PDA

View Full Version : Chomsky on the 9/11 Decade & Assassination of bin Laden: Was There an Alternative?



Bill Cosby
09-15-2011, 08:29 PM
Noam Chomsky on the 9/11 Decade and the Assassination of Osama bin Laden: Was There an Alternative? ((WATCH VIDEO)) (http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2011/9/13/noam_chomsky_looking_back_on_9)

Ten years ago, at a time when lawmakers from both sides of the aisle joined together to authorize endless war, Noam Chomsky’s was the leading voice to call for the United States to rethink its actions in the Middle East and across the globe. His 2001 book, simply titled "9-11," became a surprise bestseller. The book collected a series of interviews Chomsky had given on the roots of the 9/11 attacks and his prescription for a just response. A decade later, Chomsky has just released an updated version titled "9-11: Was There an Alternative?" which refers to the U.S. assassination of Osama bin Laden and the continuity Chomsky sees between the Bush administration’s foreign policy and President Obama’s. "Right at this moment, Obama has succeeded in descending even below George W. Bush in approval in the Arab world," says Noam Chomsky. "The policies change, but they’re hostile. We should understand where atrocities come from. They don’t come from nowhere. And if we’re serious, we should try to do something about what is the basis for them."

AMY GOODMAN: As we continue to mark the decade since the September 11th attacks in the United States, today we spend the hour with MIT professor, world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author, Noam Chomsky.

In the months after 9/11, as the Bush administration attacked Afghanistan and geared up for the invasion of Iraq, Noam Chomsky released a small book that provided the definitive counter-narrative to the jingoism of the time. The book was called simply 9-11, a collected series of interviews Chomsky had given on the roots of the 9/11 attacks and his prescription for a just response. At a time when lawmakers from both sides of the aisle joined together to authorize endless war, Chomsky’s was the leading voice to call for a look in the mirror, for a rethinking of U.S. actions in the Middle East and across the globe. 9-11 went on to become a surprise bestseller.

Ten years later, Professor Chomsky has just released an updated version. It’s called 9-11: Was There an Alternative? "Was there an alternative?" refers to the U.S. assassination of Osama bin Laden and the continuity Chomsky sees between the Bush administration’s foreign policy and President Obama’s.

Today, we’ll speak with Noam Chomsky about the decade since 9/11, at a time when the U.S. is at war in several areas, at home in continued economic turmoil. Noam Chomsky has just returned from Iceland and Norway. He’s joining us from Boston, Massachussetts. And I’m joined here in New York for this interview by Democracy Now! producer Aaron Maté, who covered the thwarted Gaza-bound aid flotilla in Greece.

Welcome, Aaron, joining me in this interview. It’s good to have you with us.

AARON MATÉ: Thanks, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: And thanks so much, Noam Chomsky, for being with us so soon after you’ve come back from your trip. Noam, why don’t we begin with this new book? You wrote 9-11 10 years ago, what become the definitive counter-narrative at the time. What did you feel was important to understand then, and now, with Was There an Alternative?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, as you mentioned, it wasn’t really a book, it was a collection of interviews, the ones that we were able to get transcripts for. Some of them we couldn’t.

There were a number of things that I thought had to be pointed out. By now, I think they’re hardly even controversial. But one was that the claim that the U.S. was being attacked because, as the president put it, they hate our freedoms was completely untenable. They hated our policy. In fact, it would be more accurate to say we hate their freedoms. There’s plenty of documentation about that, going back to the 1950s. Shortly after the president’s speech, the Pentagon had a study of this, and they concluded, yes, it’s not that they hate our freedoms, it’s they hate our policies.

And as I say, evidence about that is enormous, back to the '50s. So, for example, in 1958, President Eisenhower, in internal documents long since released, asked his—raised the question with his staff about why there's a campaign of hatred against us in the Arab world. He said, not from the governments, but from the people. And the National Security Council, major planning body, had just released a study on this in which they said that they concluded that there’s a perception in the Arab world that the United States supports harsh, oppressive dictatorships and that the U.S. blocks democracy and development and that we do it because we want to keep control over their energy resources. And it went on to say that this is fairly accurate, and that’s pretty much what we should be doing, as long as the populations are kept quiet.

And so it goes on. I won’t run through the details, but so it goes on until the present. In fact, right at this moment, Obama has succeeded in descending even below George W. Bush in approval in the Arab world. It’s minuscule, few percent. And it’s the policies, same—the policies change, but they’re hostile. So, one thing is, we should understand where atrocities come from. They don’t come from nowhere. And if we’re serious, we should try to do something about what is the basis for them.

That’s been—the other issue, which was important, or I think we have a lot more evidence about it now, is that there probably were much more constructive alternatives. The attack, the attack on the—the 9/11 attack was pretty harshly criticized in the—throughout the Muslim world, but particularly in the jihadi movement—you know, fatwas from leading clerics, harsh condemnation. It would have been—it’s very likely that it would have been possible, then, to split the jihadi movement, to isolate al-Qaeda, to move to apprehend the suspects—and, of course, in our system of justice, theoretically, people are suspects unless they’re—until they’re sentenced—so, to apprehend the suspects, treat it as a criminal action, try to make use of the fact that there were—that there was tremendous antagonism to this even among the jihadi movement, and move on to a much more constructive relationship with the general Muslim-Arab world.

Well, that path wasn’t taken. The path that was taken was to lash out of violently, first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq. That simply was kind of following Osama bin Laden’s playbook. Actually, that was pointed out pretty quickly by people like Michael Scheuer, the—he didn’t identify himself then, has since—the CIA—head of the CIA task force that was tracking bin Laden. He ended up concluding the United States is bin Laden’s best ally. We’re helping—his goal was to mobilize the Muslim world around the fear that the United States was attacking Islam, was carrying out a crusade, they have to defend themselves. And we helped. The invasion of Iraq, particularly, gave a big shot in the arm to the jihadi extremists. It was predicted by U.S. and British intelligence agencies—that’s been released since—that the attack on Iraq would increase terror, and it did, by a factor of seven the first year, according to RAND Corporation quasi-governmental statistics.

