War on Terrorism, Strategic Overview

[37L1]

Originally Posted by Farmer Fred

But Clinton didn't have Cheney in his admin., and the level of outsourcing wasn't nearly as high. That was something Halliburton and Cheney cooked up while he was at the company, and that he brought back to government.

Where is your proof? Give it to Ted Kennedy so he can do something with it.

Originally Posted by Farmer Fred

Didn't Bush say something to the effect that his administration wouldn't do anything that even had the appearance of a conflict of interest? This sure does, as does Cheney's lie (yes, clear lie) that he no longer had financial ties to Halliburton when clearly he did.

Where's your proof and where are the members of Congress who feel the same way you do? Can't they do something if the facts, according to you, are so obvious?

[37L1]

Originally Posted by skromfols

Sure we defeated their army, but a well trained troop of boy scouts could have done that.

Just a little hyperbole there, perhaps? We made it look easy because we had the capability to do so. If it were so easy, you don't think other more interested parties in the area would have taken advantage of that? Come on Stan.

Originally Posted by skromfols

The Clinton administration did award contracts to Halliburton in the Balkans, and they were awarded competitively.

My understanding is that they were awarded in the Balkans under the same conditions they were awarded in Iraq. Again I ask you, if the contracts awarded and implemented are illegal, where is the GAO and Congress to rectify that?

Originally Posted by skromfols

You mention our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan to find Bin Laden and the Taliban, and if we would have continued our efforst at the pre Iraq war level I think we would have captured or killed Bin Laden by now But instead we changed our focus and Bin Laden is still at large. And even finding him now isn't a solution to the problem. .

That is conjecture and wishfull thinking on your part. Iraq would have been another border that was even less secure than it is now. Finding him then, wouldn't have been a solution to our problem either. We have been under attack by radical muslim extremists for years before 9/11. The Twin Towers just brought it home.

[Farmer Fred]

Originally Posted by 37L1

Where is your proof??

A report by the Congressional Research Service undermines Vice President **** Cheney's denial of a continuing relationship with Halliburton Co., the energy company he once led, Sen. Frank Lautenberg said.

The report says a public official's unexercised stock options and deferred salary fall within the definition of "retained ties" to his former company.

Cheney's aides defended the assertion on NBC, saying the financial arrangements do not constitute a tie to the company's business performance. They pointed out that Cheney took out a $15,000 insurance policy so he would collect the deferred payments over five years whether or not Halliburton remains in business.

According to Cheney's 2001 financial disclosure report, the vice president's Halliburton benefits include three batches of stock options comprising 433,333 shares. He also has a 401(k) retirement account valued at between $1,001 and $15,000 dollars.

His deferred compensation account was valued at between $500,000 and $1 million, and generated income of $50,000 to $100,000.

Halliburton has contracts worth more than $1.7 billion for its work in Iraq, and it could make hundreds of millions more from a no-bid contract it was awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers, The Washington Post has reported.

According to The Post, while Cheney was defense secretary the Pentagon chose Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root to study the cost effectiveness of outsourcing some military operations to private contractors. Based on the results of the study, the Pentagon hired Brown & Root to implement an outsourcing plan. Cheney became Halliburton CEO in 1995.

Originally Posted by 37L1

Where's your proof and where are the members of Congress who feel the same way you do? Can't they do something if the facts, according to you, are so obvious?

How much proof do you need that there is the appearance of a conflict of interest? Do you deny that Cheney still had/has a financial interest in Halliburton when he made the claim that he did not?

[37L1]

So Fred, are you giving this proof to Senator Kennedy? Suppose he already knows about it maybe?

Where is Congress if this contract and relationship is illegal?

Well?

[Farmer Fred]

Originally Posted by 37L1

So Fred, are you giving this proof to Senator Kennedy? Suppose he already knows about it maybe?

Where is Congress if this contract and relationship is illegal?

Well?

Not much of an answer, is it? When all else fails, bring up A: Clinton's blowjob, or B: Ted Kennedy.

Halliburton is being investigated, but I am sure the Republican-controlled congress is being as fair and balanced as it can possibly be.

Can you at least answer this one:

Do you deny that Cheney still had/has a financial interest in Halliburton when he made the claim that he did not?

[37L1]

Originally Posted by Farmer Fred

Not much of an answer, is it? When all else fails, bring up A: Clinton's blowjob, or B: Ted Kennedy.

Halliburton is being investigated, but I am sure the Republican-controlled congress is being as fair and balanced as it can possibly be.

I have never brought up a Clinton blow job but you just did.

You don't like Ted Kennedy? Pick a Senator of your choice. I'm sure they can't wait to hear from you.

I'm no fan of Halliburton. I don't benefit from their activities and I feel no need to defend them. I'm just questioning your basis for what you believe to be the truth.

If the contract is illegal, how much needs to be proven to change it, end it, charge them?

