This is from the March 30, 2004 program.
Richard Clarke On The Daily Show – Part 1 of 2 (Small – 15 MB)
Richard Clarke On The Daily Show – Part 2 of 2 (Small – 9 MB)
The Daily Show (The best news on television.)
This is from the March 4, 2004 program.
Mesopotamia Update (Small – 4 MB)
The Daily Show (The best news on television.)
This is from the February 8, 2004 program of
Meet the Press.
Okay, I’ve got this split up into two parts and 4 parts — in quicktime movies and MP3s.
The Parts 1 and 2s go together (The movies and audio). The 4 parters are split up more at random.
Okay this stuff should be uploaded now. Sorry for being a bonehead last night 😉
Quicktimes In Two Parts:
Shrub On Meet The Press – Part 1 of 2 (Small – 69 MB)
Shrub On Meet The Press – Part 2 of 2 (Small – 35 MB)
MP3s in Two Parts:
Shrub On Meet The Press – Part 1 of 2 (MP3 – 44 MB)
Shrub On Meet The Press – Part 2 of 2 (MP3 – 23 MB)
Quicktimes In Four Parts:
Shrub On Meet The Press – Part 1 of 4 (Small – 25 MB)
Shrub On Meet The Press – Part 2 of 4 (Small – 32 MB)
Shrub On Meet The Press – Part 3 of 4 (Small – 25 MB)
Shrub On Meet The Press – Part 4 of 4 (Small – 24 MB)
MP3s in Four Parts:
Shrub On Meet The Press – Part 1 of 4 (MP3 – 20 MB)
Shrub On Meet The Press – Part 2 of 4 (MP3 – 32 MB)
Shrub On Meet The Press – Part 3 of 4 (MP3 – 25 MB)
Shrub On Meet The Press – Part 4 of 4 (MP3 – 17 MB)
Rumsfeld backed Saddam even after chemical attacks
By Andrew Buncombe for the Independent U.K.
The formerly secret documents reveal the Defence Secretary travelled to Baghdad 20 years ago to assure Iraq that America’s condemnation of its use of chemical weapons was made “strictly” in principle.
The criticism in no way changed Washington’s wish to support Iraq in its war against Iran and “to improve bi-lateral relations … at a pace of Iraq’s choosing”.
Earlier this year, Mr Rumsfeld and other members of the Bush administration regularly cited Saddam’s willingness to use chemical weapons against his own people as evidence of the threat presented to the rest of the world.
Senior officials presented the attacks against the Kurds – particularly the notorious attack in Halabja in 1988 – as a justification for the invasion and the ousting of Saddam.
But the newly declassified documents reveal that 20 years ago America’s position was different and that the administration of President Ronald Reagan was concerned about maintaining good relations with Iraq despite evidence of Saddam’s “almost daily” use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops and Kurdish rebels.
In March 1984, under international pressure, America condemned Iraq’s use of such chemical weapons. But realising that Baghdad had been upset, Secretary of State George Schultz asked Mr Rumsfeld to travel to Iraq as a special envoy to meet Saddam’s Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz, and smooth matters over.
In a briefing memo to Mr Rumsfeld, Mr Shultz wrote that he had met Iraqi officials in Washington to stress that America’s interests remained “in (1) preventing an Iranian victory and (2) continuing to improve bilateral relations with Iraq”.
The memo adds: “This message bears reinforcing during your discussions.”
Exactly what Mr Rumsfeld, who at the time did not hold government office, told Mr Aziz on 26 March 1984, remains unclear and minutes from the meeting remain classified. No one from Mr Rumsfeld’s office was available to comment yesterday.
Against the war, for the soldiers
By Derrick Z. Jackson for the Boston Globe.
On this eve of the Christian celebration of a baby, I celebrate you. In June, I wrote a column that said our soldiers must be dying for oil, since we found no weapons of mass destruction. I wrote, “Nearly another 50 soldiers have died in nebulous situations that range from justifiable self-defense to dubious overreactions more reminiscent of the shootings of American students and rioters by National Guardsmen in the 1960s.”