Well, that’s what happens when you lash out violently without seeking to understand the nature of what’s happening and pursuing the options for diplomatic, peaceful, negotiated settlements, and treating crimes as crimes. When there’s a crime, you try to identify the likely perpetrators, apprehend them, bring them to—bring them to a fair trial. I mean, that—it’s very likely that that could have been done at the times. We don’t know. There were tentative offers from the Taliban to allow a trial of bin Laden. It was not pursued. It was—the U.S. just dismissed it: "We don’t talk to you." Well, could that have succeeded? We can only speculate.

It truly could have been done on May 2nd, when U.S. commandos, Navy SEALs, apprehended bin Laden—defenseless, was with his wife, no arms—apprehended him and assassinated him, then dumped his body at sea. That’s kind of an action which is just bound to increase speculation, cynicism, doubt—quite different from what in fact should have been done. Actually, one of the leading British legal specialists, civil libertarian, who incidentally approved of the action, nevertheless pointed out that the way it was carried out was criminal and dangerous in its implications. He compared it to the treatment of the far more horrendous war criminals after the Second World War. He pointed out that the British government wanted to just kill the Nazi leaders, but the U.S. government, or Truman, insisted that they be tried. They followed. And, in fact, then came the Nuremberg trials, which, you know, had their flaws, but at least did bring out in public the nature of the crimes. They also led to a quite an important conclusion by the chief prosecutor, U.S. chief prosecutor, Justice Robert Jackson. He informed the tribunal, in rather eloquent words, that, as he put it, we were handing these defendants a "poisoned chalice," and if we ever sip from it, if we ever commit such crimes as aggression, one of the major crimes, then we must suffer the same punishment, or else, essentially, the trial is a farce. And that’s a choice we’ve had to make since. Not the right answer, in my opinion.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus at MIT. He has a new book out, 10 years after his book 9-11. It is called 9-11: Was There an Alternative?, with a new essay written after the assassination of Osama bin Laden. We’ll come back to this discussion in a minute.



AMY GOODMAN: Our guest for the hour is MIT professor Noam Chomsky. His latest book is called 9-11: Was There an Alternative? That last question, "Was there an alternative?," referring to the assassination of Osama bin Laden. Aaron?

AARON MATÉ: Well, Noam, you mentioned the changes in discourse between 10 years ago and today. And actually, this issue of the reasons behind 9/11 came up last night at the Republican presidential debate. Congress Member Ron Paul of Texas drew boos from the crowd and a rebuke from other candidates on the podium when he criticized U.S. foreign policy in discussing the roots of 9/11.

REP. RON PAUL: We’re under great threat because we occupy so many countries. We’re in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world. We’re going broke. The purpose of al-Qaeda was to attack us, invite us over there, where they can target us. And they have been doing it. They have more attacks against us and the American interests per month than occurred in all the years before 9/11. But we’re there, occupying their land. And if we think that we can do that and not have retaliation, we’re kidding ourselves. We have to be honest with ourselves. What would we do if another country, say China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there?

So, this whole idea that the whole Muslim world is responsible for this and they’re attacking us because we’re free and prosperous, that is just not true. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have been explicit. They have been explicit, and they wrote and said that we attacked—we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians a fair treatment, and you have been bombing—I didn’t say that, I’m trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing. At the same time, we had been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years. Would you be annoyed? If you’re not annoyed, then there’s some problem.

AARON MATÉ: That was Republican Congress Member Ron Paul of Texas speaking last night at the Republican presidential debate. Noam Chomsky, your response?

NOAM CHOMSKY: I think what he said is completely uncontroversial. You can read it in government documents. You can find it in polls. Maybe people don’t like to hear it, but, as I mentioned before, it goes back to the 1950s. Actually, right after 9/11, the Wall Street Journal, to its credit, did a study of privileged Muslims, sometimes called "monied Muslims," people in the Muslim world who are deeply embedded in the U.S. global project—lawyers, directors of multinational corporations and so on, not the general population. [B]And it was very much like what Eisenhower had—was concerned about, and the National Security Council, in the 1950s. There was a lot of antagonism to—a lot of antagonism to U.S. policy in the region, partly support of dictators blocking democracy and development, just as the National Security Council concluded in 1958.

Also, by then, by 2001, there were much more specific things: very much a lot of anger about the U.S. backing for the way—Israeli occupation of the Occupied Territories, settlements, the bitter oppression of the Palestinians, and also, something that isn’t discussed much here but meant a lot there—and remember, these are privileged Muslims, leaders of—those who kind of carry out, implement the general U.S. economic and social policies in the region. The other thing, besides the Israeli—support of Israeli crimes, was the sanctions against Iraq. This was 2001, remember. The sanctions against Iraq were brutal and destructive. They killed hundreds of thousands of people. Both of the international diplomats who administered the Oil-for-Food program, distinguished international diplomats—Denis Halliday, Hans von Sponeck, in sequence—both of them resigned in protest because they regarded the sanctions as genocidal. They were carrying out a kind of a mass slaughter of Iraqis. They were strengthening Saddam Hussein. They were compelling the population to rely on him just for survival. And these were major crimes of the 1990s. And privileged Muslims, monied Muslims, in the Saudi Arabia, elsewhere, were bitterly opposed to this, not because they hate our freedoms, because they don’t like murderous and brutal policies.

John Galt
09-15-2011, 08:40 PM
both sides of the aisle joined together to authorize endless war

Sorry, ya lost me here.

Not even close to the truth

Bill Cosby
09-15-2011, 08:54 PM
Sorry, ya lost me here.