It either is or it isn't. I guess it isn't as obvious as you seem to think and it is ticking you off because it isn't right. OK, if it isn't right, why can't Congress even propose legislation to change the rules and make this type of business relationship illegal if it isn't now? I haven't even seen that being brought up by the loyal opposition. Why, if the abuse is so blatant as you make it appear to be? It should be a slam dunk.

[Farmer Fred]

Originally Posted by 37L1

I have never brought up a Clinton blow job but you just did.

You don't like Ted Kennedy? Pick a Senator of your choice. I'm sure they can't wait to hear from you.

I'm no fan of Halliburton. I don't benefit from their activities and I feel no need to defend them. I'm just questioning your basis for what you believe to be the truth.

If the contract is illegal, how much needs to be proven to change it, end it, charge them?

It either is or it isn't. I guess it isn't as obvious as you seem to think and it is ticking you off because it isn't right. OK, if it isn't right, why can't Congress even propose legislation to change the rules and make this type of business relationship illegal if it isn't now? I haven't even seen that being brought up by the loyal opposition. Why, if the abuse is so blatant as you make it appear to be? It should be a slam dunk.

Still won't touch that last question, eh? Wasn't it you who rang me up for being selective about answering direct questions?

[37L1]

Originally Posted by Farmer Fred

Still won't touch that last question, eh? Wasn't it you who rang me up for being selective about answering direct questions?

Well you are and still continue to be, so what's new?

As far as your question, based on what you say, it would appear that he still has a relationship in some form but I really don't care. Really I don't. It's just not that important to me unless it were a violation of the law. If it is illegal then why issn't something being done about it? If it isn't, why does it bother you so much? Has he complied with the law, did he meet the requirements? I guess he did or the loyal opposition would be having a field day with it as well as the press and they aren't. Why?

[bestatchess]

Originally Posted by 37L1

OK, and who is? Any liberal democrats elected to Congress asking for this?

Specter (Republican) & Biden (Democrat) seem to have a grasp:

Senator Arlen Specter Introduces the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act on Senate Floor

June 6, 2005
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), for himself, Mr. BAYH, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. JOHNSON, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. FEINGOLD, and Mr. WYDEN, in the US Senate
From: Congressional Record, page S6107

Summary:
S. 1171. A bill to halt Saudi support for institutions that fund, train, incite, encourage, or in any other way aid and abet terrorism, and to secure full Saudi cooperation in the investigation of terrorist incidents, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. SPECTER: Mr. President, I have sought recognition to offer legislation to halt Saudi Arabia’s support for institutions that fund, train, incite or in any other way aid and abet terrorism, and to secure full Saudi cooperation in the investigation of terrorist incidents and organizations.

Despite the Saudi government’s attempts to show otherwise, a growing amount of evidence indicates that Saudi Arabia has provided only lackluster support for U.S. investigations into terrorist networks, such as al Qaeda. Mounting documentation and reports have revealed that since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Saudi citizens have provided significant amounts of financial support to al Qaeda, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations. The Saudi government continues to use direct and indirect means to support organizations that propagate hate and incite terror around the world.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted in 2001, mandates that all states “refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts . . . take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts . . . deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts . . . ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice” and that member countries “afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts.” I would like to share some findings with my colleagues that I believe paint a clear picture that Saudi Arabia has failed to comply with this U.N. standard.

Saudi Arabia’s lack of cooperation with the United States is not a post 9/11 phenomenon. At the time of the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, I chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee. I visited Dhahran and had the opportunity to inspect the results of the car bomb which killed nineteen of our airmen and injured 400 others. In that situation, U.S. investigators were denied the opportunity to interview the suspects. I personally met with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and requested that the FBI be permitted to speak with suspects in custody. Crown Prince Abdullah denied my request and informed me that the United States should not meddle in Saudi internal affairs. The murder of nineteen U.S. airmen and the wounding of 400 more hardly qualifies as a Saudi internal affair.



And from Biden:

WASHINGTON Jun 9, 2005 — More foreign fighters than ever are crossing Iraq's porous borders to fight U.S. and Iraqi forces, and a growing number are from U.S.-ally Saudi Arabia, a Senate Democrat said Thursday.

"The mix is changing," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., citing conversations last week in Iraq with Marine and Army generals. "Now, the mix is increasingly more Islamist crossing the border … and a lot of them are Saudis. It presents a different profile" that is harder for U.S. forces to confront.

Biden, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's top Democrat, gave no specific numbers, for foreign fighters as a whole or for the percentage from Saudi Arabia. He said he was told repeatedly that the totals are going up and that Saudis are "a disproportionate number."

"They kept talking about their belief … that more in terms of numbers of jihadists are crossing the border, more sophisticatedly trained and more capable of doing harm and damage than existed a month ago, three months ago, five months ago," Biden told reporters.

