Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The Smoking Gun for Bush lying US into war.
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
R. S. Refugee



Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK

PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2005 1:21 pm    Post subject: The Smoking Gun for Bush lying US into war. Reply with quote

The document's most devastating paragraph, however, summarizes a report by the head of British intelligence, known as "C." "C" has just returned from meetings in Washington, and he's telling Blair what he learned there:

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," "C" tells Blair. "But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy. . . . There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

The intelligence was being fixed . . . Little discussion of the aftermath. Amazing.



Published on Monday, May 9, 2005 by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Ominously, Army Recruiting Tumbles
by Jay Bookman


Last month, Army recruiters fell 42 percent short of their goal, according to the Army Recruiting Command. They had hoped to sign up 6,600 volunteers; but despite bonuses of up to $20,000 for those willing to report by May 30, they fell 2,779 recruits short.

Those numbers are ominous. If they continue in the months to come, as seems likely, they threaten not merely our ability to stick it out in Iraq, but also the Army's long-term ability to perform its duties worldwide. And the reason for that decline is obvious.

In April of 2003, around the first anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, 73 percent of Americans believed the war was worthwhile; only 23 percent did not, according to a CNN/Gallup poll. So recruiters had little trouble filling their quotas.

Today, though, only 41 percent of Americans believe the war was worthwhile, while 57 percent do not. And if Americans do not believe the war worthwhile, they're not likely to sign up to fight in it.

As a result, we now find ourselves in a very grim race. As former Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim described the situation in a recent panel discussion in Washington, "Will we become weary before the insurgents become weary?"

Or, as North Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh supposedly said:

"You will kill ten of our men, and we will kill one of yours, and in the end it will be you who will tire of it."

This is a bad situation. If we are forced to leave Iraq before a stable government takes hold there, the consequences would be enormous, and our leaders understand that. Even now, despite the polls, it's striking that no major leader of either party has publicly suggested anything but sticking it out.

At some point, though, that's going to change. On an issue like this, the public eventually leads and the leaders will rush to follow. And if the public is growing increasingly disenchanted with this war, top-secret British documents recently leaked to the British press help explain why.

The primary document is an internal summary of a meeting held on July 23, 2002, by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and a handful of his top foreign policy, intelligence and military advisers. At that point, most Americans had no idea that a war with Iraq was even being considered, but apparently, Blair and President Bush had agreed to invade Iraq as far back as an April 2002 meeting in Crawford, Texas.

In the July meeting, Blair and his aides discussed the Americans' plan to create an international crisis around Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction. The idea was to set the stage for war by demanding that Saddam Hussein re-admit U.N. weapons inspectors; when Saddam refused, that would be the excuse to invade.

However, as British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told Blair in that July meeting, "The case is thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Blair was also told that the "most likely timing in U.S. minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the U.S. congressional elections."

That description is damning, indicating that the Bush administration cynically manipulated its war plans to create maximum political advantage for Republican congressional candidates.

The document's most devastating paragraph, however, summarizes a report by the head of British intelligence, known as "C." "C" has just returned from meetings in Washington, and he's telling Blair what he learned there:

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," "C" tells Blair. "But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy. . . . There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

The intelligence was being fixed . . . Little discussion of the aftermath. Amazing.

So yes, a nation can be fooled into war by its own leaders. We've learned that much. But unless that war is short and successful, there's a price to be paid.

In this case, what began as an optional war has morphed into a war of great importance. But now, when our leaders tell us that, fewer Americans believe them, and fewer still are willing to die for it.

Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor.

© 2005 Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tommynomad



Joined: 24 Jul 2004
Location: on the move

PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2005 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guarantee this doesn't get picked up by the major wire services.

The #1 enemy of democracy in the USA today is media conglomeration. The old USSR had more media diversity than the US has now. And as long as the men who control those media also profit from war, the public will be lied to.

When the 'journalists' asking the tough questions are Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, your fifth estate has a problem.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
W.T.Carl



Joined: 16 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2005 4:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stick it in your ear, bozos. While the Army MAY be have a shortfall, the OTHER SERVICES do not. As a matter of fact, the Navy has raised the standards to get in.

As for the WMD business, SO WHAT? Saddam was spreading instability in the mid east. It is a good thing he is gone. It might take some time, but true peace may come out of this. At least GW did something to solve that age old problem.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Apple Scruff



Joined: 29 Oct 2003

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2005 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

W.T.Carl wrote:
Saddam was spreading instability in the mid east.


Explain.

W.T.Carl wrote:
At least GW did something to solve that age old problem.