Not even close to the truth


OK, name all of those that voted against it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John Galt
09-15-2011, 09:03 PM
This isn't the first time I've posted this


While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-10-11/politics/iraq.us_1_biological-weapons-weapons-inspectors-iraq?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Bill Cosby
09-15-2011, 09:04 PM
I asked for those that voted against it............

John Galt
09-15-2011, 09:08 PM
I asked for those that voted against it............
First, you offered the comment that I refuted.

So, why don't you list those who voted for endless wars?

John Galt
09-15-2011, 09:11 PM
No doubt, you didn't read my link:


The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.

Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.

The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.



Funny how Bush chose to ignore the UN when they told him not to rush into war

California Chrome
09-15-2011, 09:42 PM
I asked for those that voted against it............LOL. That's one mighty short list.

Thai Kimchi
09-15-2011, 09:55 PM
both sides of the aisle joined together to authorize endless war

These false equivalencies are the foundation for most of your posts, bill. Just sayin. Of course that makes sense, since you love to 'sit in the catbird seat' casting aspersions on both political parties, while touting only gawd knows what......who exactly are you actively working to replace these two HORRIFIC parties with? [nows the part where you label me an Obamabot or whatever]

Or is your daily mission here similar to a mere wrecking crew, tearing out all the rot, and what replaces it is...is.....well, not sure?

John Galt
09-15-2011, 10:48 PM
Ten years ago, at a time when lawmakers from both sides of the aisle joined together to authorize endless war
To recap:http://articles.cnn.com/2002-10-11/politics/iraq.us_1_biological-weapons-weapons-inspectors-iraq?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS


While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed



And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons


If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.

The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.






It seems that Congress gave Bush limited leeway in his blood for oil campaign.

Bush claimed it was up to the UN, but ignored same when they urged him not to rush into war.

As I recall, Bush was in a rush to invade, because he 'didn't want out troops fighing in the summer, when temps were over 100 degrees':lmao2:










No need to read the rest of Chomsky's bullshit.

Mac McFadden
09-15-2011, 11:52 PM
An alternative to assassinating bin Laden?
Of course there was an alternative.
Arm each member of the Seal Team with an additional weapon, a TASER.
Take bin Laden ALIVE; and put him on trial for all the world to see.
And after he was convicted, sentence him to life in prison without parole.
No martyrdom, no virgins.


Mac

serum114
09-16-2011, 01:03 AM
UNITED STATES SENATE

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent who courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq were:

* Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)2
* Barbara Boxer (D-California) 3
* Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
* Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
* Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)4
* Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
* Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
* Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
* Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)5
* Bob Graham (D-Florida)
* Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
* Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
* Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
* Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
* Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
* Patty Murray (D-Washington)
* Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) 6
* The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
* Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Re[resentatives in voting NAY, on October 11, 2002, to the unprovoked use of force against Iraq:


Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) Tom Allen (D-Maine) Joe Baca (D-California) Brian Baird (D-Washington) John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine) Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) Gresham Barrett (R-South Carolina) Xavier Becerra (D-California) Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office) Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania) Corinne Brown (D-Florida) Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Lois Capps (D-California) Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts) Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland) Julia Carson (D-Indiana) William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri) Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office) James Clyburn (D-South Carolina) Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office) John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan) Jerry Costello (D-Illinois) William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office) Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)

Susan Davis (D-California) Danny Davis (D-Illinois) Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts) Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut) John Dingell (D-Michigan) Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania) John Duncan, Jr. (R-Tennessee)

Anna Eshoo (D-California) Lane Evans (D-Illinois) Sam Farr (D-California) Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania) Bob Filner (D-California) Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas) Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)Alice Hastings (D-Florida) Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office) Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas) Rush Holt (D-New Jersey) Mike Honda (D-California) Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon) John Hostettler (R-Indiana) Amo Houghton (R-New York, retired from office) Jay Inslee (D-Washington)

slowhand
09-16-2011, 01:17 AM
To recap:http://articles.cnn.com/2002-10-11/politics/iraq.us_1_biological-weapons-weapons-inspectors-iraq?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS


While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed



And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons


If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.

The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.






It seems that Congress gave Bush limited leeway in his blood for oil campaign.

Bush claimed it was up to the UN, but ignored same when they urged him not to rush into war.

As I recall, Bush was in a rush to invade, because he 'didn't want out troops fighing in the summer, when temps were over 100 degrees':lmao2:










No need to read the rest of Chomsky's bullshit.

Gotta be careful with those big black and red letters..They upset folks big time :D

Bill Cosby
09-16-2011, 03:20 AM
UNITED STATES SENATE

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent who courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq were:

* Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)2
* Barbara Boxer (D-California) 3
* Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
* Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
* Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)4
* Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
* Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
* Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
* Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)5
* Bob Graham (D-Florida)
* Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
* Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
* Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
* Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
* Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
* Patty Murray (D-Washington)
* Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) 6
* The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
* Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Re[resentatives in voting NAY, on October 11, 2002, to the unprovoked use of force against Iraq:


Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) Tom Allen (D-Maine) Joe Baca (D-California) Brian Baird (D-Washington) John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine) Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) Gresham Barrett (R-South Carolina) Xavier Becerra (D-California) Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office) Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania) Corinne Brown (D-Florida) Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Lois Capps (D-California) Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts) Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland) Julia Carson (D-Indiana) William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri) Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office) James Clyburn (D-South Carolina) Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office) John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan) Jerry Costello (D-Illinois) William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office) Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)

Susan Davis (D-California) Danny Davis (D-Illinois) Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts) Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut) John Dingell (D-Michigan) Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania) John Duncan, Jr. (R-Tennessee)

Anna Eshoo (D-California) Lane Evans (D-Illinois) Sam Farr (D-California) Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania) Bob Filner (D-California) Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas) Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)Alice Hastings (D-Florida) Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office) Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas) Rush Holt (D-New Jersey) Mike Honda (D-California) Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon) John Hostettler (R-Indiana) Amo Houghton (R-New York, retired from office) Jay Inslee (D-Washington)

2002 was not 10 years ago was it??????