In the past, the U.S. military has said foreign fighters are a small percentage perhaps one in 10 of the insurgents fighting the U.S. presence in Iraq. They do a disproportionate amount of killing, however, in part because they are more likely to carry out suicide bombings.

U.S. and other analysts say the foreign fighters are primarily Islamic jihadists, fighting what they claim are anti-Islamic invaders, while the much larger homegrown, mostly Sunni Arab, insurgency has tended to be motivated more by political grievance and factional rivalry.

Part of the Bush administration strategy in Iraq is to improve living conditions and security for ordinary Iraqis and thereby reduce support for the homegrown insurgency. That calculation won't work with foreign fighters, Biden said.

"If you turn on lights, get the air conditioning running and clean up the sewage, that ain't going to have any impact on the jihadist coming across from Saudi Arabia with a bomb strapped on his stomach," said Biden, who has made five trips to Iraq since U.S. forces overthrew Saddam Hussein a little more than two years ago.

[37L1]

Thanks for finding that best.

Good for Specter, he's trying to do something about it. What are the chances of that bill? Where does it stand now? I'd like to see that one pass.

Biden's just passing info in the article you pasted and is not a co-signer to the Specter bill. Hopefully he would support and vote for it.

[bestatchess]

Originally Posted by 37L1

Good for Specter, he's trying to do something about it. What are the chances of that bill? Where does it stand now? I'd like to see that one pass.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-1171

[37L1]

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


Chairman
Richard G. Lugar
Ranking Member
Joseph R. Biden
Chuck Hagel
Nebraska

Lincoln Chafee
Rhode Island

George Allen
Virginia

Norm Coleman
Minnesota

George V. Voinovich
Ohio

Lamar Alexander
Tennessee

John E. Sununu
New Hampshire

Lisa Murkowski
Alaska

Mel Martinez
Florida



Paul S. Sarbanes
Maryland

Christopher J. Dodd
Connecticut

John F. Kerry
Massachusetts

Russell D. Feingold
Wisconsin

Barbara Boxer
California

Bill Nelson
Florida

Barack Obama
Illinois

[Farmer Fred]

Originally Posted by 37L1

As far as your question, based on what you say, it would appear that he still has a relationship in some form but I really don't care. Really I don't. It's just not that important to me unless it were a violation of the law. If it is illegal then why issn't something being done about it? If it isn't, why does it bother you so much? Has he complied with the law, did he meet the requirements? I guess he did or the loyal opposition would be having a field day with it as well as the press and they aren't. Why?

Funny how you don't care about a lie to congress or to the American public when it's Cheney. But Preznit said this administration wouldn't even have the appearance of a conflict of interest. This is more than just an appearance.

[37L1]

Originally Posted by Farmer Fred

Funny how you don't care about a lie to congress or to the American public when it's Cheney. But Preznit said this administration wouldn't even have the appearance of a conflict of interest. This is more than just an appearance.

So what, BFD. Nobody seems to care. What else you got?

[37L1]

Back on topic. Interestingly enough, I received this email from a friend this morning:

This was written by Major General Vernon Chong, USAF Ret. It's long but definitely well worth the read.....


MG Vernon Chong, USAF ret forwarded:
This WAR is for REAL

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now
facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have
faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few
of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what
losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is
concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks
on us:

• Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
• Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
• Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
• Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
• First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
• Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
• Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
• Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
• Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
• New York World Trade Center 2001;
• Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist
attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during
the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We
cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations
by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or
Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the
predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the
dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no
difference. You either went along with the administration or you were
eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for
political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see
http://www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm).

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six
million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything
other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the
Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of
exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any
others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in
the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point
here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from
the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no
protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are
fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us
"infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice
was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim
terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this
conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly
recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?

2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major
reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the
second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging
our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post
Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means
is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not
subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not
just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an
increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was
clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to
them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of
reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot
help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be
increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter
whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain
did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to
withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is
finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see
the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they
can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too
late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all
vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they
were threatened by the Muslims.

If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely
committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise
committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we
recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our
thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to
win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is,
defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and
really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united,
there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way
that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and
death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.

Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17
and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that
sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we
are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed
to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we
will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights
during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added
many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political
Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean,
lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your
head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration
that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add
that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't
recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to
the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it
does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding
the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am
saying.

We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners
of war, by a small group of our military police.

These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own
people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and
otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of
their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy
fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred
corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to
all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they
held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have
thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim
prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the
streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of
Defense.

If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the
seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in
and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue
makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious
to what is going on in the real world.

Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife.

Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are
disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude,
of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been
pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That
translates into all non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout
the world.

We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid
in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good,
powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack
us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in
the world!

We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no
other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom
of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal
rights for anyone -