Explain.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
W.T.Carl



Joined: 16 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2005 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Saddam was helping bank roll suicide bombers in Isreal to the tune of $25,000 per head ( do you really think he was using the "oil for food" money merely to build palaces?). He also had this nasty habit of invading other countries.
As the the age old problem, I had in mind the gordian knot called the middle east. Some thing radical had to be done. Or maybe you would prefer to have the only democracy in the region pushed into the sea?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Apple Scruff



Joined: 29 Oct 2003

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2005 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

W.T.Carl wrote:
Saddam was helping bank roll suicide bombers in Isreal to the tune of $25,000 per head ( do you really think he was using the "oil for food" money merely to build palaces?). He also had this nasty habit of invading other countries.
As the the age old problem, I had in mind the gordian knot called the middle east. Some thing radical had to be done. Or maybe you would prefer to have the only democracy in the region pushed into the sea?


I agree with you for the most part, but I think it's a bit presumptuous to say that Bush is doing something to "solve" the problem. While clearing out the old riffraff he's opened up a whole new can of exploding worms.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
R. S. Refugee



Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2005 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

W.T.Carl wrote:
Saddam was helping bank roll suicide bombers in Isreal to the tune of $25,000 per head ( do you really think he was using the "oil for food" money merely to build palaces?). He also had this nasty habit of invading other countries.
As the the age old problem, I had in mind the gordian knot called the middle east. Some thing radical had to be done. Or maybe you would prefer to have the only democracy in the region pushed into the sea?


Just curious. Do you have an Israeli passport as well as the one you have to qualify to be an ESL teacher in Korea? Not meaning to imply that all Israeilis are as rightwing as yourself, by any means. There are a lot of progressives in Israel. But they aren't in control.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
W.T.Carl



Joined: 16 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2005 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agreed. But maybe by opening the can of worms, this open wound will heal and not go on festering. The middle east has been a mess since the Ottoman Turks fell. At least he is attempting to solve the problem- one that was created by the French and the Brits.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2005 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Army is doing a 'stand down' for a day to talk to recruiters because they have failed for the last 3 months to make their quota. CBS showed a recruiter in Texas threatening to have a guy arrested because he decided not to show up for an interview. Another former recruiter said he was busted in rank because he failed to make his quota of 24 per year.

I have some questions:

a) Why don't more of the 51% who voted for Bush sign up? I'm thinking in particular of the conservatives in the 18-35 year old range who post here on Dave's. It's a $20,000 bonus (granted the dollar isn't worth what it used to be--but whose fault is that?)

b) Which is a better way to fill the ranks: a government-engineered recession with high unemployment or a draft? Which is the better political choice? How close to 100% is the likelihood of the first?

c) Is it possible to only draft conservatives who voted for Bush? Is it wise to arm and train only the wingnuts?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Apple Scruff



Joined: 29 Oct 2003

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2005 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
The Army is doing a 'stand down' for a day to talk to recruiters because they have failed for the last 3 months to make their quota. CBS showed a recruiter in Texas threatening to have a guy arrested because he decided not to show up for an interview. Another former recruiter said he was busted in rank because he failed to make his quota of 24 per year.

I have some questions:

a) Why don't more of the 51% who voted for Bush sign up? I'm thinking in particular of the conservatives in the 18-35 year old range who post here on Dave's. It's a $20,000 bonus (granted the dollar isn't worth what it used to be--but whose fault is that?)

b) Which is a better way to fill the ranks: a government-engineered recession with high unemployment or a draft? Which is the better political choice? How close to 100% is the likelihood of the first?

c) Is it possible to only draft conservatives who voted for Bush? Is it wise to arm and train only the wingnuts?


Right friggin' on. Every idiot who voted for Bush and can walk upright should immediately be sent over there to "protect America's freedom."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alias



Joined: 24 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2005 3:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

W.T.Carl wrote:
As a matter of fact, the Navy has raised the standards to get in.



Of course. Who wants to risk life in the Marines or Army? Navy is a much safer option.

Speaking of the memo, I noticed that the Bush administration is taking its sweet ol' time coming up with an explanation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Apple Scruff



Joined: 29 Oct 2003

PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2005 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alias wrote:
W.T.Carl wrote:
As a matter of fact, the Navy has raised the standards to get in.



Of course. Who wants to risk life in the Marines or Army? Navy is a much safer option.

Speaking of the memo, I noticed that the Bush administration is taking its sweet ol' time coming up with an explanation.


Don't hold your breath. The easiest answer for this administration is to just not answer at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: DC area

PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2005 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:

a) It's a $20,000 bonus (granted the dollar isn't worth what it used to be--but whose fault is that?)


Shocked

Are you sure? I just read in the economist that they'll only give fluent arabic speakers a $4,000 signing bonus plus an extra $1,000/month in salary, and that's something they're desperate for.

20,000 bucks seems a bit much, even given the desperate situation they're in these days.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2005 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
20,000 bucks seems a bit much, even given the desperate situation they're in these days.


I'm sure that's what Yahoo News said. $20,000. And I have a new glasses prescription.

It sounds like a lot to me, too. The article didn't say how the bonus was actually administered. Maybe education benefits? A weekend in Jeju-do?
A lifetime supply of Tootsie Rolls?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: DC area

PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2005 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, probably includes education benefits or something along those lines.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International