Congressional votes

[edit]House of Representatives
On September 14, 2001 bill House Joint Resolution 64 passed in the House. The totals in the House of Representatives were: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting (the Nay was Barbara Lee - D-CA).
[edit]Senate
On September 14, 2001 Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry Craig - R and Jesse Helms - R).

John Galt
09-16-2011, 08:48 AM
2002 was not 10 years ago was it??????


Ya know Bill....you're getting just like Minty.

Shame, really.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.64:

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens;




(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.




War Powers Resolution....snip.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001542----000-.html


§ 1542. Consultation; initial and regular consultations




The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.



I made it easy to read the important parts.

Now tell me....where does it mention 'endless war'?

John Galt
09-16-2011, 08:49 AM
Gotta be careful with those big black and red letters..They upset folks big time :D
Just the facts....m'am

Big Dog
09-16-2011, 09:16 AM
because they don’t like murderous and brutal policies.

I guess Chomsky has never heard of Sharia Law and Islam's genocidal policies.

Islam chose the wrong side in both world wars. And they still want genocide for the Jews, the Christians, and any non-believers.

Arab democracy means the women don't vote, and the men vote for an Islamic theocracy.

Chomsky is just using hatred to sell books as usual. And Hitler types suck up all his kool aid.


.

anatta
09-16-2011, 09:46 AM
Just the facts....m'am
forget the "facts" that resoulution was a resolution for war, or as close as Congress will EVER COME to "authorizing" war ( forget delarations of war, they don't happen).

Everyone knew what they were voting for -unleashing Bush, and the UN presentation was damn clear this was hypeing the US ( and 'co-altion) for war. This was all Congress was going to do -turn their backs, and wash their hands of the matter.

In other words; we're not actually gonna say anything anout what the US should do, we leave it in the hands of the UN and POTUS.
What did you THINK was gonna happen??? Any chance NOT going to war??? -no.

Forget the facts when dealing with Congressional authorizations, when it comes to war power we have a unitary presidency.

Still do.

John Galt
09-16-2011, 09:57 AM
forget the "facts" that resoulution was a resolution for war, or as close as Congress will EVER COME to "authorizing" war ( forget delarations of war, they don't happen).

Everyone knew what they were voting for -unleashing Bush, and the UN presentation was damn clear this was hypeing the US ( and 'co-altion) for war. This was all Congress was going to do -turn their backs, and wash their hands of the matter.

In other words; we're not actually gonna say anything anout what the US should do, we leave it in the hands of the UN and POTUS.
What did you THINK was gonna happen??? Any chance NOT going to war??? -no.

Forget the facts when dealing with Congressional authorizations, when it comes to war power we have a unitary presidency.

Still do.
I see. So you believe that the entire Congress voted to bankrupt the country by waging 'endless war'?

Really?

Big Dog
09-16-2011, 10:03 AM
IMO, it wasn't exactly about blood for oil. It was about controlling the price of oil, i.e. increasing it.

And that is the exact result we see from all this.

By 1998, Saddam had driven the price of oil down from $20, to only $10 per barrel, by illegally selling his oil on the black market. That was below production costs for most other parts of the world. And OPEC didn't like it either, even though their production costs averaged around $2 per barrel.

At the time of the Iraq invasion, British North sea oil production costs were $15 per barrel, Alberta oil sands were $22 per barrel, and the average in the USA was $13 per barrel.



.

anatta
09-16-2011, 10:09 AM
I see. So you believe that the entire Congress voted to bankrupt the country by waging 'endless war'?

Really?
No. I posted what I said, I am not taking it to "endless war" or" bankruptcy."
Those could be possible outcomes, perpetual war is what bin Laden wanted ( to bleed the west/USA) - but that wasn;t the resolution.

This was post 9-11, the nation was angry, Bush/Cheney fed the anger
( speeches. dire warnings, etc.) then the famous Powell Big Lies at the UN.

Then Congress authorizes your post:


Quote:
While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

What did you think Bush was going to do?? NOT go to war??
I assume you've read some of Woodward's works, the Adm. wasn't concerned with "should we go or not" it was how do we sell this?"

If you actually think Congress had any role other then passing this authorization - passing the buck, you have to look at how Congress has operated since the last declaration - WWII.

They don't do war, they are mute, they allow the Executive to do as they please.
Declarations/Authorizations be damned.

The rest of the Chomsky stuff, i agree is really not germane.

Big Dog
09-16-2011, 10:15 AM
No. I posted what I said, I am not taking it to "endless war" or" bankruptcy."
Those could be possible outcomes, perpetual war is what bin Laden wanted ( to bleed the west/USA) - but that wasn;t the resolution.

This was post 9-11, the nation was angry, Bush/Cheney fed the anger
( speeches. dire warnings, etc.) then the famous Powell Big Lies at the UN.

Then Congress authorizes your post:



What did you think Bush was going to do?? NOT go to war??
I assume you've read some of Woodward's works, the Adm. wasn't concerned with "should we go or not" it was how do we sell this?"

If you actually think Congress had any role other then passing this authorization - passing the buck, you have to look at how Congress has operated since the last declaration - WWII.

They don't do war, they are mute, they allow the Executive to do as they please.
Declarations/Authorizations be damned.

The rest of the Chomsky stuff, i agree is really not germane.

Cosmo, nice siggy chess pic.

And yes, Congress doesn't take responsibility for war. This is a good reason to elect a man like Ron Paul. He wants it to be Congress's responsibility as the founders intended.


.

anatta
09-16-2011, 10:32 AM
Cosmo, nice siggy chess pic.

And yes, Congress doesn't take responsibility for war. This is a good reason to elect a man like Ron Paul. He wants it to be Congress's responsibility as the founders intended.


