Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


US official used 'dubious' Iraq intelligence

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 10 February 2007
A LEADING figure in the Bush administration's march to war in Iraq used questionable intelligence about Saddam Hussein's links to al-Qaeda to help justify the 2003 invasion, a US defence watchdog said yesterday.
The former US defence policy chief Douglas Feith's view that there was a "mature symbiotic relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaeda was inconsistent with the intelligence community's view, a damning report by the Pentagon's inspector general said.
Thomas Gimble, the acting inspector general who produced the classified report after a one-year investigation, said Mr Feith had been authorised by senior Pentagon officials to pursue alternative intelligence analyses and his actions were lawful.

But his actions were sometimes "inappropriate" because they "did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the intelligence community", an unclassified two-page executive summary of his report said.

Leading officials, including Dick Cheney, the vice-president, used claims of a relationship between al-Qaeda and pre-war Iraq to suggest that Saddam could have had a role in the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.

Senior officials at the time, including Donald Rumsfeld, then defence secretary, were unhappy the CIA assessment did not more closely link Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate armed services committee, said: "The inspector general's report is a devastating condemnation.

"The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the department of defence."

He cited the report's findings that Mr Feith's office was, despite doubts expressed by the intelligence community, pushing the line that an Iraqi spy had met the 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta in Prague and that there were "multiple areas of cooperation" between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

"That was the argument that was used to make the sale to the American people about the need to go to war," Mr Levin said.However, independent inquiries, including one by the official 11 September commission, found no collaborative links between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Mr Feith, who left the government in 2005, said he welcomed the finding that his activities had been legal and authorised, but said it was "an absurd position" to say his activities were inappropriate. "It, of course, varied from [the] consensus. It was a criticism of that consensus. That is why it was written," he said.



The full article contains 400 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

2dogs in D.C.,

Barking (Always barking) 10/02/2007 00:36:15

And this is somehow a new revelilation? Lies? Shocked i am truly shocked! They used to call Reagan the "Teflon President" , man he had noting on king Bush the 2nd. Gods almighty, what the hell is to be done? Help me out here?

2

Mini Mitch,

10/02/2007 00:40:21

No sh*** Sherlock.

3

2dogs in D.C.,

Barking (Always barking) 10/02/2007 00:43:56

Sorry, spelling always takes second seat to rage. The current residents at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. are out of touch with the majority of the nation.

4

Scullion,

Canada 10/02/2007 01:02:25

If American intelligence (?) had said that Sadaam Hussein drank a different brand of coffee than Bush, the results would have been the same. Bush and Cheney were desperate to get into Iraq and they didn't care if they made a fool of their Secretary of State Powell in front of the U.N. to get it done.

5

Scaramouche,

10/02/2007 01:09:11

Isn't American Intelligence an oxymoron???

6

Malky,

10/02/2007 01:13:21

"The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the department of defence."

Welcome to the party! 4.5 YEARS too late, but welcome nonetheless.

You've been very qiet lately Sandy...i wonder why. As i asked yesterday - is Ron Paul also a self hating Republican? http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/193267D2-4A3D-4833...


"When Congress passed the authorization for the use of force in Iraq, it included two requirements. In oder to activate the authorization, President Bush had to prove that Iraq was in defiance of the United Nations by being in possession of banned weapons of mass destruction. President Bush was also required to show a link between Iraq and 9-11.

In his letter of transmittal of March 18. 2003, President Bush claims to have met both requirements.

We now know that in both cases President Bush was lying. Iraq did not have banned weapons of mass destruction. Snd, even Bush has admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

Therefore, since Bush did NOT in fact have proof of the required conditions to activate the Congressional Authorization for the use of force, the authorization is not legally in effect. "

-Michael Rivero.

7

2dogs in D.C.,

Barking (Always barking) 10/02/2007 01:48:26

#5-Sadly, it seems so... We always said that when i was a groud pounder. #6-Yep. #4-They set Gen. Powell up. He was hoodwinked like the rest of us.

8

2dogs in D.C.,

Barking (Always barking) 10/02/2007 01:50:14

Damn the hour, #5- sorry," ground "pounder.

9

2dogs in D.C.,

Barking (Always barking) 10/02/2007 02:00:58

By the way, what is up with the way the scotsman decides which articles deserve comments? Today, I see many deserving, and no opportunity.

10

Guga,

Rockall 10/02/2007 02:03:00

Bush and Bliar; war criminals, proven liars and mass murderers. They fit well in the hall of infamy, along with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot and Richard Nixon.

11

Steve Roberts,

10/02/2007 02:05:25

#6 ... I agree with your comments.

Just like the report that the US congress was incredulous at the sending of billions of dollars cash to Iraq, this is not a new revelation.

Of course those in support of the war had to say this, just the same as Blair had to tell his lie about the 40 minute WMD's.

Leaving aside for a moment the 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' senario, Saddam Hussein would in fact have been a most unlikely ally of al-Qaeda or any other fundamentalist Islamic group.

Saddam Hussein was a secular fascist-style dictator, the enemy of fundamentalist Iran.

12

Faramars,

Iran 10/02/2007 05:35:58

Quote : " Leading officials, including Dick Cheney, the vice-president, used claims of a relationship between al-Qaeda and pre-war Iraq to suggest that Saddam could have had a role in the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington"

Nobody has found collaborative links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. In 9/11 attacks .people like Bush and Cheney are responsible for these disaster in Iraq which was based on big lies like WMD,s in Iraq .

13

Faramars,

Iran 10/02/2007 05:46:49

Malky # 6
You are right. Bush was lying in war in Iraq. Iraq did not have banned weapons of mass destruction and Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.
I wonder why this creature is repeating such lies against Iran to start another illegal war with bloody results. It is very stupid to start a war based on big lies. By the way what is Bush's answer to US nation in this case?

14

Malky,

10/02/2007 05:54:30

#13 - Yes, Faramars - Tony blair lied to the British people as well and ONE MILLION people marched through London in protest at his decision to join the US in the war against Iraq.

At the time Blair said "trust me".

When it comes to war, i don't think the people will ever leave it in the hands of the politicians again.

Iraq is Tony Blair's legacy.

I hope this never happens but -

What is the mood in Iran?? Do your people think the US or Israel will attack? Are they willing to fight for their nation?

