On the day of the "Kurds found Saddam" story, alert level raised to Orange

[maggrwaggr]

coincidence?

Please vent here.

[RBHam]

1. speculate away

already been tossin' it 'round

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=947965

[Saudade]

2. "Alert"

Bush can literally do this terror alert stuff any time he wants for as long as he wants -- fear and bullying being his only political strategy -- and there is no way for the public to know if it has any basis in fact.

The strategy works because when in fear, people tend to err on the side of caution, giving Bush the benefit of any doubt.

What is most frightening is not the alleged terrorism, but the logic of the fear-mongering itself.

[maggrwaggr]

3. oops. I missed that one.

sorry it's sorta a dupe.

[Philostopher]

4. It's almost gotten to the point ...

You don't know which story is the tail and which is the dog, anymore. Are they that disorganized, or is that the way they want it? -- so that nobody knows, anymore, when a story comes out if it's the truth, a lie, or a grandstanding move to cover up for an ugly truth or a pretty lie.

I'm still waiting for the shots of Dim Son and Hussein together -- the first thing my brain did, logical or not, when I saw some fairly reputable sources saying the Kurds were the ones who originally got him, was put the turkey surprise photo-op and the fact Hussein might actually have been in custody before they 'found' him together into yet another 'wag the dog' scenario. Note -- I am not advancing this as a theory, it's just the first place my mind went when I heard the second story.

[grasswire]

10. chaos. managed chaos.

Skull and Bones (Yale's secret society tied to the Bushes) actually advocate chaos to achieve policy.

Look at the excerpt below, from a white paper prepared in 1991!

The powerful men of Skull & Bones genuinely believe that they have a strategic and moral "right" to control world affairs. Consequently, they take upon themselves the authority to crush any rivalrous threat to U.S. imperial leadership, whether by current allies, such as Japan, Germany or Great Britain, or by Cold War adversaries, like the Soviet Union. The members of the Order, due to their narrow WASP upbringing, view with particular suspicion the maneuverings of Zionist Israel and its affluent, influential lobby in the United States.

Bush, his fellow Bonesmen and their like-thinking elitist allies in the American Establishment see themselves as New World Order warriors, an American samurai caste of sorts, whose mission is restoring American greatness. They intend to utilize the institutional networks of the U.S. government and key private agencies, such as the New York Council on Foreign Relations, to advance their purpose.

The Skull & Bones members believe in the idea of "constructive chaos." By keeping their true policy intentions secret, by constantly sending out mixed signals on all critical policy issues, they consciously seek to sow confusion among both their nominal "friends" and "enemies" alike.

The fulcrum for the policy of constructive chaos is, at present, the Middle East situation. Although U.S. military action in the region has for the time being subsided, America's military power will remain a critical determinant in the future of that vital zone of conflict. American military power is aimed at securing undisputed control over the vast reservoir of oil -- not at necessarily fostering any permanent alignment of local states or combinations of regional interests.

http://aor.cat4.net/nwo/skullandbones/

[silverweb]

5. There's no such thing.

I can't find the quote at the moment, but someone very smart said that in politics there is no such thing as coincidence. If something has happened, it was arranged for it to happen just that way.

Maybe someone else here has the right quote/author?

[RBHam]

6. FDR

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”

[silverweb]

7. Thank you!

I'm stealing that and adding it right now to my favorite quotes archive. :)

[snoochie]

49. As close as he dared come to saying...

'we let Pearl Harbor happen'.

[PackedForPerth]

8. Silly...

I find the Kurds caught and drugged Saddam and then dumped him for the Americans to find story a bit silly. We're talking about Kurds operating within the Sunni triangle and the whole place not behaving like an stamped-on antbed? Really... :eyes:

Maybe if they'd got him up around Mosul... but outside of Tikrit? Get serious.

[spotbird]

11. If you have followed the administration as long and as carefully

as many here have you would have learned that the truth is irrelevant to them. If it (truth) is included in a story it is only because it can’t be avoided, and like all great liars they know big successful lies are always woven around some form of a truth.

IMO it is more likely than not that *&Co. are handing us another crock about how Saddam was captured because the devils in the details. Why would the Americans have released the information about the capture to Iran, who reported it first, rather than their own PR firm Faux, who had the story late? That may seem like a small detail to someone who believes them, but to the weary among us it is a dead giveaway. That, the textbooks, that they didn’t have * sober to make the announcement promptly so they had to wait, the early indications that Saddam had been captured a week or more earlier make the foreign reports look more plausible than the Orwellian account.