.
Thanks. wasn't sure if I should use that sig pic, figured I'd use it for a little bit.

Gotta be the coolest picture of a chess game ever, but it's the WTC., so I'm not going to leave it up much longer than this week.

Ron Paul is great on foreign policy, he's become kinna deranged though i appreciate his Constitutional original intent

John Galt
09-16-2011, 10:32 AM
No. I posted what I said, I am not taking it to "endless war" or" bankruptcy."
Those could be possible outcomes, perpetual war is what bin Laden wanted ( to bleed the west/USA) - but that wasn;t the resolution.

This was post 9-11, the nation was angry, Bush/Cheney fed the anger
( speeches. dire warnings, etc.) then the famous Powell Big Lies at the UN.

Then Congress authorizes your post:



What did you think Bush was going to do?? NOT go to war??
I assume you've read some of Woodward's works, the Adm. wasn't concerned with "should we go or not" it was how do we sell this?"

If you actually think Congress had any role other then passing this authorization - passing the buck, you have to look at how Congress has operated since the last declaration - WWII.

They don't do war, they are mute, they allow the Executive to do as they please.
Declarations/Authorizations be damned.

The rest of the Chomsky stuff, i agree is really not germane.
My issue, is with the opening line in the OP.

I didn't have to read further, as the premise was flawed.

That said, I fully remember the anger. AFG was a necessary invasion back then.

I also remember wondering why we had millions to spend on food drops (remember them) in Afg, while millions go hungry in this country.

9/11 was a declaration of war against us, and we responded.

What happened afterward, was a travesty. Pres. Cheney rode the wave of anger, and injected fear into the equation.

Most of us didn't fall for it, but anyone who spoke out against the atrocity was labeled 'unpatriotic'.

Both sides of the aisle hardly voted for 'endless war'.

Bullshit premise, by a bullshit spokesman who used to make a modicum of sense once in a while.

anatta
09-16-2011, 10:44 AM
My issue, is with the opening line in the OP.

I didn't have to read further, as the premise was flawed.

That said, I fully remember the anger. AFG was a necessary invasion back then.

I also remember wondering why we had millions to spend on food drops (remember them) in Afg, while millions go hungry in this country.

9/11 was a declaration of war against us, and we responded.

What happened afterward, was a travesty. Pres. Cheney rode the wave of anger, and injected fear into the equation.

Most of us didn't fall for it, but anyone who spoke out against the atrocity was labeled 'unpatriotic'.

Both sides of the aisle hardly voted for 'endless war'.

Bullshit premise, by a bullshit spokesman who used to make a modicum of sense once in a while.
I didn't have a problem with food drops, but i DID oppose going to war in Afg;
knowing the history of the place - i kinna figured it was going to not be a happy ending.

Take out the terorist training camps, or what is now known as "counter terrorism". then get the fuck out.

Perhaps if we had not gone war crazed under Cheney's paranoid delusions, it could have been a better outcome.
I have serious doubts, knowing Afg's history, but possibly.

off point: -why are we even at war with the Taliban??
That's old Bush Doctrine at work.

Endless war is easily sucked into; so ez to start, so hard to realize the futility, and cut your losses.

Chompsky is coming at this to re-inforce his beliefs, i agree with you, it was NOT a vote for perpetual war, or bankruptcy.

But it's working out that way.

John Galt
09-16-2011, 11:19 AM
I didn't have a problem with food drops, but i DID oppose going to war in Afg;
knowing the history of the place - i kinna figured it was going to not be a happy ending.

Take out the terorist training camps, or what is now known as "counter terrorism". then get the fuck out.

Perhaps if we had not gone war crazed under Cheney's paranoid delusions, it could have been a better outcome.
I have serious doubts, knowing Afg's history, but possibly.

off point: -why are we even at war with the Taliban??
That's old Bush Doctrine at work.

Endless war is easily sucked into; so ez to start, so hard to realize the futility, and cut your losses.

Chompsky is coming at this to re-inforce his beliefs, i agree with you, it was NOT a vote for perpetual war, or bankruptcy.

But it's working out that way.
We'd be long gone from Afg, had we not invaded Iraq.

However, the real issue is with Pakistan. The only reason we're in Afg, is to have access to Pakistan.

When Pakistan falls to the Taliban, the world will change forever.

I still say we need to get out of Afg, and let the rest of the world worry about protecting themselves from terrorism.

anatta
09-16-2011, 12:25 PM
We'd be long gone from Afg, had we not invaded Iraq.

However, the real issue is with Pakistan. The only reason we're in Afg, is to have access to Pakistan.

When Pakistan falls to the Taliban, the world will change forever.

I still say we need to get out of Afg, and let the rest of the world worry about protecting themselves from terrorism.
who can say what would have happened? It looked like a quick EZ war.
Remeber Biden
( who is looking better and better with his prognostications, about splitting up Iraq - which is naturally happening[sectarian fissures]
, and pushing the counter-terrorism strategy'', instead of 'counter-insurgency')
said "it is necesary to build up the middle class in Afg. so they have a stake in the outcome?"

We did a little bit in Kabul, but Kabul - like any other part of the gawd foresaken tribal area- is only relevant to Kabul.

In order for Afg. to "work out" we would literally have to build an entire society, and even then once we did so, we'd be seen as invaders, and the Taliban would prolly return.


However, the real issue is with Pakistan. The only reason we're in Afg, is to have access to Pakistan.

When Pakistan falls to the Taliban, the world will change forever.
disagree. what "access" to Paki? -they have their own brand of Islamic fundamentalism.
What has kept that country from becoming another Afg. is their ISI, and the fact the military runs the country.
The civilian government is a facade; serving at the military's pleasure, until they decide to coupe' out the current gov't.

Paki is always a balancing act, they realy don't like the west, but will put up with us to an extent as long as we continually pump money into their ISI/military.