15

Faramars,

Iran 10/02/2007 06:16:36

Milky # 14
Hi
We are sure that US and Israel are not so stupid to start a war against Iran . Iran will be a hell for those aggressors who do not recognize international law. We hope no war , not to attack and not to be attacked ,but if every body attacks our country, millions of people are ready to die for their country . Please bear in mind that in the war with Iraq we didn't have an organized army ,but thousands of young volunteers defended their country in the best manner .

16

jim lad,

the castle 10/02/2007 07:56:16

This is not a NEWSstory,they are telling us what we already knew and lets hope Faramars #15 is right

17

Malky,

10/02/2007 08:20:44

Lynne has posted on the Israeli thread (surprise surprise), yet still no word from her or (Head in the Sand)y on Ron Paul (Republican), the faulty intelligence and the lies leading to war.

How are FOX NEWS spinning this? Bet they're not even talking about it......good day to talk up a Ms America beauty pageant, eh?

No wonder you read the Scotsman.

18

Finnking,

Finland 10/02/2007 08:28:16

2 Mini Mitch: Couldn't have expressed it better.

It's amazing how these people simply don't care about what is revealed later to the media. Was it Cheney or Rumsfeld who said, "When I first say something, millions are listening. When I retract the comment, only a few thousand hear it." You know? They simply don't care anymore. It's like the PNAC doc. They put it on the net! (wolfowitz now in charge of the world bank, BTW!!). They seem to know that most of the folk (esp. the states) will simply not read it. Stalin must be thinking, "Sh*t, why didn't I do it that way?"

Then again, Caligula must be thinking, "You guys are really crazy!"

19

Swilly Tisher,

Loch Maree 10/02/2007 09:02:10

So now we know. Let there be MORE light.

20

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD,

Dar-Es-Salaam Tanzania 10/02/2007 09:10:31

The former US defence policy chief Douglas Feith's view that there was a "mature symbiotic relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaeda was inconsistent with the intelligence community's view, a damning report by the Pentagon's inspector general said.
Say. We always have the position where in politics some one wants to be a hero and come out with fresh ideas even if they are wrong and we know that they are crazy. Why do these people live?

21

,

10/02/2007 09:11:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
22

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD,

Dar-Es-Salaam Tanzania 10/02/2007 09:12:02

No 15 post a letter to no 19. He/she cannot read. Thank buddy. This is stale news. How many died today?

23

The Strategist,

10/02/2007 09:27:29

Blair has tarnished the reputation of our military because of his stupidity.

24

bill, england,

10/02/2007 09:30:07

15. Faramars, Iran

"We are sure that US and Israel are not so stupid to start a war against Iran"

I am sure that US and Israel are stupid enough to start a war against Iran; that is the whole problem - they must be stopped.

The problem is that they do not see it as stupidity.

25

,

10/02/2007 09:32:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

ddmc,

10/02/2007 09:44:31

Feiths is one of the many neocons who's lies are finally being unraveled, although most people could see through the lies at the time....isn't he another senior neocon who holds dual nationality ?

27

Faramars,

Iran 10/02/2007 10:45:31

# infidel 25
Quote “ You just repeat your government’s lies (yes your government tells lies too!) as you deny the Iranian nuclear weapons programme. The Iranian regime has consistently lied and obstructed inspectors.”
You can not compare Iran with US . US lies have amounted to war with bloody outcomes. IAEA inspectors have not alleged that Iran government has lied . What do you say? Do you know more than those inspectors ? US government is aggressor nowadays but we aren’t. If you believe that I am lying please mention some territories occupied by Iranian and some foreigners or non Muslims killed by Iranian .or finally some terrorist activities done by Iranians .

28

Wally,

Arizona 10/02/2007 11:27:55

This fellow Feith was in news years ago over this exact same thing. He was exposed as liar years ago on this very point. It was in major newspapers. perhaps not in mass electronic media. there's been huge documentation that they interfered in intelligence to get the recommendation they wanted. Downing Street memo and much other evidence too. CIA people complained about Dick Cheney coming to their office and getting in their face telling them to fly right. this & much else came out years ago. it was in newspapers like New york times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, etc. they're just now putting some on tv to keep us happy - to keep us thinking there's a process of democracy.

the americans re-elect 99% of all incumbents who try for re-election, according to voting machines anyway. the politicians have no fear of the people at all. they fear instead the idea that the media may turn on them and thus cause them to be one who is rejected. and they fear being unable to raise funds necessary to participate. the people do not control those things that the politicians fear. the people who rule over us do control those things that the politicians fear.

and the politicians over time are becoming less & less important. power is being taken from them. sovereignty for the governments is being lost. agreements are being made to place power elsewhere. and the people are helpless to stop this. how can you do anything about it if you are ignorant of it? How can you not be ignorant of it if you are afraid to learn of it? or too lazy, or kept in dark, or consuming news in mass media?

29

John Reid (no relation - not even distant!),

10/02/2007 12:00:08

Good post, Infidel @ 25....

There should be no place anywhere, for world leaders influenced by religion... Bush has already stated he heard voices in his head telling him to take out Saddam Hussein... To me, that is an indication of madness rather than religious conviction.

It has been proved time and time again, that religion and politics do not mix.

30

Ricardo,

10/02/2007 13:29:52

When intellegence is manipulated to suit the desired objective of the administration...I would call it Lying....and This is what Bush has done to the people of the US...equally Blair did the same to us...

Those religeous Plonkers... do not put their lives on the line or those dear to them... Its up to those who give their bodies as a weapon of the war to vote with their feet and opt out.

31

Dragomir,

10/02/2007 13:34:17

I think the Scotsman is turning "communist". How dare they flirt with the TRUTH !?

32

,

10/02/2007 15:18:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 358946, Article id was mapped to record!
33

Guga,

Rockall 10/02/2007 15:34:28

#21 The Voice of Shin Bet. We could also add the names of Menachem Begin and all the other memebers of Irgun and the Stern Gang.