It is very simple, Bush lies about everything that matters. He gets away with all of it, and he will get away with this too. If you believe anything that comes from them, more power to you. In a sense you are much better off, knowing what is really going on can drive one to the brink.

[PackedForPerth]

12. I'm sorry...

That's too many miles into wearing underware on your head territory for me. There's plenty to not like about Bush without going completely nutsoid on the subject. :eyes:

[althecat]

14. Those views are not that unusual around here Packed4Perth

Welcome to DU

[Timefortruth]

15. And he is so new?

Guess he has a lot to learn.

[Timefortruth]

16. Like I said, if you believe him more power to ya.

He has never done anything to convince me that he even knows the difference between the truth and a lie.

I have a standing challenge to those who come here to preach that Bush is truthful in this or that situation, show me a historic example. It is that simple; give a substantive example of a time where this administration has been truthful, before they were caught in a lie.

You, like all of your predecessors, won’t be able to provide such an example. Of all the times that I have issued that challenge not even once has an example been given. Bet I don’t hear from you again either.

This capture of Saddam may be a first for truth from them, but forgive my cynicism.

[PackedForPerth]

17. Careful there...

Didn't say I believed Bush. I try to not be a fool.

I just have a bit of trouble with alternative stories that don't make the least bit of sense, like Kurds being able to operate in the Sunni triangle without somebody noticing and raising a lot of hell. That one just strikes me as bullshit made up by somebody completely out of touch with reality.

[althecat]

18. The somebody in question this time is a British Intelligence operative

And there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that supports the contention. I.E. Iranian news getting the story early... celebrations in Mosul before the news was announced etc...

[PackedForPerth]

21. right...

And his name is? :eyes:

[althecat]

23. He hasn't been named...

But that is far from abnormal. How often does the NYT or Washpost name intelligence sources....

See...
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/21/1071941609659.html

Claims that US troops captured Saddam Hussein have been challenged by reports that he was discovered only after Kurdish forces had taken him prisoner.

The deposed president was drugged and abandoned ready for the American soldiers to recover him, a British tabloid newspaper reported yesterday.

Saddam came into the hands of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) after being betrayed 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, quoting an unnamed senior British military intelligence officer.

Washington's claims that brilliant US intelligence work led to the capture of Saddam are also being challenged by reports sourced in Iraq's Kurdish language media that say its militia set up the circumstances in which the US merely had to go to a farm identified by the Kurds to bag the fugitive former president.

[Timefortruth]

27. Novak give up the names of agents, maybe someone should

see if he'll provide it?

[PackedForPerth]

31. LOL!

He hasn't been named...

Isn't that convenient... if I were going to make something up I'd certainly want to quote a source that nobody could check up on, wouldn't you? :D

[althecat]

34. But Packed4Perth...

The story is independently corroborated by other evidence. The Kurdish celebrations etc...

Plus I trust you approach stories in the Washpost and NYT attributed to "unanmed senior administration officials" and "unnamed intelligence sources" with the same degree of skepticism.

Only thing is there wouldn't be much you could believe if you did that.

al

[PackedForPerth]

36. you can take that one to the bank...

Plus I trust you approach stories in the Washpost and NYT attributed to "unanmed senior administration officials" and "unnamed intelligence sources" with the same degree of skepticism.

"Unnamed sources" stories are almost always lies, in my experience.

[welshTerrier2]

47. Unnamed Sources

of course, the fact that they may or may not almost always be lies neither validates nor invalidates this particular story ...

what's important is to keep an open mind until more is known ... skepticism is fine but labeling the situation "silly" without more information is, well, silly ...

your skepticism about unnamed sources would not have served you well during the Watergate investigation ... it would have been easy for the big wigs at the Washington Post to drop the story because "no one would go on the record" ...

just because you don't know who Deep Throat is doesn't mean the information he provides isn't accurate ...

[snoochie]

51. Yeah... that Deep Throat... what a liar he was, eh?

""Unnamed sources" stories are almost always lies, in my experience."

:eyes:

[PackedForPerth]

37. show me...

The story is independently corroborated by other evidence. The Kurdish celebrations etc...

Oh really? Can I see this "evidence"?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

39. Welcome to DU

Since you're new here, how about showing more respect for your fellow DUers?