They are Islamic, but not tribal like Afg. Best thing we can do for Paki is stay the fuck out of their business, just like Afg. Just like Iraq. Just like Libya.

All we're doing is completely driving them out of any western influence, and guess who is becoming their ally?? CHINA (again) .

This despite the fact China oppresses their own Muslim minorities.
But Paki sees China as a way to trade, make money without having drone strikes, inflaming of their population, and any ties to the west/US.


Best thing we can do in ALL these foreign wars is to just leave them alone. Use some covert -ops if we must go after al_qaeda, but no "boots".

Everytime we use "boots" it booomerangs back at us, and the results are seen as "get rid of the foreign invaders/Infadels"

Chompsky is correct about one thing: the more we war in foreign wars, the more it costs us, and there is no payoff except alienation.

Stay tuned for Libya, the next fiasco in the making, when al_qaeda has control of an oil rich state.

John Galt
09-16-2011, 12:51 PM
Best thing we can do in ALL these foreign wars is to just leave them alone. Use some covert -ops if we must go after al_qaeda, but no "boots".
Again...the only reason we're in Afg, is to have access to Pakistan

anatta
09-16-2011, 12:58 PM
Again...the only reason we're in Afg, is to have access to Pakistan
Cmon John, I just posted a huge post showing you there is no need for "access"( whatever that means) to Paki.

You want Paki to remain stable -then get out of the region.
can't make it any plainer.

BlackAsCoal
09-16-2011, 01:08 PM
because they don’t like murderous and brutal policies.

I guess Chomsky has never heard of Sharia Law and Islam's genocidal policies.

Islam chose the wrong side in both world wars. And they still want genocide for the Jews, the Christians, and any non-believers.

Arab democracy means the women don't vote, and the men vote for an Islamic theocracy.

Chomsky is just using hatred to sell books as usual. And Hitler types suck up all his kool aid.


.

That's ridiculous.

If Chomsky wanted to sell books to Americans he'd feed into the mindfuck .. not speak the truth.

BlackAsCoal
09-16-2011, 01:15 PM
Sorry, ya lost me here.

Not even close to the truth

We are STILL involved in endless war to this day .. WITH Obama as president.

In fact, this nation has NEVER been involved in this many wars and military conflicts at the same time.

OBAMA, not Bush, is trying to force the Iraqis to allow the US to keep forces in their country beyond the deadline .. this after he rode his supposed opposition to the Iraq War into office and falsely claimed that he would remove a brigade a month, and have all US forces out of Iraq before the deadline.

OBAMA, not Bush is droning the fucking planet and has taken his war of terror FAR beyond where Bush did.

Next on the list .. YEMEN

How do you claim that Obama is not a warmonger?

BlackAsCoal
09-16-2011, 01:18 PM
There is NO ISSUE that defines democrats as total hypocrites than the issue of perpetual war.

All that angst about Bush and Iraq was nothing but politics .. not guided by an aversion to needless wars, not guided by a sense of humanity .. guided by politics ONLY.

anatta
09-16-2011, 01:24 PM
We are STILL involved in endless war to this day .. WITH Obama as president.

In fact, this nation has NEVER been involved in this many wars and military conflicts at the same time.

OBAMA, not Bush, is trying to force the Iraqis to allow the US to keep forced in their country beyond the deadline .. this after he rode his supposed opposition to the Iraq War into office and falsely claimed that he would remove a brigade a month, and have all US forces out of Iraq before the deadline.

OBAMA, not Bush is droning the fucking planet and has taken his war of terror FAR beyond where Bush did.

Next on the list .. YEMEN

How do you claim that Obama is not a warmonger?
Yemen is already "on the list". as is Somalia. as we've discussed.

I guess drone strikes, bombing of civilians is not really war....unless you're on the receiving end.

BlackAsCoal
09-16-2011, 01:31 PM
Yemen is already "on the list". as is Somalia. as we've discussed.

I guess drone strikes, bombing of civilians is not really war....unless you're on the receiving end.

There is NO ISSUE that defines democrats as hypocrites more than the issue of war.

Had Bush been involved in this many wars, democrats would be losing their minds. But with Obama, they'll attack you, me, alternative media, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the UN, and anybody who dare speak truth to Obomber's war of terror.

Thai Kimchi
09-16-2011, 01:33 PM
There is NO ISSUE that defines democrats as total hypocrites than the issue of perpetual war.

All that angst about Bush and Iraq was nothing but politics .. not guided by an aversion to needless wars, not guided by a sense of humanity .. guided by politics ONLY.


Uh, dipshit......do you dislike Democrats per chance?

anatta
09-16-2011, 01:48 PM
Uh, dipshit......do you dislike Democrats per chance?
Gee Thai. you're really contributing a lot here....................

anger much??

anatta
09-16-2011, 01:49 PM
There is NO ISSUE that defines democrats as hypocrites more than the issue of war.

Had Bush been involved in this many wars, democrats would be losing their minds. But with Obama, they'll attack you, me, alternative media, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the UN, and anybody who dare speak truth to Obomber's war of terror.
It's hopeless, the partisian mind won't listen

BlackAsCoal
09-16-2011, 01:51 PM
Gee Thai. you're really contributing a lot here....................

anger much??

That's all it has .. anger. Won't even attempt to engage on the issues .. just mad at everybody, anybody who speaks to truth it doesn't like.

BlackAsCoal
09-16-2011, 01:52 PM
It's hopeless, the partisian mind won't listen

No, it won't.

It can't.

anatta
09-16-2011, 01:56 PM
No, it won't.

It can't.
damn shame. Our new members should be aware of just how awful Obam is.
Libya was the final insult. unless more insults to come

"I may make you feel but i can't make you think" ( Jethro Tull)

Bill Cosby
09-16-2011, 05:36 PM
There is NO ISSUE that defines democrats as hypocrites more than the issue of war.