That column sparked a letter from the father of a 20-year-old soldier who died a month after President Bush declared major combat operations to be over. The father wrote: “The use of the word `nebulous’ is insulting to all who do their duty every day and especially to those who lose their lives. My son died doing what he volunteered for, doing something he loved and was exceptional at.
“You insult his intelligence by intimating that he was some sort of dupe in this grand power play for the world’s oil. If you have a point, then make it, but do not invoke the memory of my son to justify your political point of view. . . . My son willingly followed the orders of his commander in chief to accomplish a mission.
“During his time in Iraq, he grew to like and respect the people there. On missions (prior to his death) he earned the Bronze Star, the Army Commendation Medal, and the Meritorious Service Medal. All this from a 20-year-old Airborne infantryman. Do not dare to insult his memory by equating him with a barrel of oil.”
I wrote the father back: “I am very sorry that your son was killed serving this country. . . . I certainly and sincerely understand how reading my column during this time could inflame your feelings.
“What I want you to know is that while you and I have strong, differing feelings about the political purpose of the war itself and the decisions and actions of world leaders that led to it, I have no doubt that at the individual level, young men and women went off genuinely believing they were furthering the cause of peace and democracy and helping to create a better world.
“If it is of any solace to you, despite the anger my column caused you, I salute your son as he died in the service of freedom, with one of those freedoms being freedom of speech and the freedom to dissent without fear of retribution.”
I’m in a hurry so I’ll just have to give you the links:
Saddam was captured by Kurds, not US
We got him: Kurds say they caught Saddam
US Saddam claims being challenged
They’ve got a good reason for not telling the truth (right on schedule!) — they feared an Arab-Kurd conflict…
There are also more details about his ex-wife turning him in, and how he was captured (his cook spiked his food).
Enjoy!
Happy Holidays everyone!
Knitwitology has just posted a great page with all the information on it I was just about to take the time to create links for:
Of Spiderholes and Spiderwebs
Thanks, Morgan for letting me off the hook!
Remember to not let any of this stuff get you down people! Things just keep getting stranger and stranger. But we’re all in this together, and we’re gonna get out of it together!
Happy Holidays and Remember to Be Careful About Driving Tired, Wasted or in Bad Weather. When in doubt – chill out and wait till later.
Peace and Love Ya’ll!
(I’m probably out for the next few days…connectivity uncertain.)
An intelligence website has reported that former Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, might have been a prisoner at the time of his arrest.
According to Debkafiles there is a possibility that Saddam was held for up to three weeks in the underground pit by a Kurdish splinter group while they negotiated a handover to the Americans in return for the US$25m reward.
The website, edited by former Israeli intelligence agents reports that this is the only answer to questions on why Saddam looked dishevelled and disorientated when captured.
The website reported that it was clear Saddam had not shaved for weeks nor had he washed his hair. He was also starved and looked neglected.
The opening of the underground pit was camouflaged with rocks and mud and it was accessible for above ground only. As a result it was impossible for Saddam to leave his underground cell.
No information has been released on the two men captured at the site except for the fact that they tried to escape during the American operation.
The other question asked is where did the US$750 000 found at the scene come from. It is possible that the new notes were a down payment of a ransom.
The possibility that Saddam was drugged has also emerged. This could have been why he appeared so disorientated, read the report. This would also explain why Saddam did not use the firearm found in the pit.
SADDAM Hussein was found by US troops only after he had been taken prisoner by Kurdish forces, drugged and abandoned ready for American soldiers to recover him, a British newspaper reported yesterday.
Saddam came into the hands of the Kurdish Patriotic Front after being betrayed to the group by a member of the al-Jabour tribe, whose daughter had been raped by Saddam’s son Uday, leading to a blood feud, reported the Sunday Express, which quoted an unnamed senior British military intelligence officer.
