Mercenaries In Ecuador

[Mr. Dick Purple]

The US company Epi Security & Investigation says it has hired some 1,000 Colombian military and police veterans to work as mercenaries for the US occupation in Iraq. Epi is operating from a house near a US air base in the Ecuadoran city of Manta. The Bogota daily El Tiempo reported on Aug. 12 that the Colombian mercenaries receive salaries of between $2,500 and $5,000 a month--less than half the salary charged by their US counterparts. Most of the mercenaries are retired military officers or police agents who were trained by the US military and are accustomed to working with US troops. (La Jornada, Mexico, Aug. 13)

Ecuador's minister of government, Mauricio Gandara, responded on Aug. 13 by announcing he will order an immediate investigation into Epi Security's activities in Ecuador. Speaking from New York, where he was on a private visit, Gandara described the company's recruitment of mercenaries as illegal and immoral. More than a year ago, the Latin American Human Rights Association revealed that Dyncorp, another US company which recruits mercenaries for US military projects, was operating in Manta. Two other competitors, Blackwater and Halliburton, also have representatives in Colombia and in Manta. (Prensa Latina, Aug. 13)

Taken from http://www.ww4report.com/node/941

This is really terrible news, since this week all the press are onto this people that hired Colombian guys to work as mercenaries in Iraq, Is located In Manta where "as casualty" is located the Military Base of USA to "control" the drug cargos and stuff like that. I think this was the main reason why the Base was created, I hope this won't lead to anything like terrorism in here. 

[Kitano]

Whoever wrote this article has no appreciation of what a mercenary is.  The people being employed in iraq and primarily being used to provide close protection to people being targeted by the terrorists and to oversee the security of places like oil pumping stations that are at risk of attack.

A mercenary is someone who is employed doing the same job as a soldier.  As these security personel do not engage in anti terrorist operations against the terrorists it is a little disingenuous to use the term mercenary to discribe them.  It would be like calling a bank security guard a mercenary.  It's pretty obvious that the person writing this article has a heavy anti american bias and they are using the term mercenary in a perjorative sense.  It is also worth noting the authors use of the term "occupation" to describe the US presence in Iraq in spite of the fact that the US military are present in the country with the permission of the democratically elected government.

[SLCPUNK]

to describe the US presence in Iraq in spite of the fact that the US military are present in the country with the permission of the democratically elected government.

Under false pretenses....and againt the UN.

But other than that...sure, it's all good.

[Vicious Wishes]

to describe the US presence in Iraq in spite of the fact that the US military are present in the country with the permission of the democratically elected government.

Under false pretenses....and againt the UN.

But other than that...sure, it's all good.

Those damned evil Americans are up to no good again.

[SLCPUNK]

to describe the US presence in Iraq in spite of the fact that the US military are present in the country with the permission of the democratically elected government.

Under false pretenses....and againt the UN.

But other than that...sure, it's all good.

Those damned evil Americans are up to no good again.

Yea, thank God we went in there and found those WMD....

Oh wait....

Well at least they met their Constitution deadline in Iraq....

Oh wait.....

Well, at least we found Osama....

Oh wait.....

[Kitano]

to describe the US presence in Iraq in spite of the fact that the US military are present in the country with the permission of the democratically elected government.

Under false pretenses....and againt the UN.

But other than that...sure, it's all good.

The UN has got nothing to do with it.  The iraqi government have the authority to allow the presence of US troops and no one else.

[Kitano]

to describe the US presence in Iraq in spite of the fact that the US military are present in the country with the permission of the democratically elected government.

Under false pretenses....and againt the UN.

But other than that...sure, it's all good.

Those damned evil Americans are up to no good again.

Yea, thank God we went in there and found those WMD....

Oh wait....

Well at least they met their Constitution deadline in Iraq....

Oh wait.....

Well, at least we found Osama....

Oh wait.....

The world now knows for sure that saddam will never again use WMD's.  That is good news.

The Iraqi parliment has in accordance with their law granted an extension to the deadline for the drafting of the constitution. 

We're talking about Iraq.  You tend to drift onto other issues when you know you have a weak arguement.

[SLCPUNK]

The world now knows for sure that saddam will never again use WMD's. That is good news.

The Iraqi parliment has in accordance with their law granted an extension to the deadline for the drafting of the constitution.

We're talking about Iraq. You tend to drift onto other issues when you know you have a weak arguement.

I've been talking about Iraq, what are you talking about?

Thousands died and a country is put into choas, so you can say "The people of the world....blah blah bullshit". Give me a break. The "people of the world" look down on the United States and never feared Saddam.