Had Bush been involved in this many wars, democrats would be losing their minds. But with Obama, they'll attack you, me, alternative media, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the UN, and anybody who dare speak truth to Obomber's war of terror.

Yep............. I bet it really gnaws away @ ppl..... You know, being all anti-war & all that, & now having to use the same lines you argued against just a few years ago.....:lmao2: :lmao2:

Had bush the dick or McCain attacked Libya these ppl would have gone ape shit.......

But they must support the team, right or wrong........OYe VaY!!!:melodramatic:

anatta
09-16-2011, 05:43 PM
Yep............. I bet it really gnaws away @ ppl..... You know, being all anti-war & all that, & now having to use the same lines you argued against just a few years ago.....:lmao2: :lmao2:

Had bush the dick or McCain attacked Libya these ppl would have gone ape shit.......

But they must support the team, right or wrong........OYe VaY!!!:melodramatic:
They don't WANT to discuss it, you could offer 'shiney objects" to Dems to discuss Libya, wars for oil, "pipelineistan" and they just don't want to hear about it.

1Obama is a Dem.
2Obama is an educated black man.
3 No educated black man would do what the Idiot Son did.

The partisian mind will not accept 1.2.3.

serum114
09-16-2011, 05:56 PM
2002 was not 10 years ago was it??????


You are right my bad I was thinking Iraq and not Afghanistan. At the time I didn't know anyone that was against going into Afghanistan I think it got 88% approval from the american people. As always I was against it and pissed off everyone I knew.

Bill Cosby
09-16-2011, 06:27 PM
You are right my bad I was thinking Iraq and not Afghanistan. At the time I didn't know anyone that was against going into Afghanistan I think it got 88% approval from the american people. As always I was against it and pissed off everyone I knew.


Yea everyone I knew, even the most "liberal" had been drummed up & saber rattled into a hateful frenzy.......

Back then I was much more conservative but felt it was wrong on so many levels & especially there........ I believed then, as I do now, you can not defeat those ppl short of genocide........ Just killing them all...........

There was a slight possibility early on for something positive to come about had they attempted to win over the ppl w/ schools, bridges like they did in western Europe........... They spent the money on bombing them & kicking them around.......

BlackAsCoal
09-16-2011, 07:08 PM
Yep............. I bet it really gnaws away @ ppl..... You know, being all anti-war & all that, & now having to use the same lines you argued against just a few years ago.....:lmao2: :lmao2:

Had bush the dick or McCain attacked Libya these ppl would have gone ape shit.......

But they must support the team, right or wrong........OYe VaY!!!:melodramatic:

:lmao2:

John Galt
09-16-2011, 07:26 PM
You are right my bad I was thinking Iraq and not Afghanistan. At the time I didn't know anyone that was against going into Afghanistan I think it got 88% approval from the american people. As always I was against it and pissed off everyone I knew.
I still don't see any signatures on an 'endless war' deal.

Quite the contrary

Frankg
09-16-2011, 07:32 PM
I still don't see any signatures on an 'endless war' deal.

Quite the contraryYou can't have an "endless war " until you declare war and there was never any formal "Declaration of War" but here are the democrats who voted to invade Iraq.
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
http://culturekitchen.com/liza/blog/5_years_4000_deaths_later_democrats_who_voted_for_

BlackAsCoal
09-16-2011, 07:38 PM
Massive U.S. Embassy In Iraq Will Expand Further As Soldiers Leave

WASHINGTON -- American combat troops in Iraq may be heading to the exits -- or not -- but the U.S. government's enormously expensive intervention there is hardly coming to an end.

In a telling sign of how dangerous and chaotic Iraq remains more than eight years after President George W. Bush launched the war against Saddam Hussein, U.S. diplomats, military advisers and other officials are planning to fall back to the gargantuan embassy in Baghdad -- a heavily fortified, self-contained compound the size of Vatican City.

The embassy compound is by far the largest the world has ever seen, at one and a half square miles, big enough for 94 football fields. It cost three quarters of a billion dollars to build (coming in about $150 million over budget). Inside its high walls, guard towers and machine-gun emplacements lie not just the embassy itself, but more than 20 other buildings, including residential quarters, a gym and swimming pool, commercial facilities, a power station and a water-treatment plant.

Yet the embassy is turning out to be too small for the swelling retinue of gunmen, gardeners and other workers the State Department considers necessary to provide security and "life support" for the sizable group of diplomats, military advisers and other executive branch officials who will be taking shelter there once the troops withdraw from the country.

The number of personnel under the authority of the U.S. ambassador to Iraq will swell from 8,000 to about 16,000 as the troop presence is drawn down, a State Department official told The Huffington Post. "About 10 percent would be core programmatic staff, 10 percent management and aviation, 30 percent life support contractors -- and 50 percent security," he said.

As part of that increase, the State Department will double its complement of security contractors -- fielding a private army of over 5,000 to guard the embassy and other diplomatic outposts and protect personnel as they travel beyond the fortifications, the official said. Another 3,000 armed guards will protect Office of Security Cooperation personnel, who are responsible for sales and training related to an estimated $13 billion in pending U.S. arms sales, including tanks, squadrons of attack helicopters and 36 F-16s.

Under the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated between Iraq and former President Bush in 2008 -- and, at least thus far, still in effect -- all U.S. troops are supposed to leave the country by the end of this year.

As of now, there are about 45,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq. Obama administration officials had been hoping the Iraqi government would allow at least 10,000 to remain past the end-of-the-year deadline. Earlier this month, however, they floated the idea of keeping only 3,000. But given the unpredictable nature of the fractured Iraqi leadership, nothing is certain.

As the Department of Defense pulls out and its spending drops, the State Department is expecting its costs to skyrocket. State asked Congress for $2.7 billion for its Iraqi operations in fiscal year 2011, and got $2.1 billion. It wants $6.2 billion for next year. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee estimates that State's plans will cost $25 to $30 billion over the next five years

Patrick Kennedy, undersecretary of state for management, told the Commission on Wartime Contracting in June that State intends to pay $3 billion in the next five years on its major private security contracts alone.