34

GFE,

Texas, USA 10/02/2007 16:01:37

You guys are great. However, most of you have apparently lost sight of the bigger picture. Don't forget Iraq was in violation of UN sanctions between the two major conflicts, was resistive of UN inspectors seeing Iraq's weapons sites to verify they did or did not have WMD's, gassed the Kirds and Shites using WMD's, shot at our planes patrolling the no-fly zone, and tried to assassinate a US President (GB#1). The fact that most major international intelligence organizations, including France, Germany, and Russia, thought Iraq had likely amassed stockpiles of WMD's and Saddam's resistance to UN inspectors, only proved to be Saddam's huge bluff. If he had been more open with his weapons programs, the last invasion to overthrow his regime may not have happened. The US was just not in any mood after 9/11 to trust Saddam would not to give WMD's to Al-Queda or other terrorist groups to bomb a US city. OK, the facts have turned out to be different than originally thought, but the fact remains Saddam was hostile to the US and apparently did have the wherewithal to develop WMD's as he had done in the past, using his vast oil reserves to fund the program. So all things considered, I still think we did the right thing to overthrow the tyrant and try to give the Iraqi people an opportunity to create a better society for themselves. I know the rebuilding effort is not going smoothly, but that doesn't change my mind. In the end if Iraq prefers to go back to another dictatorial government, that'll be their choice. Ours is to protect our countries and our freedoms. Other countries (like Iran for example) should learn from this experience, and not threaten and/or bluff their WMD programs for political purposes. The results could be deadly. Like most of you, I prefer to live in a world of peace and prosperity. Long live Adam Smith, my favorite Scotsman!

35

Dragomir,

10/02/2007 16:18:09

#36, ah, but you forget:

- SADDAM and the BAATH party WAS PUT IN POWER BY USA

- Most of his army and arsenal were destroyed during the first american invasion of Iraq, especially the chemical weapons - because they were sold to Saddam from USA and USA-friends in the West.

- The Iraqis were uprising against Saddam during that first invasion of Iraq, but thanks for the sudden retreat - Saddam was BACK IN POWER. SMART MOVE, Bush Sr. didn't seem to like the idea of Iraqis actually having power and being free of Saddam and the Baath party!

- Sanctions are useless, sanctions only hurt the poor people over the country, so eventually Saddam's regime was strengthened by the sanctions

- THE IEAE inspectors destroyed every WMD and every production infrastructure during 1992 and 2000. It was TECHNICALLY impossible for Saddam to get his program back up.

- Saddam did not kick the inspectors out, the inspectors were ordered out by USA!

- the "vast oil funds" were non-existent, that's because of the existence of the "food for oil" program. Iraq become a very poor country because of wars and sanctions, there was no way the little funds gained from oil and later from the petroEURO, be of any use in a new WMD program.

- your freedoms have been molested by BUSH and his tampling of your american Constitution and Bill of Rights. No "terrorists" could've ever dreamed of achieving such anti-freedom results!

36

sandy,

USA 10/02/2007 16:22:53

i decided to take a "time out" after being asked to stop posting, by a very kindly gentleman across the pond. i rather enjoy reading posts from the family unit of like minds. continue on troops, i'll check in later for more of the same..........

37

John Reid (no relation - not even distant!),

10/02/2007 17:18:25

Sandy @ 39

Have you not noticed that 99% of "The family unit of like minds" come from your side of the pond?

Should that not tell you something?

38

John Reid (no relation - not even distant!),

10/02/2007 17:29:03

Thatscottishwoman...

Have you noticed in certain US circles it is becoming very fashionable, or desireable to have Scots ancestry?

Involved in tourism as I am, I see many instances of our transatlantic friends searching round library genealogy sections and graveyards, in the hope of establishing a Scottish connection....
Why then do they find socialism so utterly abhorrent?

39

ddmc,

10/02/2007 17:32:01

the US were so convinced that saddam had chemical & biological WMD's, was that becuase they sold them to Iraq whilst the Iran - Iraq war was going on ?
As for Al-Quiada destroying the twin towers perhaps people need to start looking at the 'new pearl harbour' as predicted by PNAC & the other neocons

40

Cheryl,

10/02/2007 17:39:36

This is news? I've known this for years.

How is it Bush hasn't been impeached for his lies and deception? This is far, far, far worse than Clinton receiving blow jobs.

41

Pilrig,

Livingston. 10/02/2007 17:55:09

#23 I don't think Blair has tarnished the reputation of the British squaddie, but all the spin and deceit has resulted in few pople believing politicians any longer.

42

Pilrig,

Livingston. 10/02/2007 17:56:45

#36 Adam Smith's been deid for a couple of hundred years !

43

Malky,

10/02/2007 18:20:52

#39 - BULLSH*T. She simply doesn't want to admit that REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ARE SAYING CATEGORICALLY THAT THE US PUBLIC WAS LIED, LIED, LIED TO ABOUT THE "IRAQI THREAT" IN A BID TO SELL THEM AN ILLEGAL WAR.

That's right Sandy Pandy - away you go and bury your head in the sand. If you're not going to comment on this, don't bother coming back.

44

Rony,

Fife 10/02/2007 18:48:08

The feith stole the truth

45

John Reid (no relation - not even distant!),

10/02/2007 19:00:26

Cheryl @ 46

It wasn't the blow jobs that caused so much outrage, it was the fact that Monica was of Russian descent...!!

46

Malky,

10/02/2007 19:14:29

Putin speaks out against unchecked US agression;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6349287.stm

Also, read the quote from McCain - a fine example of double speak.

47

Faramars,

Iran 10/02/2007 19:21:23

For GFE, Texas, USA
Quote : “Other countries (like Iran for example) should learn from this experience, and not threaten and/or bluff their WMD programs for political purposes”.
Could you please mention only one case in which iran threatening a country with WMD,s ?this claim is really wrong and nobody can believe it . there is no threat or bluff in iran nuclear programme because iran is not making WMD,s against humanity .

48

bill, england,

10/02/2007 19:28:34

53. Malky

Thanks for the link.

We ignore Putin at our peril. The Great Game is still being played in the Middle East with the same players.

Russia and Iran are oil swap trading partners, China is in on the act, and they have the power to destroy the US economy by dumping the dollar standard if they so wish.