If you're so focused on evidence, I'm sure a Google search would find you plenty. I would specifically check a UK or other European source, or the Asia Times.

[PackedForPerth]

41. Disrespect...

You will pardon me but when people tell me about celebrations in the Middle East I tend to be just a bit suspicious. Saddam could create a "celebration" with thousands of people attending at the drop of a hat. Similarly, if you film things just right in Jerusalem it looks like all the Palestinians were estatic that 9/11 happened, which wasn't at all the case. I'm sorry to be such a doubting Thomas, but I triple check any story coming out of the Middle East and only believe about half of the ones that pass even that that smell test.

That's not disrespect, that's a healthy skepticism.

[Walt Starr]

42. Then I assume you are skeptical that bin Laden actually is responsible for

9/11.

After all, there has been no evidence to support that assertion presented to the public.

[welshTerrier2]

43. Healthy skepticism

do you have the same healthy skepticism for stories coming out of the white house and the american military?

did you believe Saddam had WMD's when the invasion began? did you believe the Niger story? did you believe the nukes in 45 minutes story? how about Atta meeting with the Iraqis?

I have no problem maintaining a healthy skepticism about stories emanating from the middle east ... but no more than the skepticism i have for anything that comes out of bush's lying mouth ...

whether the story about the kurds capturing Saddam is true or not, I see no reason to give greater credence to the white house than to any other source ...

[Timefortruth]

44. You said that perfectly.

Thank you.

[PackedForPerth]

52. healthy skepticism...

do you have the same healthy skepticism for stories coming out of the white house and the american military?

Yes, as a matter of fact. I don't make a practice of believing politicians. I've known too many of 'em. They rarely feel that they can be honest with people about "why" they're doing what they're doing.

did you believe Saddam had WMD's when the invasion began?

If you mean weaponised and deployed WMD's, I thought it was a possibility, but not all that likely. I think Bush went into Iraq because he wanted to change the equation of power in the Middle East. He has most certainly achieved that. F-16 and F-15's are 10-15 minutes away from Damascus and Teheran and we don't have to ask the disgusting Saudis pretty please to launch 'em if things get out of hand. That is ever so much better than where we were not that long ago. As well, we're slowly but surely destroying the mountains of munitions that Iraq had before the invasion.

did you believe the Niger story?

Nope, not for a minute. Yellowcake is far too easy to come by without having to go to the trouble of getting it out of such a remote armpit of a place as Niger is. The trick is that you could put enough yellowcake in 55 gallon drums to build a small, but respectable arsenal on 4 to 5 eighteen-wheelers. That's an impossibly small number of trucks to keep track of.

did you believe the nukes in 45 minutes story?

Nope. I doubt the US could field nukes in 45 minutes. Why should it be possible for a place as screwed up as Iraq to manage that?

how about Atta meeting with the Iraqis?

I think that one was possible. I did a lot of work for the Swedish gov't in Eastern Europe in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Czechia is just the sort of place that such a meeting would have gone down. There were shady Middle Eastern types huddled with people obviously from out of town in Budapest where I liked to hang out it seemed like in every bar, hotel and cafe I stumbled in to in those days.

I'm pretty sure they have Saddam. I'm also pretty sure they are going to hang his murdering ass eventually. I like that idea... a lot.

[maggrwaggr]

55. just read the article, Packed

http://www.sundayherald.com/38816

[PackedForPerth]

56. so?

Okay... I did. The Kurds operate in and around Mosul, not Tikrit. There is nothing to say that they didn't manage to pick up some hints up there about what might be going on down around Tikrit. It's a bit of a stretch and nowhere indicated that they had exact or even very close information about where he was.

Yeah, the article asserts that the Kurds were operating in the Tikrit area. Yeah, the Kurds were bragging that they did all the heavy lifting. Did they really?

I frankly doubt it. Why? Simply because of the traditional antipathy between the Sunny Arabs and the Kurds. If there had been significant numbers of Kurds operating in the Tikrit area for any length of time I suspect that they would have been a lot more shit hitting the fan than there was. The Kurds have a lot of scores to settle. The Arabs know that. There would have been hell to pay. They don't speak the same language and they're ethnically very different peoples.

So does this mean that they captured, drugged and dumped him in that hole near Tikrit? Nope, it sure doesn't.

I just don't credit that crap any more than I believed all the hoopla about the looting of the Baghdad Museum. Sorry.

[maggrwaggr]

57. I'd believe the Herald before I'd believe you

that's all I'm saying.