While $6 billion a year might not seem like much compared to the estimated $806 billion in direct appropriations spent on the Iraq war and reconstruction thus far, that is still an enormous amount of money. Consider, for instance, that the State Department's total operating budget this year is about $14 billion.

Money isn't the only resource being drained by Iraq. The toll on the diplomatic corps is substantial.

In addition to staffing the embassy in Baghdad, the department intends to have more than 1,000 people on staff at each of its two consulates, making them far larger than all but the most important U.S. embassies around the world. Given the de facto partitioning of Iraq, one consulate, in Erbil, will essentially be an embassy to the Kurds; the other, in Basra, an embassy to the Shia -- and to the country's biggest oil fields.

Steve Kashkett, then the head of the American Foreign Service Association, complained at Hillary Clinton's very first town hall meeting as secretary of State that the cost of creating the largest diplomatic mission in U.S. history "has been to take people away from all of our other diplomatic missions around the world, which have been left understaffed and with staffing gaps." A Government Accountability Office report in 2009 concluded that filling the numerous positions in Iraq and Afghanistan meant that "key positions at other hardship posts remain vacant or are filled by officers who may lack the necessary experience to effectively perform their duties, potentially compromising State’s ability to advance U.S. international interests."

IS IT WORTH IT?

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey testified on Capitol Hill in February that the State Department's plan is absolutely necessary to achieve key goals when it comes to diplomacy, economics, energy, security and rule of law. "To not finish the job now creates substantial risks of what some people call a Charlie Wilson's war moment in Iraq, with both the resurgence of al Qaeda and the empowering of other problematic regional players," he said.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who fought the expansion of the embassy in the first place, told The Huffington Post he's been hearing similar arguments for eight years now -- and thinks Iraq isn't worth all this trouble.

"I don't know why that has to be one of our highest priorities," he said. "I think we've reached the point in Iraq where whatever we're spending money on, we're throwing good money after bad."

"I've been to that embassy," Leahy continued, "and I understand security concerns and all. But this is a small country. They can't even get their act together. A lot of people there see us as occupiers and wish we'd leave."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/16/us-embassy-iraq-state-department-plan_n_965945.html?page=2

uGoRNz3yyXY

Is George Bush still in office?

Yes

Bill Cosby
09-16-2011, 07:42 PM
They don't WANT to discuss it, you could offer 'shiney objects" to Dems to discuss Libya, wars for oil, "pipelineistan" and they just don't want to hear about it.

1Obama is a Dem.
2Obama is an educated black man.
3 No educated black man would do what the Idiot Son did.

The partisian mind will not accept 1.2.3.

Yes, I know they don't......... I don't blame for that...........

The GOPerz didn't wanna hear it either..........

I think it is good to just say my piece on it & accept that not everyone is gonna agree........... OH WELL!!!

Bill Cosby
09-16-2011, 07:48 PM
You can't have an "endless war " until you declare war and there was never any formal "Declaration of War" but here are the democrats who voted to invade Iraq.
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
http://culturekitchen.com/liza/blog/5_years_4000_deaths_later_democrats_who_voted_for_

When was the last time that happened??

Did they declare war in Korea?? Viet Nam?? Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Nicaraguahttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u83/Anthoswow/computer.gif, Iraq, Afghanistan, Wackistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Bosnia/Serbia.............???????????????????

serum114
09-16-2011, 07:50 PM
I still don't see any signatures on an 'endless war' deal.

Quite the contrary

Did Chomsky say that or Goodman?? It's hyperbole to be sure. Man has been at endless war since the beginning of time and WWII changed everything with the inception of terrorist organizations like the C.I.A.

John Galt
09-16-2011, 08:18 PM
Did Chomsky say that or Goodman?? It's hyperbole to be sure. Man has been at endless war since the beginning of time and WWII changed everything with the inception of terrorist organizations like the C.I.A.
No argument there. Humans kill each other. I've addressed the issue of Native Americans murdering other tribes, when they all had nothing but wide open spaces.

Makes no sense.


That said, I listen to Goodman all the time. To open a segment with that nonsense, negates anything that follows. I'm not sure whose words those are?

Frankg
09-17-2011, 05:30 AM
When was the last time that happened??

Did they declare war in Korea?? Viet Nam?? Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, Wackistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Bosnia/Serbia.............???????????????????
Military engagements authorized by Congress

Bill Cosby
09-17-2011, 08:14 PM
Military engagements authorized by Congress

That is not a declaration of war Frank........:hi:

serum114
09-17-2011, 09:26 PM
No argument there. Humans kill each other. I've addressed the issue of Native Americans murdering other tribes, when they all had nothing but wide open spaces.

Makes no sense.


That said, I listen to Goodman all the time. To open a segment with that nonsense, negates anything that follows. I'm not sure whose words those are?

Evolution is a slow process and the ones that deny it the most coincidentally have evolved at an even slower pace than the rest. (religious zealots of all denominations and teabaggers)

anatta
09-17-2011, 10:37 PM
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who fought the expansion of the embassy in the first place, told The Huffington Post he's been hearing similar arguments for eight years now -- and thinks Iraq isn't worth all this trouble.

"I don't know why that has to be one of our highest priorities," he said. "I think we've reached the point in Iraq where whatever we're spending money on, we're throwing good money after bad."

"I've been to that embassy," Leahy continued, "and I understand security concerns and all. But this is a small country. They can't even get their act together. A lot of people there see us as occupiers and wish we'd leave
Hillary Clinton has become an imperialist,she always more hawkish them most Dem's -but running State has made her the empire's ambassador to the world.

I figured she might mellow out as Sec.of State,but she's still all about "American exceptionalism"