49

ddmc,

10/02/2007 19:38:42

the 'petrodollar' is the only thing keeping the US economy alive, when Saddam tried to accept euros look what happened, Iran have also threatened to change to euros & look who's next in the firing line public enemy #1, Chaves in Venezuala is also thinking about the 'petroeuro' & he's public enemy #2, Putin is talking about 'petroeuro' look at the bad press he's been getting from the US, public enemy #3, the only reason China havent pulled the plug is that they own so many $$$$, they want to divest whilst it is still worth something. Opec will follow suit as they see their $billions become worthless. China or Russia would struggle to take on the might of the US military & nuclear arsenal but combined they would win against the US military especially in it's current state, it could be a quicker ending than waiting for global warming to finish us off :)

50

Lynne,

USA 10/02/2007 19:44:32

Malky..Putin?...he is taking his country back to the days of dictatorship...slowly

He has contracts with China and Iran..did you expect him to be behind Bush?..and Iraq, that iswhy he did not join us.

He is also probably behind the Russian's ex-spy's death.. Once KGB..always KGB

Faramars.. I looked for a response to my post about Ahmadinejad, and the people who are not too happy with him now. The US is not going to attack Iran...we are hoping that the people (Moderists and Reformists) will make the changes themselves. It should come from within.....all this talk of attacking Iran has come from Iran, and these posters here. The US has said over and over we have no intentions of attacking Iran.

51

Schmuel,

England 10/02/2007 19:45:32

Good evening John, I thought you might have deserted us after that clown the other evening, good to see you back.

If you want a giggle this is the Item I picked up yesterday (Friday) from the Yahoo page and referred everyone to it.

Somewhere in the States is a 'Female?' named Martha, and a rare old harridon she is to - makes sandy usa look like an angel, anywhere this 'creature' decided to try tearing into me!!

I did enjoy myself replying to her. Classic vintage me.

What does amuse me is when a lot of these Americans try to 'educate' us thru history, I thought our educational system was bad enough but there's makes ours look perfect.

Anyway, take care John and with luck we might have fun with some more 'States side persons' yet.

52

ddmc,

10/02/2007 20:16:56

Lynne why do the US have 2 soon to be 3 nuclear aircraft carrier battlegroups & assorted support ships, there's so many US ships in the area that even your own subs cant navigate without hitting oil tankers, is it all for show ?
Perhaps it was Putin's aggresive stance against the neuvo Oligarchs & the western Oil companies hovering like vultures around their vast & mostly still untapped mineral reserves that made him the western bad guy and the bargain basement selloff conducted by his alky predecessor of Russian infrastructure ?.
I have to laugh at the attribute about the polonuim poisoning the KGB (sorry FSB) have far more deadly & untraceable way's of disposing of their enemies & wouldn't be so clumsy in leaving traces of polonuim all over europe & BA planes.

53

American,

usa 10/02/2007 20:20:45

Bush should have used the same intel that Clinton did when Clinton took the vote to oust Saddam because of wmd's & a threat to the US & it's allies- OH, that's right! He did use the same Intel.

He should have used intel from our allies-OH, he did that too. The media reported (even the BBC) that Putin warned Bush that Russian intel said Saddam was planning attacks against the US. I wonder if Yasin (1993 WTC terrorists) was going to be involved in that attack too. I guess Putin was just messing with him.

I guess the intel was wrong with there being a connection between saddam & bin laden. Those declassified documents that you don't hear too much about are probably just forged. Although, 9/11 commissioner DEMOCRAT Bob Kerrey didn't mention them being forged when he was on TV on 03/06 talking about them.

I wonder if the media recanted their stories from 98 & 99 which claimed "saddam offers asylum to bin laden".

54

Malky,

10/02/2007 20:44:05

#57 - Lynne - your critique of Putin is classic propaganda regurgitation, much like everything else you say.

Still no word on the "dubious intelligence, then eh?

Also, Bush lacks the popular homeland support to attack Iran...UNLESS, there is an "incident", which i'm sure will be manufactured in the not too distant future.

BTW - when that happens - and you get your war, you're on your own, and when the consequences arrive...you're on your own.

Read up......

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329712014-111322,00.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JBA...

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2007/02/04/3522960-sun...

http://www.forward.com/articles/top-dem-wesley-clark-says...

http://www.forward.com/articles/book-israel-lobby-pushing...

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12031

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Israel_calls_for_sanctions_...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_joshua_f_070206_c...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?i

55

Dragomir,

10/02/2007 20:48:22

#62, actually the reports from Russia were before 9.11 and about attacks on USA from the mujahedin extremists, not from Iraq. Of course the CIA didn't care about it, since CIA was the one organizing the mujahedin extremists. "AL QUEDA" was born in the CIA headquarters. A simple database of pawns.

As for Saddam, he was punished for dropping the $ for the EURO, that was one of the main reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Iraq was a major oil exporter... if the trend of dumping dollars become popular, whoah... bye bye US economy. With over a dozen trillion dollars (that's 12,000,000,000,000) in foreign debt it would've plunged USA into mega-ubber-recession.

There are few (but vocal) people stupid enough to believe that a war is a good tool to get rid of a few people. Except for a large nuclear strike on Iraq to kill a dozen people, nothing would've been as blunt and dumb as the war. It's like a dentist trying to patch some teeth using industrial cranes and bulldozers to do it - extremely BLUNT and STUPID.

56

American,

usa 10/02/2007 20:51:17

#57 - Lynne, it seems some of these people are big on websites. Of course, if you send one contradicting theirs-it's right-winged propaganda. Even if it's been posted since 1999.
Speaking of Putin- Am I the only one who remembers the media reports of him warning the US of attacks by Saddam after 9/11?

57

American,

usa 10/02/2007 20:54:33

#65- Obviously, we're talking about two different things. ALL the websites I've been reading says "After 9/11 and B4 the war".

58

John Reid (no relation - not even distant!),

10/02/2007 20:59:32

Hi Schmuel... welcome back....

Keep an eye on :
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2185...

59

American,

usa 10/02/2007 21:03:16

#68- Right back at ya scottish woman, but do you really think I would give my address to an American hater?

60

sandy,

USA 10/02/2007 21:11:08

#56--ddmc--"the "petrodollar" is the only thing keeping the US economy alive"....wrong as usual!

<low- inflation
<low-interest rates
<low-unemployment
<low-tax rate
that is what keeps the US-economy alive....... that & safety & freedom are the reasons sooooo many people from around the globe come to America.