The newspaper said the full story of events leading up to the ousted Iraqi president’s capture on December 13 near his hometown of Tikrit in northern Iraq, “exposes the version peddled by American spin doctors as incomplete”.
A former Iraqi intelligence officer, whom the Express did not name, told the paper that Saddam was held prisoner by a leader of the Kurdish Patriotic Front, which fought alongside US forces during the Iraq war, until the leader negotiated a deal.
The deal apparently involved the group gaining political advantage in the region.
An unnamed Western intelligence source in the Middle East told the Express: “Saddam was not captured as a result of any American or British intelligence”.
Can’t the Shrub Administration tell the truth about anything?
Would it have really been so bad to just tell the truth on this one? We still have him in custody and all. The Kurds could have gotten their proper credit — we could have bonded with a persecuted people, and then we all could have held hands and hated Saddam together. (These are the Kurds, remember? The ones that were gassed ten years ago that the Administration likes to bring up all the time as justification for the Shrub War’s unfound WMD!)
But no.
Instead we have to find out a week later that we were lied to yet again.
I hope this is getting as old for you as it is for me. I want a President that can tell the truth at least part of the time. How about once. I’d like to go a day or two, or maybe a week even, without hearing a lie from my President. I don’t think it’s too much to ask.
Well, at least now we know what the new terror alert level is all about. It’s all about diversion: “Pay no attention to the information coming in from the rest of the world. Just be afraid and keep watching the box for further instructions.”
Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops
Saddam Hussein (news – web sites) was captured by US troops only after he had been taken prisoner by Kurdish forces, drugged and abandoned ready for American soldiers to recover him, a British Sunday newspaper said.
Saddam came into the hands of the Kurdish Patriotic Front after being betrayed to the group by a member of the al-Jabour tribe, whose daughter had been raped by Saddam’s son Uday, leading to a blood feud, reported the Sunday Express, which quoted an unnamed senior British military intelligence officer.
The newspaper said the full story of events leading up to the ousted Iraqi president’s capture on December 13 near his hometown of Tikrit in northern Iraq (news – web sites), “exposes the version peddled by American spin doctors as incomplete”.
A former Iraqi intelligence officer, whom the Express did not name, told the paper that Saddam was held prisoner by a leader of the Kurdish Patriotic Front, which fought alongside US forces during the Iraq war, until he negotiated a deal.
The deal apparently involved the group gaining political advantage in the region.
An unnamed Western intelligence source in the Middle East told the Express: “Saddam was not captured as a result of any American or British intelligence. We knew that someone would eventually take their revenge, it was just a matter of time.”
I’ll be posting some stuff today…(even though technically I don’t have time to.)
Some of this stuff is just too important…(Ugh…that’s how I got behind in my school work to begin with!)
Letters the Troops Have Sent Me
As we approach the holidays, I’ve been thinking a lot about our kids who are in the armed forces serving in Iraq. I’ve received hundreds of letters from our troops in Iraq — and they are telling me something very different from what we are seeing on the evening news.
What they are saying to me, often eloquently and in heart-wrenching words, is that they were lied to — and this war has nothing to do with the security of the United States of America.
I’ve written back and spoken on the phone to many of them and I’ve asked a few of them if it would be OK if I posted their letters on my website and they’ve said yes. They do so at great personal risk (as they may face disciplinary measures for exercising their right to free speech). I thank them for their bravery.
Lance Corporal George Batton of the United States Marine Corps, who returned from Iraq in September (after serving in MP company Alpha), writes the following:
“You’d be surprised at how many of the guys I talked to in my company and others believed that the president’s scare about Saddam’s WMD was a bunch of bullshit and that the real motivation for this war was only about money. There was also a lot of crap that many companies, not just marine companies, had to go through with not getting enough equipment to fulfill their missions when they crossed the border. It was a miracle that our company did what it did the two months it was staying in Iraq during the war