Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Mutiny In The White House?
we can now add paul bremer to the list now that seems to be growing regarding information about the iraqi war which goes against the grain of what was being told to the public over the past year and a half.
bremer has publically said there were NOT enough american troops in iraq and thus there IS more chaos to deal with today. this sharply goes against what rumsfield and the defense department has been saying........
rumsfield btw has come out and said that he has seen no hard proof that there was a direct connection between al-qaida and huessin this past weekend.
seems that bush has a bit of a mutiny on his hands just before the election. a sure sign that not all of his (bush's) soldiers are with him. question is why is this all happening now and who stands to gain from this. particularly if some of these men believe bush is going to win a second term. what do they stand to gain? who are they trying to smear?
granted many of these facts now being discussed must be brought into a proper context and as the crapoola hits the fan in the next week much of it will be re-thought out loud.
for instance, look for bremer to add to his comments in the coming days that what he meant was that there were not enough troops because the 4th infantry was not allowed to pursue its originally planned mission which most probably had something to do with coming down from turkey to make all in their wake less a threat - which would have included the sunni triangle which is now being confronted in places like sammara and fallujah.
as for rumsfield, it is harder to explain his sudden comments regarding evidence. we will see where the next couple of weeks take us.
bremer has publically said there were NOT enough american troops in iraq and thus there IS more chaos to deal with today. this sharply goes against what rumsfield and the defense department has been saying........
rumsfield btw has come out and said that he has seen no hard proof that there was a direct connection between al-qaida and huessin this past weekend.
seems that bush has a bit of a mutiny on his hands just before the election. a sure sign that not all of his (bush's) soldiers are with him. question is why is this all happening now and who stands to gain from this. particularly if some of these men believe bush is going to win a second term. what do they stand to gain? who are they trying to smear?
granted many of these facts now being discussed must be brought into a proper context and as the crapoola hits the fan in the next week much of it will be re-thought out loud.
for instance, look for bremer to add to his comments in the coming days that what he meant was that there were not enough troops because the 4th infantry was not allowed to pursue its originally planned mission which most probably had something to do with coming down from turkey to make all in their wake less a threat - which would have included the sunni triangle which is now being confronted in places like sammara and fallujah.
as for rumsfield, it is harder to explain his sudden comments regarding evidence. we will see where the next couple of weeks take us.
// posted by Zevchi @ 1:21 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Perhaps these "insiders" are comming to the realization that what they've become a part of will start to crash and the world will begin the second faze of the "Nurenburg Trials".
It's only natural survival instincts that make the rats abandon ship just before it sinks.
Do they know more than they are willing to admit? (until it becomes time to save their sorry asses?)
Only time will tell. "we will see"
Thanks for your blogs, S.
It's only natural survival instincts that make the rats abandon ship just before it sinks.
Do they know more than they are willing to admit? (until it becomes time to save their sorry asses?)
Only time will tell. "we will see"
Thanks for your blogs, S.
# posted by 
: 9:10 AM
: 9:10 AM
rats leaving a ship before it sinks speaks well about the rats instincts to survive, but unless they are able to step onto land they most likely drown too.
not to get too caught up in legal arguements here, but who exactly could be held accountable in any type of war crime tribunal except saddam himself and his cronies.
the world, even the countries that were against the u.s. taking action in a singular manner had reason to believe that hussein actually had the capability of hiding weapons. and the new cia report states what some suspected for a while, saddam himself wanted people to believe that he had weapons because he thought it would act as a detriment.
as an aside - iran which is seemingly trying to enter the realm of nuclear ambivilence - with weapons or through the means of building a reactor and then just making believe they have a capability are entering much the same game saddam used to his own detriment.
sorry for digressing, back to the war tribunal comment, there is no one in the u.s. or any other place that could be held accountable for a crime legally.
even if a case somehow were to be held, what would the charges be exactly in your view? i would like to know..........
the u.s. has done quite a bit of investigative work since the undertaking of the war.
now you might consider this a smokescreen and perhaps you are right. but what about the evidence that has started to turn up since this past winter regarding the oil for food scandal? is this a crime? and who exactly is going to be held accountable for this? sanction breaking is a fairly serious offense, unless of course you sit on the security council in the u.n. or you happen to be the son of the person who happens to be the u.n's elected leader i suspect.......
in word think grey........as in not black and white.
i suspect the rats enjoy this color.
Post a Comment
not to get too caught up in legal arguements here, but who exactly could be held accountable in any type of war crime tribunal except saddam himself and his cronies.
the world, even the countries that were against the u.s. taking action in a singular manner had reason to believe that hussein actually had the capability of hiding weapons. and the new cia report states what some suspected for a while, saddam himself wanted people to believe that he had weapons because he thought it would act as a detriment.
as an aside - iran which is seemingly trying to enter the realm of nuclear ambivilence - with weapons or through the means of building a reactor and then just making believe they have a capability are entering much the same game saddam used to his own detriment.
sorry for digressing, back to the war tribunal comment, there is no one in the u.s. or any other place that could be held accountable for a crime legally.
even if a case somehow were to be held, what would the charges be exactly in your view? i would like to know..........
the u.s. has done quite a bit of investigative work since the undertaking of the war.
now you might consider this a smokescreen and perhaps you are right. but what about the evidence that has started to turn up since this past winter regarding the oil for food scandal? is this a crime? and who exactly is going to be held accountable for this? sanction breaking is a fairly serious offense, unless of course you sit on the security council in the u.n. or you happen to be the son of the person who happens to be the u.n's elected leader i suspect.......
in word think grey........as in not black and white.
i suspect the rats enjoy this color.
<< Home