61

sandy,

USA 10/02/2007 21:18:09

#65--dragomir---your from Tanzania, right?

62

Dragomir,

10/02/2007 21:19:55

#72, thanks for sharing your perspective on economics, I'm sure most children will agree with you on that; you must have a lot of friends among young...

63

American,

usa 10/02/2007 21:24:03

#71- Tell me, What is our foreign policy? Please dont say the Iraq war.

64

Fremont CA,

USA 10/02/2007 21:27:20

If the US had EVER been concerned about WMD or the horrors committed by a tyrant we'd be fighting in North Korea, not Iraq. NK *does* have WMD, *does* have a nuclear program but does *not* have any resources that earn profits for US interests. And their army would be much less of a pushover which would make for bad television.... Can't have that.

65

sandy,

USA 10/02/2007 21:30:24

#74--dragomir--yes & they're a hell of a lot brighter than you...............

66

John Reid (no relation - not even distant!),

10/02/2007 21:36:34

Oh... so you're all back on here again.... Hope you're not trying to loose me.... looks like I've been talking to myself on another thread.....

67

Dragomir,

10/02/2007 21:37:11

sandy, no, I'm typing from Transylvania, Romania.

And it's a shame some the brightness of your friends doesn't rub off on you, only the silly part. Not many people get the opportunity to have so many smart friends around. :-)

68

sandy,

USA 10/02/2007 21:38:35

#70--American--"thatscottishwoman" has never posted hatred of Americans that i know of. she just has no tolerance for Americans w/a different view of the war.

69

Faramars,

Iran 10/02/2007 21:52:56

Lyyne 57
Among those people who has not voted for Ahmadinejad and is not happy with him is Faramars but this is not a good reason to forget real rights of my country. Minority should obey the rules of majority in democracy. I am happy that hear Bush is not going to attack Iran but I don’t understand under what rule of law he is entitled to attack and occupy countries ?. if you know please let me know . The time here in Iran is 1 : 20 am

70

sandy,

USA 10/02/2007 21:57:55

#76--fremont---it must have slipped your mind that
"bubba clinton" sold a "reactor"(nuclear) to NK, for use of "electricity"! of course, even tho NK promised bubba that they wouldn't use it for "the-bomb" , they lied.............you do your own net-search. all the major papers ran the story, you know the one that said how wonderful bubba was to do this for such a backward country??

71

John Reid (no relation - not even distant!),

10/02/2007 22:00:37

Sandy @ 81....

How can anyone have ANY tolerance for Americans, posting on here, who believe they have won the war in Iraq, and that they also won in Viet-Nam..?

It has even been suggested on here, that instead of occupying Iran, they should simply destroy it....
Still - I suppose they have got all these costly nukes sitting around doing nothing... It would be interesting to see if they are still working.....

72

sandy,

USA 10/02/2007 22:00:46

#82--TSW--feel better.........

73

Schmuel,

England 10/02/2007 22:03:00

John @ 69.

Thanks for that one, just finished the article and scanning some of those 'posts', Bulldog and Fremont seem to be snesible and have their heads screwed on the right way, mind - there does seem to a few are believe they are Toc H lamps, I think we could be in for some more fun if we are not carefull.

Think I'll catch up on 1 or 2 more sites, cathc you soon.

74

Lynne,

USA 10/02/2007 22:06:21

#67 America...I remember...but others conveniently forget....it's called selective amnesia.

75

Faramars,

Iran 10/02/2007 22:21:56
76

sandy,

USA 10/02/2007 22:31:14

#89--Lynne--hi there!!!....don't forget, at 3pm(est), Sunday, Iran's news conferrence. they're to announce they're cure for "HIV/aid's" & they've gone "nuclear"............they've been announcing it for the past week!!---also catch "war stories" w/Ollie North, Sunday eve. his report from Iraq, on his last trip............

77

Tricia,

10/02/2007 22:38:30

The findings by our "defense watchdog" are 4 years too late. More reprehensible is their spin that it wasn't criminal. It's time to press charges against people who deliberately lied to start this war. Day after day, people are dying for this lie. We impeached Clinton for lying about sex. Bush, dick, rummy and the other neocons are much more criminal. They have blood on their hands. It's time to show the caskets being brought home each day that they try to hide. Maybe then the people will demand that the authors of the plan stand trial.

78

Faramars,

Iran 10/02/2007 22:49:04

Tricia 93
sorry for US nation to have these leaders who have blood on their hands .

79

sandy,

USA 10/02/2007 22:51:16

#91--faramars---thanks for the link.....irans top nuclear official, Ali Larijani, accepted an invitation to speak, then cancelled citing health reasons, but was in the back of the room...........umm...wonder why??

80

Schmuel,

England 10/02/2007 22:54:17

93. Tricia.

Hello there and welcome. It is nice to hear a voice of reason for a change from your side of the water.

If it's any consolation there are quite a few over here who would like Blair charged with treason, at one time that carried the Death Penalty which in England meant the Judge placed a 'Black cap' on his head and announced that the guilty would "Be hung by the neck until dead". However, if I am any judge, Blair will have had that law rescinded any he would simply be thrown in prison. Too many 'softies' in this country.

81

John Reid (no relation - not even distant!),

10/02/2007 22:55:11

Religious nutters got rid of Clinton... he was very well liked and respected here in the UK...

That could never ever be said of Dubya.... who was installed by religious nutters....

What a price the world has paid for that.... and it's only just begun.... As the Carpenters used to sing..

82

John Reid (no relation - not even distant!),

10/02/2007 22:56:21

My comment @ 97 aimed at Tricia @ 93

83

Faramars,

Iran 10/02/2007 22:57:38

Sandy
Larijani is now in MONCHEN . I hope iran nuclear talks to resume soon .

84

sandy,

USA 10/02/2007 23:00:19

#93--tricia--get off your "high horse" & come back to reality. now, are you back & comfortable? breath in-&-out, 3/times, real slow. aside from your take on this article, (which, for whatever reason, isn't giving the entire outcome of the hearing) can you please point me in the direction of the evidence that shows that the President is a "criminal"??? please??

85

sandy,

USA 10/02/2007 23:03:02

#96--Schmuel--"treason"?? any proof? or just ranting, as usual.........

