that we support/ed Putin's fight for "democracy".”

“Bush: Iraq bombers are having an effect. He also talks about SS, and Rumsfeld

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=2&u=/ap/20041220/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_5”

“You don't get it sol. You continue to state your opinion as fact. When confronted with the actual facts you act incredulous.”

“The subsequent bush should be personally signing those letters to the military survivors -- especially those made manifest by his elective invasion of Iraq.

He should also have sent letters to each family who lost loved ones on September 11th for his failure to protect them.”

“bbw,
Are you saying that the documents pedxing and I provided are my opinion? Do you really believe that Bush sent us to war in Iraq to establish democracy there? Where are the documents to back your facts up? The speech you quoted had nothing to do with fighting for democracy and everything to do with justifying a war based on a supposed threat. Did you think that because you don't read my articles that I wouldn't go check out yours? Did you even read the article you cited?
>
Again my premise is that this war is a proxy war for Israel and that Bush readily went along with the Neocons who pushed for it. This will be borne out by the fact that most of the Neocons have a long history of doing the bidding of Israel. The goals were always security for Israel and oil for both the USA and Israel. In no way was Saddam Hussein or Iraq a threat to the security of the United States.
>
I will find documents from Neocon think tanks, Israeli newpapers, and US government policy papers to make my points. I'll also use articles from dependable reporters like Seymour Hersh and Karen Kwiatkowski to round out my premise when I think necessary. They may not be facts to you but like I said, my posts are for other people.
>
Here's Kwiatkowski's article. She was stationed at the Pentagon when the Neocons took over.
>
http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html
>
Now IMO you can continue to whine about my facts but until you can produce something, anything, other than that lame Bush war speech you have nothing to justify your position.”

“Tilt, even though I am not a Bush fan he is signing every condolence letter.”

“sol, No I did not read all of your posts. Just enough to know you are confusing your opinion with the facts.

You said:

******
Face the hard facts, Bush played the "democracy card" because he had no other hand to play. He can't tell the average American the truth.
******

This is not true. Then you added.

*******
No it's a fact. He only started talking democracy when he has no other justification for his acts.
*******
This is false also.
last edited: 12/20/04 5:18:50 PM”

“I didn't know he could sign his name...”

“Rumsfeld is in trouble again. There was a lady on the news complaining that Rumsfeld's office sent out a letter about her son's death, but it was stamped and not signed personally. I know he is busier than a one armed paper hanger, but it's still no excuse.

It's bad enough that the letter is probably some type of form letter, and then he doesn't sign it. A 1,000+ soldiers have died, and I think that is a small amount of letters to sign. How can you have your secretary stamp your name on a letter regarding a soldier's death?
last edited: 12/20/04 5:26:04 PM”

“Lippy is turning Libby!
Lippy is turning Libby!
Lippy is turning Libby!
Lippy is turning Libby!
Lippy is turning Libby!
Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!Lippy is turning Libby!”

“Fly, I do like Rumsfeld, but I'm not a sheep where I will follow someone blindly if they are going down the wrong path, even if I believe in them.”

“(2004-12-20) -- Forensic DNA testing has revealed that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did not personally lick postage stamps on letters to families of troops killed in Iraq.

"We're still looking for a positive DNA match on the stamp saliva," said an aide to Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-NE. "We've asked to swab the cheeks of dozens of Pentagon office staffers."

This new evidence of Mr. Rumsfeld's psychological detachment from the war in Iraq follows his admission that letters he wrote to families of soldiers and Marines included a facsimile of his signature, rather than a unique one done with his own hand each time.

Mr. Hagel could not be reached for comment, the aide said, because "the senator is busy handwriting a news release on the topic."”

“(2004-12-16) -- Embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld today responded to criticism from Senators John McCain, Trent Lott, Susan Collins, Chuck Hagel and others by saying, "You go to war with the Senate you have. It's not the Senate you might want or wish to have at a later time."

Meanwhile, President George Bush said he will not request additional funding in order to "up armor" Mr. Rumsfeld.

"I give Secretary Rumsfeld what he requests," said Mr. Bush. "He has expressed no fear of the insurgents in the Senate. It looks like he has all the steel he needs."”

“(2004-12-10) -- More than three years after terrorists crashed commercial airliners into the World Trade Center, most skyscrapers still the lack armor plating that could help reduce casualties in a future attack, according to a report released by Congress.

"The Bush administration has devoted almost zero resources to up-armoring our nation's tallest buildings," said an unnamed official who had seen parts of the report. "We have anecdotal evidence of stock brokers dragging dumpsters into their offices and actually working inside the dumpster to get that extra layer of protection."

The report's release comes just days after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld faced a spontaneous question from a soldier in Kuwait about the difficulty of securing armor for Humvees.

"If each tall building were blanketed with steel, America would finally be safe," the official said. "The terrorists would have to give up, just like they would be stymied if all military vehicles were up-armored. There's nothing they could do to hurt us then."”

“I worked for as an ass't in the marketing dept of a hotel, and I was sending out either thank you letters for people staying at the hotel or something similar. Well, I used a stamp for my bosses signature on the letter and a woman actually wrote him to say she was upset that he did not personally sign the letter. Wackos!!!!”

“It is not the correct time to jettison Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld serves a very useful purpose in the administration. He is a lightning rod and scapegoat.

When something goes wrong, Rumsfeld gets blamed. This takes the heat off of Bush.

Now, let's say that Rumsfeld goes and Iraq descends into chaos. The new secretary of defense would be blameless and could not be fired. Blame would be focuses on Bush.

Then, let's suppose that Rumsfeld stays and Iraq descends into chaos. Rumsfeld can be fired. He'll take the fall and allow Bush to look good doing it.

Bush runs a tight ship in terms of loyalty. It really doesn't matter who fills each cabinet position. The true power and plans come from the president.

These plans will stay the same with or without Rumsfeld.”

“Notice also the complete absence of Cheney in the media.

If things are going bad, keep your profile low. You won't be personally associated with the bad things.”