Saddam never had WMD...give it up already. Bush's approval is at an all time low,and his dumb ass is on vacation for five weeks. Way to go.

They missed the deadline..Period.

Arguement against what? That we were wrong for invading? The reason given to us by the President was WMD, which he did not have. So, he was wrong, and thousands of people including civilians died because of this. What is there left to argue about?

Iraq has been a failure and the White house has basically admitted that they didn't plan well enough and that the expectations have to be lowered (ie failure). Then another memo surfaces today (From our own State department) that said the White house did not have proper planning for a post war (whenever that will happen) iraq.

How much more do you want?

Bush was wrong, dead wrong. Anybody who continues to support this is a moron/sociopath/fool or all of the above.

[Kitano]

The world now knows for sure that saddam will never again use WMD's. That is good news.

The Iraqi parliment has in accordance with their law granted an extension to the deadline for the drafting of the constitution.

We're talking about Iraq. You tend to drift onto other issues when you know you have a weak arguement.

I've been talking about Iraq, what are you talking about?

Thousands died and a country is put into choas, so you can say "The people of the world....blah blah bullshit". Give me a break. The "people of the world" look down on the United States and never feared Saddam.

Saddam never had WMD...give it up already. Bush's approval is at an all time low,and his dumb ass is on vacation for five weeks. Way to go.

They missed the deadline..Period.

Arguement against what? That we were wrong for invading? The reason given to us by the President was WMD, which he did not have. So, he was wrong, and thousands of people including civilians died because of this. What is there left to argue about?

Iraq has been a failure and the White house has basically admitted that they didn't plan well enough and that the expectations have to be lowered (ie failure). Then another memo surfaces today (From our own State department) that said the White house did not have proper planning for a post war (whenever that will happen) iraq.

How much more do you want?

Bush was wrong, dead wrong. Anybody who continues to support this is a moron/sociopath/fool or all of the above.

You claim that the people of the world never feared saddam?  The people of Iran had reason to be concerned about him since he invaded their country and used WMD's against their military leading to massive loss of life.  The people of Kuwait had reason to fear him since he invaded and annexed their country and his military engaged in a brutal occupation until the US military that you have such a low opinion of went in and freed them. 

You also claim that saddam did not have WMD's, this is also not supported by fact.  The Iraqi military under saddams direct orders used WMD's against the Iranian .  He also used WMD's against a Kurish village and killed over 5,000 civilians.

During the ceasefire negotiations at the end of the liberation of kuwait the iraqi government agreed to destroy their WMD's and distmantle their WMD programmes.  They further agreed that UN inspectors would be given unfettered access to their country to oversee the destruction of the WMD's and to ensure that they never again built these weapons.  The UN oversaw the destruction of a large amount of the Iraqi WMD's.  However the Iraqi's began to obstruct the work of the UN inspectors and eventually they were expelled from the country.  In doing so the Iraqi's were in violation of the ceasefire agreement they had signed and the US had the legal right from that point onwards to take action against them.  The Iraqi's claimed that they had destroyed the rest of the weapons after the inspectors had left but the UN declarled that they had received no evidence of this destruction.  Even just prior to the invaision when the inspectors were readmitted, the head of the inspection team said that although the Iraqi's were co-operating more than they had been in the past they were not co-opertatiing fully.  It is also worth noting that satelite imagery had revealed convoys of trucks crossing over from iraq into syria just before the war began and although there is no way to prove that these trucks contained any weapons it is worth remembering that saddam sent some of his Mig fighters to iran during the first war for safe keeping and the iranians kept them.

The memo that you mentioned is saying that although the Iraqi government will continue to function and the Iraqi military will gradually take over the primary security role from the US they will have to deal with a terrorist insurgency in some form for a number of years.

It's interesting that you resort to name calling, it's always a sign that someone has lost the arguement.  Since you are such an expert I'd like to hear your ideas of what can be done to resolve the situation as it is now.  Do you favor running out of Iraq and betraying the iraqi people who want to live in a peacful and democratic country? 

[Mr. Dick Purple]

Whoever wrote this article has no appreciation of what a mercenary is.  The people being employed in iraq and primarily being used to provide close protection to people being targeted by the terrorists and to oversee the security of places like oil pumping stations that are at risk of attack.

A mercenary is someone who is employed doing the same job as a soldier.  As these security personel do not engage in anti terrorist operations against the terrorists it is a little disingenuous to use the term mercenary to discribe them.  It would be like calling a bank security guard a mercenary.  It's pretty obvious that the person writing this article has a heavy anti american bias and they are using the term mercenary in a perjorative sense.  It is also worth noting the authors use of the term "occupation" to describe the US presence in Iraq in spite of the fact that the US military are present in the country with the permission of the democratically elected government.