86

Schmuel,

England 10/02/2007 23:10:24

Lynne, USA / 7:44pm 10 Feb 2007

I see we have ANOTHER Bush fan!

"Malky..Putin?...he is taking his country back to the days of dictatorship...slowly" Putin will soon have to step down from the presidency, sooner than Bush will from his - unfortunately. Also, just what do you think Bush has been trying to do?

"He has contracts with China and Iran..did you expect him to be behind Bush?..and Iraq, that iswhy he did not join us." He can choose who he does business with and good luck to him, also he had more sense than Blair.

"He is also probably behind the Russian's ex-spy's death.. Once KGB..always KGB" I see, and you don't have anything like the KGB? of course not, you've got the CIA instead.

"Faramars.. I looked for a response to my post about Ahmadinejad, and the people who are not too happy with him now. The US is not going to attack Iran...we are hoping that the people (Moderists and Reformists) will make the changes themselves. It should come from within.....all this talk of attacking Iran has come from Iran, and these posters here. The US has said over and over we have no intentions of attacking Iran." We have had read over and over, and in different papers and on different sites, that Bush has not given up the idea of war with Iran.

I take this to mean that if Iran does not despose of its Nuclear Weapons then Bush WILL attack Iran in pretty much the same way as he attacked Iraq for possessing WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION, have you seen any lately? And how does he know whether or not Iran has Nuclear Weapons? has God come along, tapped him on his and said "George, you know those naughty little Iranians next door to the naughty little Iraqis? well, guess what? they have a whole arsenal of Nuclear Weapons - you blast them to hell and I shall kick Jesus out and you can have his seat."

87

Tricia,

10/02/2007 23:16:16

Sandy, at least my horse is high. Don't you get it? You slurp up the party drivel. Start thinking for yourself and use some common sense. They send people to their deaths when they know the information they're using is false. How many people have died due to their deliberate lies and negligence? Those are impeachable actions if Congress has the brass balls to do it. Surely that's more criminal than a Monica harmonica.

88

Schmuel,

England 10/02/2007 23:28:44

101. sandy, USA / 11:03pm 10 Feb 2007

"#96--Schmuel--"treason"?? any proof? or just ranting, as usual." You ARE a sucker for punishment , I'll give you that. In the United Kingdom treason is an act, the committal of which places the security of your country at risk. So, what better way of endangering the security of ones country than by going to war (other than in self defence), especially when there is NO legitimate cause or reason.

But then as your are American and a Bush fan I would not expect you to understand. I have read many 'posts' where the author is proud of America and when I read what is written I do not believe they know what they are talking about.

Sandy! I am an ENGLISHMAN and I am proud of England BUT! I am NOT PROUD OF THE CRETINS AND CRIMINALS WHO HAVE THE AUDACITY TO CALL THEMSELVES OUR LEADERS!

Finally, whilst I do not agree with what you write, I have not objected to what you write. Because I speak my mind does not mean that I RANT.

RANT = to talk nonsense, rave.

If all you can do is be Offensive then I would suggest that you cease your scribblings now and stay at home where Mummy and Daddy know that you are safe from us naughty big boys, they might not like their 'darling, sweet little daughter' being offended what we consider to be the truth.

89

Faramars,

Iran 10/02/2007 23:30:06

Sandy 100
On behalf of Terica I say when your president have sent more than 3000 US soldiers to die for a big lie , he is a criminal .he must be prosecuted in a competent court in US and after that he must be put on trial in International Criminal Court (ICC ) for crimes against humanity . Excuse me to give this answer.

90

sandy,

USA 10/02/2007 23:35:18

#103--tricia--did you have to take a "time out" to re-visit alex jones's site for a proper response?
go back & check w/alex & have him explain "impeachable offences" to you. OH WAIT! alex will have to contact Chomsky for the answer. i can't wait that long it's getting late. will be back for your most "intelligent" response & proof, in a.m.

91

sandy,

USA 10/02/2007 23:48:27

#104--Schmuel--"i have read many "posts" where the author is proud of America & when i read what is written i do not believe they know what they are talking about". this is "nonsence"!.... ok, i give, i'll use "nonsense" instead of rant, for that is what i meant. i'll try not to offend your sensibilities in the future, by using such offensive words. will that do????

92

Tricia,

10/02/2007 23:52:46

Sandy, you obviously have me confused with somebody else. I haven't visited either side's site. I'm not buying either side's propoganda either. I'm defending my constitutional right to free speech. I like to think my common sense and intelligence lets me see that inept presidents need to be held responsible for criminal actions regardless of party affiliation. Hopefull a good night's sleep will have you thinking more clearly in the morning. Be sure to give Lynne her good night kiss!

93

Lynne,

USA 10/02/2007 23:56:23

Schmuel...You did take it wrong..as usual. There are people in Iran who are not happy with having old mullahs with old ideas. Half the poplulation is under 30..they don't want to live this way either..the dress police, newspapers being shut down etc. That is why the last elections were not of the party of Ahmadinejad.... if they want to change a regime...they will do it themselves.

94

Lynne,

USA 11/02/2007 00:08:03

Tricia...don't know why your so flippant..and rude.

Sandy...what's with her? (Tricia)...she doesn't even know me yet!!!!

95

JohnK,

USA 11/02/2007 00:20:43

This seems to be the same Reuters story that has just been ‘corrected’ due to serious mistakes. This story is completely wrong. Typical of Reuters sloppy reporting.

96

Tricia,

11/02/2007 00:33:45

Lynne,
I've been reading you and Sandy for weeks. When all others disagree with the two of you, you seem to have each other for moral support. You seem to fight each other's battles. I figured you were probably kissing cousins. I've been called sarcastic on occasion but I don't think I'm rude.

97

Tricia,

11/02/2007 00:46:23

JohnK, the defense dept. expert did not deny this on the news I saw this morning. He felt that it was right to put his spin on the intelligence because he didn't agree with CIA findings.

98

Lynne,

USA 11/02/2007 00:48:16

Tricia..I stand corrected...not rude..just sarcastic...

99

Lynne,

USA 11/02/2007 00:52:23

Tricia..so how does that make Bush culpable? He has to trust his advisors..Is he, with all that time on his hands, supposed to check and research everything that comes down to him? Let's be real about this...That is why he has advisors.

