Secretary Rice tells it like it is about Iraq.

Maybe the Administration doesn't realise what they say is not being heard by the public?

"Thank you very much for the question. The President, when he, with the coalition, decided that it was time to enforce the just demands of the world on Saddam Hussein and to remove this threat from the region and then ultimately to give the Iraqi people an opportunity to build a more democratic future, recognized that this would entail sacrifice and that it would not be an easy road ahead. The United States therefore remains committed to the goals that were set out, which is to take a situation in which tyranny existed and to help the Iraqi people to build a democratic future on the ruins of that tyranny." -- Rice at a conference speaking about the Strategic discussions with Saudi Arabia just recently.

Why does the world have a problem with that? Sure it's not going ahead as planned which is to be expected but right there that sums up the more noble purpose of the Iraq war that we may as well focus on now.

You don't think she's going to come out and say something like:

"The President decided that it was time to gain a stronghold in the Middle East and start a war with Iran and Iraq to have a military presence in the gulf so the US can fight along with Israel to gain access to the oil in the gulf region. Our presence would increase terrorism and therefore solidify the fear that we've instilled in the American people and pretty much get them to accept any invasion into their privacy for the sake of "security", so as to gain more control over the people in our own country. The United States therefore remains committed to the goal that was set out, which is to take a situation in which a sovereign nation existed and stir up a hornet's nest in the Middle East, only to make billions of dollars for Haliburton and make all the higher-ups in the current administration (including me) rich beyond our wildest dreams... "

Did ya?

Given how many times the justification for Iraq has changed, its very hard to trust anything this administration says, at all. First off its for WMDs, but we only find battlefield chemical weapons (and very few of those at that). Then there was something about links to terrorists, but that happened to be a lie perpetuated by members of Al-Qaeda themselves (at least if Omar Nasiri is to be believed, which is very possible). Finally its now on humanitarian grounds.

While I personally find it impossible to argue against that myself, it was never the real reason and it was at the wrong time. Saddam was holed up and not a threat to anyone except his own people - unlike say Osama bin Laden. Besides, given that the current administration believes torture, rendition and unsound economic policies to be sound basis for government, I'm not sure I approve of what they call human rights.

Its nice to be idealistic, but you also have to be realistic in how you want to achieve your goals. And anyone who knew anything about the Middle East knew invading Iraq would possibly end in partition - something western powers hate doing. Yet there was no post-war planning for this eventuality.

In fact, as BH shows quite well, the realpolitik reasons for this invasion are actually more convincing than the humanitarian ones, when we consider how it was approached by the administration.

It's always been on humanitarian grounds, when selling the war to the UN the argument was very broad only the US media focused on WMDs because that's what the US citizens cared about hearing, the mass graves are STILL unheard of in the US.

Even though more than 400,000 people have been confirmed dug-up from Mass Graves in Iraq.

The premise never changed just ONE aspect wasn't found and Democrats use that to their advantage.

New Iraqi Oil Law Seen as Cover for Privatization

WASHINGTON - "The U.S.-backed Iraqi cabinet approved a new oil law Monday that is set to give foreign companies the long-term contracts and safe legal framework they have been waiting for, but which has rattled labor unions and international campaigners who say oil production should remain in the hands of Iraqis."

"According to local labor leaders, transferring ownership to the foreign companies would give a further pretext to continue the U.S. occupation on the grounds that those companies will need protection."
/yu32g4

Could this new oil law which was approved last month, and the plan for up to 14 'enduring' bases in Iraq possibly be related? www.fcnl.org...

Peace &
Good fortune
OBE1

You don't think she's going to come out and say something like:

"The President decided that it was time to gain a stronghold in the Middle East and start a war with Iran and Iraq to have a military presence in the gulf so the US can fight along with Israel to gain access to the oil in the gulf region. Our presence would increase terrorism and therefore solidify the fear that we've instilled in the American people and pretty much get them to accept any invasion into their privacy for the sake of "security", so as to gain more control over the people in our own country. The United States therefore remains committed to the goal that was set out, which is to take a situation in which a sovereign nation existed and stir up a hornet's nest in the Middle East, only to make billions of dollars for Haliburton and make all the higher-ups in the current administration (including me) rich beyond our wildest dreams... "

Spot on...

You have voted Benevolent Heretic for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

You really cant trust what comes out of a politicians mouth

Originally posted by The_Investor
It's always been on humanitarian grounds, when selling the war to the UN the argument was very broad only the US media focused on WMDs because that's what the US citizens cared about hearing, the mass graves are STILL unheard of in the US.

Even though more than 400,000 people have been confirmed dug-up from Mass Graves in Iraq.

The premise never changed just ONE aspect wasn't found and Democrats use that to their advantage.

Are you asleep? Dont you realize that even Bush's bio author/family friend Mickey Herskowitz even said Bush wanted to invade Iraq for political capital when he met with him in 1999. It wasn't humanitarian. This guy doesn't have that record. Bush is a classic case for a sociopath. You are so far off the mark. Look into Mickey Herskowitz record. He has more credibility than some tepid talking points from a G.o.P manufacturing plant. There is no 400,000 people in mass graves killed by Saddam. Those numbers are a damn lie and you don't have any facts on your side with that one.

God, how can YOU still drink this kool aid? We are killing more than Saddam ever did in his massive graves. We knocked out their power grid and their water supply. You don't even mention that and keep pretending this is a liberating mission. Do you have any idea how many adults and children are in hell right now? Of course you don't. That's a talking point you got straight from the RNC. Are you going to mention the chipper too?
Which was a damn lie to shock the public what a animal Saddam was.

This administration doesnt givea damn about mass killings. We aren't in Darfur. And it doesn't give a damn about it's soldiers. Why you pander to this administration. C. Rice has no credibility anymore.