Agree with you but dreadfully the colombians are sent there to kill any iraqui/musulman or whatever guy that comes near to their clients, it's a fact that at least here we are very concerned not because we have to put the blame on someone or just because "people hate USA" (which I think that's BS), but because it caused us serious damage to our territory already in conflict, I mean between Colombia and Venezuela, sure we are not at war thank God but we don't want that either. Know what I mean?

[Prometheus]

You claim that the people of the world never feared saddam?  The people of Iran had reason to be concerned about him since he invaded their country and used WMD's against their military leading to massive loss of life.  The people of Kuwait had reason to fear him since he invaded and annexed their country and his military engaged in a brutal occupation until the US military that you have such a low opinion of went in and freed them.

1991, what pres is in power now?..... father or son?

You also claim that saddam did not have WMD's, this is also not supported by fact.  The Iraqi military under saddams direct orders used WMD's against the Iranian .  He also used WMD's against a Kurish village and killed over 5,000 civilians.

hmm 1983or 84.... '93.......

During the ceasefire negotiations at the end of the liberation of kuwait the iraqi government agreed to destroy their WMD's and distmantle their WMD programmes.  They further agreed that UN inspectors would be given unfettered access to their country to oversee the destruction of the WMD's and to ensure that they never again built these weapons.  The UN oversaw the destruction of a large amount of the Iraqi WMD's.  However the Iraqi's began to obstruct the work of the UN inspectors and eventually they were expelled from the country.  In doing so the Iraqi's were in violation of the ceasefire agreement they had signed and the US had the legal right from that point onwards to take action against them.

after which there were numerous security council resolutions that were put into place that were breached, and there were several air strikes over this period as well.......

The Iraqi's claimed that they had destroyed the rest of the weapons after the inspectors had left but the UN declarled that they had received no evidence of this destruction.  Even just prior to the invaision when the inspectors were readmitted, the head of the inspection team said that although the Iraqi's were co-operating more than they had been in the past they were not co-opertatiing fully.  It is also worth noting that satelite imagery had revealed convoys of trucks crossing over from iraq into syria just before the war began and although there is no way to prove that these trucks contained any weapons it is worth remembering that saddam sent some of his Mig fighters to iran during the first war for safe keeping and the iranians kept them.

yes i do rememebr this, you remember that there were no evidence of any WMD manufacturing at any location up till this date?......... and that is based back up till last inspection run.  furthermore, all traces that had been found were located in areas that were used for the destruction and concentrations that were found were deemed to count for some 35-50% of what was not destroyed.... and was also thought that it could have been more if as the iraqis had said the time line of destruction  it could be as high as 80%

The memo that you mentioned is saying that although the Iraqi government will continue to function and the Iraqi military will gradually take over the primary security role from the US they will have to deal with a terrorist insurgency in some form for a number of years.

It's interesting that you resort to name calling, it's always a sign that someone has lost the arguement.  Since you are such an expert I'd like to hear your ideas of what can be done to resolve the situation as it is now.  Do you favor running out of Iraq and betraying the iraqi people who want to live in a peacful and democratic country? 

so the moot point is..... reason for war ... this war was WMD's.... and ties to binladen..... no ties exist... and no WMD's........ the 2 main reasons used were crap and still are crap......... However on the justification of force/war..... based soely on the share number of resolutions that were made and broken the action was justified. Should the US have waited till teh last resolution was put in place I really think they should have, considering it was tabled by canada and it authorised ful force to be used, and it was not going to get vetoed.... the US would ahve had UN backing and none of this BS from everyone would have been happening, and I would be looking forward to several years of randomn deployments betweenThe Ghan and Iraq....

[Surfrider]

It's interesting that you resort to name calling, it's always a sign that someone has lost the arguement.? Since you are such an expert I'd like to hear your ideas of what can be done to resolve the situation as it is now.? Do you favor running out of Iraq and betraying the iraqi people who want to live in a peacful and democratic country??

This really is the key question.  The merits of the war in Iraq was the subject of immense debate during the election, yet Bush won.  Thus, the people trusted him enough to keep him in control.  The problem with Kerry, which continues to be the problem with the left, is that they have no alternative plan.  No one is going to give in the debate of whether the war was justified or not, and to tell you the truth that question is not really too relevant now.  The question now is what to do?  Bush is staying there.  Do those that criticize and sit outside Bush's house think that we should cut and run?  I am curious about this.  What is the answer?  Do we stay in Iraq?  Do we cut and run?  What is it?  I think these would be much more relevant and useful discussions than pointing fingers over Iraq.  Arguing that the war was wrong does not answer this question.  It may have been wrong, but now we must stay.  And vice versa.  I am interested to hear the anti-war people take a stab at this question because I never hear it answered.