Also, we're not especially liked around Tikrit either.

But we're able to stage raids, arrest people, and the like.

Who's to say this particular Kurdish leader doesn't have the same authority, given to him by us?

After all, he's helping look for Ba-athists, right?

I appreciate your skepticism, but you seem as guilty as anyone as "believeing what you want to believe"

[PackedForPerth]

59. LOL! Go right ahead...

I just gave you my take on it. Whether or not you believe my take on it is your business. :)

[maggrwaggr]

60. we're not very welcome around Tikrit either

But we're able to stage raids, arrest people, and the like.
Who's to say this particular Kurdish leader doesn't have the same authority, given to him by us?
After all, he's helping look for Ba-athists, right?
I appreciate your skepticism, but you seem as guilty as anyone as "believeing what you want to believe"

[PackedForPerth]

62. For one thing...

Well, for one thing the Kurds don't have Bradleys and Abrams. From what I hear the Sunni Triangle is serious Commanche territory. I haven't heard that the Kurds have either the armour or firepower to operate successfully in that area without taking a hell of a lot of casualties. I haven't heard about those casualties. Mind, that doesn't mean they haven't happened.

[PackedForPerth]

63. yup...

we're not very welcome around Tikrit either

That sure is what I've heard. Mind, given that the Sunni Triangle populace has literally ruled Iraq by terror for thirty-odd years I can't imagine why they wouldn't welcome our shining faces with flowers and cool drinks. :D

[maggrwaggr]

64. the point is that the press has once again simply repeated what * has told

them to say. They swallowed it without one ounce of skepticism, instead they bleated it out like a bunch of coked up cheerleaders.

And now, today, as other stories actually emerge, guess what happens? Another big distraction, almost as big as Michael Jackson. OMIGOD the threat level raised to ORANGE. BE AFRAID!

The story was in Yahoo for about an hour late last night, only to die since.

The point is that the free press is dead in this country. It died a quiet death, where no one but us noticed.

[Timefortruth]

19. Yeah, well if you read everything about it it does sound possible

and based on *&Co.'s perfect record of lies, the one thing to bet on is that the Orwellian story is a fabrication.

The Kurd story may be the truth, or it may not. If the Orwellian story were true Faux would have had it first, since Iran had it first there is more to the story than our government is letting on, that is a certainty.

on edit: How about that example of a time when they told the truth? Without is why would you believe them now?

[PackedForPerth]

20. okey dokey...

Iranian news getting the story early... celebrations in Mosul before the news was announced etc...

I used to have a lot of Iranian students taking my courses before the fall of the Shah. Those guys could spin stories better than Uncle Remus.

I just don't know... sounds a lot like the stories about Jews staying out of the Twin Towers on 9/11. :silly:

[althecat]

25. Ok Packed4... so what is your take on 911

I suppose it was masterminded by a criminal genius on dialysis out of a cave in Afghanistan and executed flawlessly on the day by a bunch of Saudis who found it hard to fly flight simulators.

Guess they got lucky.

[PackedForPerth]

30. Yup...

Yeah, after trying for the same building in '92, I heard. Mind, I wasn't living in the States in those days and didn't follow American doings much.

[althecat]

33. And I suppose the FBI were just very damn clever...

To figure out exactly who the 19 hijackers were 24 hours later even though they had not been tracking them and had received no warnings that any attacks were in the wind.

[PackedForPerth]

38. Sure they were...

Getting a passenger list is no big trick... :eyes:

[althecat]

45. Thing is... None of the hijackers names were on the passenger lists

None of em... zilch...

[Sapphocrat]

46. It didn't even take 24 hours, did it? n/t

[Kathy in Cambridge]

48. If it didn't take 24 hours, then it could have been prevented

if they had the intelligence that these guys were planning this attack, then Bush failed to warn the public.

[Sapphocrat]

53. Which they did...

Unfortunately, some naughty little truant just wasn't in the mood to read his Presidential Daily Briefings. At least, not on August 6.

[Walt Starr]

40. Ya know what, you've seen precisely the same amount of evidence to support

the bin Laden did it theory as you have to support the Bush did it theory.

There has been absolutely no evidence to support the theory that Osama bin Laden masterminded the 9/11 tragedy presented to the public. Not a shred.

[Timefortruth]

26. No, it is not reports of them having it first, they had it first.

How about that example of truthfulness?