Face it, you got duped. And that kool aid you are being served has something else in it, blood. Are you sure you want to keep drinking?



BTW Benevolent "devasted" your talking points. No one believes this administration anymore except some acolytes who want to believe.

Cheney is a draft dodger and so is the Commander in chief. Nobody wants to admit that they got duped and LIED to.

Think about these statements:

sell the notion of a war..... the US decided.... to give the Iraqi people....

the problem with them it is the US deciding that it was time to invade, the US deciding to give the Iraqi people... The US deciding to sell the idea of a war etc.

That unilateral approach is not very sound way to conduct foreign policy and is assured to generate resentment from the people it is foisted upon.

Aside from obvious pro-Israeli, neocon incentives, there's one common denominator in this administration with regard to it's interest in the Middle East: OIL PROFITS, and control of distribution.


George Bush senior: Chevron...others.

George Jr: Arbusto, Harken Energy, (failed).

Dick Cheney: President & CEO of Halliburton, and known as the fulcrum of the "oil factor" in the Bush administration.

Condoleezza Rice: Board of Directors, and Head of the Committee on Public Policy..Chevron. (they named a tanker after her).

Hamid Karzai, Our man in Afghanistan: Former Unocal lobbyist.

Ahmed Chalabi: our initial point man in Iraq. It's no secret that his 'Iraqi National Congress' was primarily funded by big oil interests. Darling of the neocons, Chalabi was appointed deputy prime minister, and twice held the post of interim Iraqi oil minister,...then the wheels fell off.


These are just some of the more prominent players.

Evidently, public interest in the 'blood for oil' part of the Iraq equation has been swept aside in the wake of more immeadiate concerns like civil war, US troop surge vs withdrawal, and the possibility of conflict with Iran.

Peace &
Good Fortune
OBE1

[edit on 20-3-2007 by OBE1]

"Why does the world have a problem with that?"

I personaly have a problem with it because i beleive she's talking about the possibility of a democratic future, now, shes in Saudia arabia when shes saying this isnt she?. So does this mean America are going to overthrow the Saudi monarchy?

Originally posted by Starvald
"Why does the world have a problem with that?"

They have a problem because is called imperialism US style.


So does this mean America are going to overthrow the Saudi monarchy?

Nah, Starvald, no in a million years, The Saud family regards the president and the Bush family as one of their own so they are royalty, and beside the Saud house is gooooood for business.

Condi is like a littler poppet that the strings attach to her and the people that control them are the ones that dictate what she is to say.

heh i was just sayin that a bit a tongue in cheek, I just dont understand how people listening to her, like the people who actually believe what she says dont sit there and think

"huh, she's talking about Americas goals of releasing people from tyranny and spreading the message of democracy yet.....she's in Saudi Arabia....ummmmmm"

See, to me its completely mental, based on something as simple as that i can immediatly tell what she says is utter bull faeces and. Now if what she is saying there is utter bull faeces then the fact is anything else she says is going to be utter bull faeces and anything the people who are spouting the same sort of rhetoric as her will no doubt be talking utter bull faeces. I know thats kinda obvious, but honestly you really have to wonder sometimes if people are actually understanding whats going on.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by Starvald]

Originally posted by The_Investor
Even though more than 400,000 people have been confirmed dug-up from Mass Graves in Iraq.

Can you provide a link? Im curious where you got this 400,000 number.
Oddly, by some estimates, that is the number of civilians that have died in the 5 long years this war has been going on.

The premise never changed just ONE aspect wasn't found and Democrats use that to their advantage.

The premise never changed?
What rock have you been living under?
This is how it went down, incase you dont know....
First it was WMD, they were everywhere, they were half an hour from blowing up an American city.
THAT WAS A LIE. There was no mentionable WMD program.
Second it was removal of Saddam, he was an evil tyrant hell-bent on spreading terrorism.
THAT WAS A LIE. Saddam had a fear of Al-CIAda and any other forms of terrorist organizations. They represented a threat to him and his power, and he was ruthless in hunting down terrorists.
Third it was about helping the Iraqi people.
THAT WAS A LIE. We let the hooligans run ramant in the beginning, destroying the infrastructure and looting the government offices and museums. Most of Iraq still doesnt have clean water and electricity, two things they had before we got there, but the oil wells are all still running.

Oh, I see where you are coming from.
You are one of those types that buys into the Left/Right paradigm.
You're right, its all the democrats fault.

As far as Condi goes, she is a snake in the grass.

She has the diplomatic skills of a grade schooler, but with a boss who acts like a spoiled brat/bully, Condi fits in nicely.

Originally posted by Starvald
I know thats kinda obvious, but honestly you really have to wonder sometimes if people are actually understanding whats going on.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by Starvald]

I tell you this much, I got some hard die republican all for war friends, but lately this people that you could not mention politics before in front of them are starting to see the light.

I maintain that even the most die hard conservative, say semper or centurian and the staunchest liberal such as myself actually have far more in common than would be imagined...if we sat down with a pitcher of beer and talked things out reasonably. Both sides love their country and want to do what is best for it, we just differ in our approaches getting there. Unfortuantely the vested interests have don't want people to understand that... it is the old divide and conquor routine.

Originally posted by grover
we sat down with a pitcher of beer and talked things out reasonably. Both sides love their country and want to do what is best for it,

You are so right I sat down with one that was driving me crazy with his arguments to my husband not me. . .

We went for dinner with his wife and my husband, and guess what !!!!!! we end up agreeing with more issues that we disagreed about.

It was so funny. but occurs I am a charmer when I want too.

Ahh but you are a lovely young woman...I am a cantankerous old coot without the charm of dark brown feminine eyes.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by grover]