I believe that Iraq is similar to Vietnam in that if we pull out millions of civilians will be killed, as happened when we left Vietnam.  I believe far more will die if we leave than if we stay.  Some may disagree, and I am interested to hear that disagreement.  But, if we must stay then what does the day in and day out harping about the legality of the war do to help our current situation.  To me it undermines it.

[SLCPUNK]

You claim that the people of the world never feared saddam?  The people of Iran had reason to be concerned about him since he invaded their country and used WMD's against their military leading to massive loss of life.  The people of Kuwait had reason to fear him since he invaded and annexed their country and his military engaged in a brutal occupation until the US military that you have such a low opinion of went in and freed them. 

Yea, with the weapons we gave him.

I don't have a low opinion of the military, my family is military. I have a low opinion of our government that is in place now. Big difference.

You also claim that saddam did not have WMD's, this is also not supported by fact.  The Iraqi military under saddams direct orders used WMD's against the Iranian .  He also used WMD's against a Kurish village and killed over 5,000 civilians.

The war was based on this: WMD, gotta go disarm Saddam, he's a threat.

Truth = no WMD.

He gassed the Kurds and we did NOTHING about it back in the day. Why now do we bring up the crap he did 18 yrs ago to justify our immoral and illegal war?

  It is also worth noting that satelite imagery had revealed convoys of trucks crossing over from iraq into syria just before the war began and although there is no way to prove that these trucks contained any weapons it is worth remembering that saddam sent some of his Mig fighters to iran during the first war for safe keeping and the iranians kept them.

Riiiiight......

No WMD found.

The memo that you mentioned is saying that although the Iraqi government will continue to function and the Iraqi military will gradually take over the primary security role from the US they will have to deal with a terrorist insurgency in some form for a number of years.

Uhh...What did you read?

"One month before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, three State Department bureau chiefs warned of "serious planning gaps for post-conflict public security and humanitarian assistance" in a secret memorandum prepared for a superior."

Also:

"The three officials warned that "a failure to address short-term public security and humanitarian assistance concerns could result in serious human rights abuses which would undermine an otherwise successful military campaign, and our reputation internationally."

It's interesting that you resort to name calling, it's always a sign that someone has lost the arguement.  Since you are such an expert I'd like to hear your ideas of what can be done to resolve the situation as it is now.  Do you favor running out of Iraq and betraying the iraqi people who want to live in a peacful and democratic country? 

You have to be kidding. That is what I love. Bush fucks it up entirely and then you ask the loaded "what would you do to save this?" Well, for one I never would have invaded a country that was not a threat to us and killed thousand upon thousands of people. So the question is bogus. It was wrong from the first step. How would I resolve it? Are you fuckin' kidding me. I'd impeach our shithead, liar of a president, that is what I'd do, and charge him with war crimes.

What about the betrayal of the American people? What about the betryal of our soldiers? You think 2000 American lives is  worth this? Are you serious? I do not. We will leave Iraq with our tail between our legs, a puppet government at best, and a well trained group of terrorist insurgents ready to take it all apart.

No name calling for lack of arguement. Just a spade calling a spade. If you believe what is going on over there is the right thing, that Bush is protecting us, that Halliburton is not making billions, that our military isn't being used to protect Halliburton employees, that our military is not protected sufficiently with propre armor, that war crimes have not been committed through the illegal prison camps, that holding prisoners without charging them is ok, that blowing up civilians is ok, that Saddam happened to get rid of his WMD in a nick of time, and that the world is thankful for the USAs hypocritical pseudo-war on terror...then you are a sociopath. Because you support: lies, torture, and murder.


GNRNIGHTTRAIN LITE.

[Surfrider]

You have to be kidding. That is what I love. Bush fucks it up entirely and then you ask the loaded "what would you do to save this?" Well, for one I never would have invaded a country that was not a threat to us and killed thousand upon thousands of people. So the question is bogus. It was wrong from the first step. How would I resolve it? Are you fuckin' kidding me. I'd impeach our shithead, liar of a president, that is what I'd do, and charge him with war crimes.

I respectfully disagree with you on this.  I think we need to live in the present and not the past.  The fact of the matter is that there is no solid evidence that Bush has committed war crimes, nor is there solid evidence that he created this war for political gains.  I know many believe this, but the evidence is just not there.  Furthermore, there is no way that he will be impeached nor is there any way that he will be charged with war crimes.