100

Malky,

11/02/2007 02:19:30

#115 - you're problem Lynne, is that you've no intention of understanding or accepting the truth of these matters.

You're only concerned with 1) continuing to promote anti-islamic generalisation/stereotypes and 2) defending the indefensible, just like the last Nazis standing.

Personally, i couldn;t care less what a couple of hick rednecks in buttfcuk idaho think, particularly when there is such a swell of popular opinion against the war criminals and their supporters.

You just keep cheerleading evil, it's what you're good at. You're 15 minutes is up.

101

GFE,

Texas, USA 11/02/2007 03:02:44

Bush won't be impeached because the Democrats who would love to do it for political reasons, don't have proof of impeachable offenses. Oh sure, they've made many claims, but they know full well they won't hold up in court. If they air hearings against Bush, the American people will learn this is all about politics. Of course, there is the 50% who didn't vote for Bush who will believe anything so long as it makes him and conservatives (Republicans) look bad......

Those of you are not Americans should understand this. No matter how much you dislike Bush, he is our President and does command our armed forces. I have little doubt he will use them to protect our people and our interests if he thinks it necessary......Keep dreaming......

102

Lynne,

USA 11/02/2007 03:20:44

Malky ..I don't promote anything...I dislike Radical Islam, not all muslims are Radical...

But since you can resort to nothing but insults and name calling I will not answer you any more until I find that you have said something worthwhile, and not insulting.

103

GFE,

Texas, USA 11/02/2007 03:26:30

#37 ThatScottishWoman - You posted:
"Scotland has a long history of socialism, we also have a long history of sectarianism - this is probably why many of the posters on this side of the pond respond in the way they do to sectarian/conservative posts from your side of the pond."

First, thanks for the response. Second, I admit that I'm learning about Scotland's culture and history, so please forgive me if I'm not as familiar as I should be. I have read some Scottish history, and do admire what I have read, especially of those during the "enlightenment" period. As you know, Adam Smith was one of Scotland's leading figures during that time. He is known world-wide as the father of modern classical economics, and largely credited for the ideas that have helped make capitalist countries successful. So, I do think he is one of the greatest Scots of all time.

I have come to believe many people in Scotland are socialist today. I hate to hear that because I'm sure that will be a problem for Scotland if they do elect to go independent from the UK. As one of those pesky Americans with Scottish heritage, I really want the best for Scotland. It pains me to think Scotland will probably struggle to reach its potential for years to come if it continues following a path of socialism.

Even though it appears many in Scotland don't particularly like us in the US, I'm pretty sure we in the US hold Scotland in high regard, I know that I do.

Best of luck......

104

Malky,

11/02/2007 04:37:41

#118 - Lynne - here's your post @60 from the "insurgent video" thread....

"60. Lynne, USA / 6:26pm 10 Feb 2007 Well Malky, lets see what happens with the Radicals slowly take your country over, maybe then your head will come out from between your legs...soon as they are elected into posts of importance...you will be singing a different tune.
I can't wait..we get pictures over here of the muslim community marching holding signs of death to people who insult islam, they don't want freedoms, and the younger ones, want Shria law...GOOD LUCK!!!"

Your posts are replete with rabid anti-islam rhetoric.

There are many wonderful Americans over there who are ready to step and and affect the required political change to make sure that a rogue will never again find it easy to lie your sons and daughters into war.

I'll leave you in their capable hands. You and i are finished on these fora.

105

bill, england,

11/02/2007 08:55:10

Dubious US intelligence is a paradigm.

106

sandy,

USA 11/02/2007 13:30:50

#110--Lynne--when one hasn't a clue, one resorts to "flippant & rude" remarks. best advice! ignore...

107

sandy,

USA 11/02/2007 13:32:04

#111--JohnK---you've got that right!!

108

sandy,

USA 11/02/2007 13:35:47

#112--tricia--well then, you lucked out! you have many more "like minded" honey's you relate to, that post nothing but intolerance for other peoples views. hooray for you!!!!!!

109

sandy,

USA 11/02/2007 13:39:25

#116--malky--where is "buttfcuk Idaho"???

110

sandy,

USA 11/02/2007 13:49:25

...Lynne--Douglas Feith-on-FoxnewsSunday with Chris Wallace @ 9am. will repeat @ 3pm today.

111

sandy,

USA 11/02/2007 13:57:21

#119--GFE----nicely stated post, m'dear! bravo....

112

Tricia,

11/02/2007 15:22:38

124 -Sandy were you sleepwalking when you posted? You did say goonight a bit ago.
Go back and reread your many blogs and then let us know where you showed tolerance for people who disagreed.

113

GFE,

Texas, USA 11/02/2007 15:29:27

(127) - Sandy, Thanks. This debate about Bush lying to the public to get us into war reminds me of the global warming debate. There's a lot of logic to back up the argument, but it just isn't true. The actual proof hasn't, and I don't think can be shown. It begins to look more like American bashing after awhile to me. I really hate that so many people around the world can't appreciate our sacrifices to help them live in freedom and prosperity......

114

GFE,

Texas, USA 11/02/2007 15:54:55

131 - Please elaborate. I'm not sure how to take your comment. That is, you don't think America makes sacrifices, or you think America brags about its sacrifices, or the sacrifices are self-serving, or other?

Thanks,

115

Dragomir,

11/02/2007 15:59:12

#130. HAHHAHAhhahAHHAHAhahahahha HAHHAHAhhahAHHAHAhahahahha HAHHAHAhhahAHHAHAhahahahha HAhhAHA HAHHAhahA Hh hAHAH hHahahH hHAHahahH AHhaHAhahahH AHhaHah hahahahhaHAHAHhahahahha haH haHAHahhaha
hAHAHah hAH ah ahahahahhahhah HAHahhahAHA HaHh ah hha ha ha hAh a hah ah ahhahahH AH ha ha haH haH ah ahhhaha

Congratulations for exemplifying extreme naivety.

Robert Newman (comedian) had an analogy for this:

the level of naivety necessary before you can talk about <an American plan to bring Democracy to the Middle East> ... you will not find that level of naivety anyware outside of 1970s porno films: 'Gee mister, you mean the Time Machine only works if I take off ALL my clothes?' .