I like the comparison to the battered wife who upon her discharge from the hospital for the 10th time returns to her batterer because, “He isn’t going to do it again, he said so and I believe he is really sorry this time.” I don't need to get beat up over and over, one good bang on the head and I get the point.

They don’t tell the truth. There is no reason to believe anything they say for that reason. There is some sport in trying to guess what the truth is and sometimes we will be wrong in our guesses. I don’t think we are wrong this time, but is doesn’t matter because we are right that the story is a lie. The specifics of the truth will eventually become known to those who want to know them. Few want to know the truth so the lie will be the official version of the capture.

[Timefortruth]

35. Sometimes I wish someone would at least try

to give an example of a time when they told the truth. It is fun for me to make my point so clearly so often, but it is an empty victory.

If they would give examples it would help me to understand why they believe him. If it ain’t there you can’t make it, I suppose.

[Sapphocrat]

50. Oh! Me! Me! I can give you one!

Wolfowitz, May 31, 2003:

"Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil."

Of course, it just slipped out, but it is the truth.

[foreigncorrespondent]

54. And tell me...

Those "courses" you claim to have been teaching, did you teach at the School of the Americas?

[maggrwaggr]

22. uh .... did you read the news story that the Kurds found them first?

http://www.sundayherald.com/38816

sounds pretty legit to me.

[althecat]

9. Well it seems to be working.... nobody in the US is reporting this story

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&num=30&newsclusterurl=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm%3FstoryID%3D3540620%26thesection%3Dnews%26thesubsection%3Dgeneral

Yet anyway...

Which is weird... it is really a US story.... but then so was the Florday voter scrub.

[maggrwaggr]

24. egg-zaktly!

Also, with the alert being raised, no one will think to remember the other hot stories, i.e. Halliburton stealing 61 million dollars (that we know of), etc. etc. etc.

[Andy_Stephenson]

13. Gay Terror alert color....sure isn't "orange"

call it persimmon orange...it is much more fun.

[RedSock]

28. WH has admitted the alerts are for political purposes

May 20-24, 2002: The Bush administration issues a remarkable series of terror warnings that many believe are politically motivated. Vice President Cheney warns it is "not a matter of if, but when" al-Qaeda will next attack the US. (CNN, 5/20/02) Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge says the same thing. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says terrorists will "inevitably" obtain weapons of mass destruction. FBI Director Mueller says more suicide bombings are "inevitable." (Washington Post, 5/22/02) Authorities also issue separate warnings that al-Qaeda terrorists might target apartment buildings nationwide, banks, rail and transit systems, the Statue of Liberty, and the Brooklyn Bridge. USA Today titles an article, "Some Question Motives Behind Series of Alerts." (USA Today, 5/24/02) David Martin, CBS's national security correspondent, says, "Right now they're putting out all these warnings to change the subject from what was known prior to September 11 to what is known now." (Washington Post, 5/27/02) Remarkably, even Press Secretary Ari Fleischer says the alerts were issued "as a result of all the controversy that took place last week." (Village Voice, 5/23/02, Washington Times, 5/22/02) Time notes, "Though uncorroborated and vague, the terror alerts were a political godsend for an Administration trying to fend off a bruising bipartisan inquiry into its handling of the terrorist chatter last summer. After the wave of warnings, the Democratic clamor for an investigation into the government's mistakes subsided." (Time, 5/27/02)

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0222/gray-web1.php
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020522-217139.htm

The controversy Liar's talking about was the Bush Knew flap around May 15, 2002.

It's all part of Paul Thompson's Complete Timeline
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/index.html
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/timelineafter2001.html

[Catherine Vincent]

29. I thought we were safer since Saddam was captured?

I want to believe whatever this administration tell us thru propaganda of the media but they need to make up their minds. Geeze.

:silly: :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly:

[Timefortruth]

32. You silly thing.

You are safer, if we are attacked it will be because we have made ourselves safer.

Sometimes safer means in more grave peril. Like peace sometimes means war and prosperity means unemployment. Where have you been?

[Matilda]

58. Maybe it means the Bush Administration is on orange alert.

I mean, they've got Saddam, and they haven't got WMD, so what the
hell are they going to use for an excuse to stay in Iraq. Quick,
sound the alert, someone come up with another excuse!

[maggrwaggr]

61. right. "The war on terra isn't over" ... .and never will be!

as long as they're in power

A war without end is a Neo-con's wetdream come true.