116

GFE,

Texas, USA 11/02/2007 16:04:17

Dragomir, please explain why you think I'm naive. I'm pretty sure we're all naive about something. That is, we all take "facts" on faith when the "facts" and logic fit our sense of right and wrong.

117

GFE,

Texas, USA 11/02/2007 16:17:06

#135 thatscottishwoman, Point taken. Thanks for the clarification. I think it would be helpful if we all step back and refocus a bit. The fighting in Iraq is a terrible thing, and I certainly hate the fact that some of our troops are dieing there. On the other hand, I'm afraid if we hadn't gone in, or weren't there now, the situation would be a lot worse. If you don't agree, that's certainly your right, and I should be big enough to allow you to state your opinion without calling you names. I hope the same courtesy can be extended to those of us who differ.

118

Dragomir,

11/02/2007 16:19:55

#134, because you don't seem to have any grasp of USA's foreign policy over the past century except a national school-book perspective of the major wars. It's SAD.

119

GFE,

Texas, USA 11/02/2007 16:34:50

#137 Dragomir, Thank you for that response. Can you please give me an example to help me understand why you think our "school-book" perspective is inaccurate? I might become more sympathetic to your point of view if you can help me out. Thanks,

120

GFE,

Texas, USA 11/02/2007 17:05:18

139 thatscottishwoman, Thanks for sharing Ethel MacDonald with me. I wasn't familiar with her, but I did read the articles you shared. I can see why you admire her. She was obviously a woman of great aspiration to help the poor and oppressed. Basically, it looks like she dedicated her life to that objective. And, I guess it's not surprising that she followed a socialist/communist path, given the 1) economic depression of the time, and 2) the long history of oppression that Scotland had suffered under English rule (if I read my history correctly). Having said that, I think we can help ourselves and more poor people by following capitalistic principles than socialism. I'm afraid that Scotland is leaning toward socialism in response to England's oppression. In my opinion, that's a mistake. Anyway, thanks for sharing Ethel MacDonald with me.

121

sandy,

USA 11/02/2007 18:04:25

#139--TSW--interesting lady! from your 1st link, "in late 1940 Ethel received her call up papers" is that referring to military "call up"?
she was an "anarchist" & in the "peace movement"?
isn't there a vast difference between the two?
although i don't agree w/her politics, she sure was a committed & gutsy gal.

122

Dragomir,

11/02/2007 18:42:23

GFE, because school-books teach a very biased fragmented nationalistic history, being basically a threat to any democracy - because democracy needs well educated and informed people to work. That's the stopped watching TV, it's for CHILDREN and TV producers treated as such ( I know, I've worked in PRESS and MEDIA).

123

Finnking,

Finland 11/02/2007 20:11:15

TSW: Ethel. It's actually quite interesting reading the posts in reply. Sincerely, quite telling. GFE states that socialism/communism is a by.product of poverty and oppression while Capitalism reduces poverty. Sandy asks if there's not a 'vast difference' between Anarchist and Peace Movement.

First in a world of limited resources, it is perfectly understood by economists that capitalism (where has it ever been seen?) leads to a polarisation of wealth. It's inherent in the system. The Socialism /Capitalism spectrum is too basic to describe the reality. You need to factor in the authoritarian/libertarian axis to create a better image. And doing so helps you see where Anarchy fits in.

Second, for Sandy, Libertarian Socialists (aka Anarchists (and there are various flavours)) simply believe that state/government is, by its nature, corrupt and will oppress the masses. So, it's perfectly feasible for an anarchist to be a pacifist. there are/were many Anarchist intellectuals who are/were pacifist. Not all Libertarian Socialists are pacifist, some are. Libertarian Socialism is all about empoweringthe individual, having respect for the individual. That help?

124

Finnking,

finland and cauld wi' it 11/02/2007 20:43:31

145 TSW: What would you change it to? Have you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granny_Made_me_an_Anarchist , I readily recommend it. Wonderful voyage, great life.

I washed up on the shores of anarchy many years ago. I had avoided all allegiances to any party, or dogma, or both. Then I started reading Proudhon and it went from there. The great thing is, there's no dogma, no flag (okay, the Black one, but..), no 'leaders' and no 'followers'. It fitted in so well with who and what I am as a person. Like Philosophy, you know you have found something that works for you when all these nagging questions evaporate. Like reading Spinoza, all the intense, young thinking man's angst vapourised. Can't even remember the questions that pained me so much. Same with Libertarian socialism.

125

Dragomir,

11/02/2007 21:09:02

To anyone who has heard the name " Zbigniew Brzezinski" I suggest you read this article:

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10498

About Zbigniew Brzezinski's recent testimony to the Council on Foreign Relations. I don't expect many of you to know who Brzezinski is or how important is the CFR, but humor me, check it out and look up the character on google, even wikipedia. All I can say in short is that Zbigniew Brzezinski was a major influence on late USA cold war foreign policy. If there's a man who knows how USA foreign policy works, how the elite formulate the domestic policy, it's him, because he was PART of it.

126

Alec in Chicago,

11/02/2007 21:24:38

147 Hello again, Dragomir!

What do you think of this for liberation? You won't find this on Fox.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/books/07libe.html?8bu&a...

(Don't neglect to follow the link in the second paragraph to Eskander's on-line diary.)


I'm surprised you didn't remind JohnK in #111 that Adam Smith's theory was refined about a half century ago. You must have been concentrating on other things.

127

Alec in Chicago,

11/02/2007 21:30:54

147 Sorry, Dragomir,

Forgot his one:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0209-09.htm

Think it'll help, late as it is?

128

Alec in Chicago,

11/02/2007 21:31:52

150 thatscottishwoman

Take care!

I am signing off soon, myself.

Till later!

129

Dragomir,

11/02/2007 22:21:17

Alec, I mentioned Zbigniew Brzezinski because he was big player in past US foreign policy and he is part of the elite rulling class, what I would call covert imperialists as opposed to the neocons which are overt imperialists. Such an event is very very rare and is worth taking note of. His comments on the US foreign policy for the past 6 years are very interesting. Confirmation to some, education to others.

130

Alec in Chicago,

11/02/2007 22:28:44

153 Dragomir

Not arguing with you!

Re-read my post: Just offering a few links I thought you would like...


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.