The fact is that we are there no matter how smart or stupid of a move that it might have been.  Therefore we must decide what to do.  Do we leave or do we stay?  If we should stay then I dont think constantly saying the war is for oil, or the war is for Halliburton is going to do anything but make it harder for us to succeed there, and make it more difficult for our troops.  Sure, if there is rock hard evidence to impeach Bush in that he went to war for oil then fine.  The fact is there is no such hard evidence, other than the Downing Memo, which is vague at best.  The facts still stand, Clinton believed he had the weapons and so did much of the Senate.  I doubt they were getting kickbacks by Halliburton to say such things.

Most people have made up their mind on this thing, and constantly reworking those arguments gets us nowhere.  One thing I believe is that constantly ridiculing the war and listing all of the unlterior motives for the war without rock hard evidence does nothing but hurts our efforts.

On the other hand, if you believe we should leave then I think it is a different story.  Then I think the reasons why we went to war may be relevant.  Of course, there would have to be an independent analysis of why it is better to cut and run.  But arguing how stupid the war was may help us cut and run faster if that is the better solution.  I think we need to start convincing people on the merits to stay or go, not whether we should have went in the first place.  That debate has already taken place.  I think it is a relevant question, and the one that needs to take the place of the old debate and be at the center of the new debate.  Of course there will be those that will be unwilling to discuss this, but those are the people that are probably more motivated to fry Bush then to try and look forward to see what is best for the country.

I think both sides have made excellent points on whether the war is valid, I would be interested to see the discussion go to the next level.

Just my thoughts

[SLCPUNK]

I respectfully disagree with you on this.  I think we need to live in the present and not the past.  The fact of the matter is that there is no solid evidence that Bush has committed war crimes, nor is there solid evidence that he created this war for political gains.  I know many believe this, but the evidence is just not there.  Furthermore, there is no way that he will be impeached nor is there any way that he will be charged with war crimes.



Violation of The United Nations Charter

Chapter 1, Article 2 of the UN Charter states:

 3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Bush attacked Iraq, against the decisions of the United Nations, and thus violated the UN Charter. Bush also lied about the threat level of Iraq to the UN and our Congress.

Violation of the Nuremberg Charter

Principle Vl of the Nuremberg Charter states:

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:

a. Crimes against peace:

i. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in
   violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

ii .Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any

Planning and committing a war of aggression is a violation of the Nuremberg Charter. Bush's invaded a country that had not threatened the United States and had no ability to do so. Bush had been making plans to invade Iraq even before 9/11. (Downing street memos confirm this)

According to the US Constitution these international treaties are part of the "supreme Law of the Land". Bush has violated the Nuremberg Charter and the UN Charter and is, therefore, subject to impeachment.

Article VI of the Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

(Source: Lawyers against the war)

The fact is that we are there no matter how smart or stupid of a move that it might have been.  Therefore we must decide what to do.

True, but the question given to me, a typical right wing question, is a loaded one. As the people speak out against the war, NEVER WOULD HAVE started the war. So  to ask how do we clean up a mess that is illogical to begin with.....

If we should stay then I dont think constantly saying the war is for oil, or the war is for Halliburton is going to do anything but make it harder for us to succeed there, and make it more difficult for our troops.

You seem too smart to say something like this. This is spin mode here. "This kind of talk is bad for the troops" give me a break man.  The right loves to muddy the water and make anybody who is against the war is "against the troops" which of course is false. Or a slightly different theme of "makes it more difficult for the troops". Which is total bullshit. Explain how? You really believe that me speaking out against Bush's illegal and immoral war is hurting the troops? All the right has to do to win an arguement is muddy the water. It doesn't have to make sense, just muddy it.

   Sure, if there is rock hard evidence to impeach Bush in that he went to war for oil then fine.  The fact is there is no such hard evidence, other than the Downing Memo, which is vague at best.

How is it vague?

 The facts still stand, Clinton believed he had the weapons and so did much of the Senate.  I doubt they were getting kickbacks by Halliburton to say such things.

Nobody is claiming that Halliburton fed lines to Bush. However Halliburton is certainly making billions of extra in profit that NOBODY is holding them accountable for. And still getting more contracts. You should be upset because it's your tax money being stolen too. Clinton did not go against the UN and infuriate the Arab world by attacking a country that was no threat to us. Bush did. Doesn't matter if Clinton believed Saddam was the devil, he didn't do this, Bush did.

Most people have made up their mind on this thing, and constantly reworking those arguments gets us nowhere.  One thing I believe is that constantly ridiculing the war and listing all of the unlterior motives for the war without rock hard evidence does nothing but hurts our efforts.

Likewise I think blindly standing behind somebody after his own people have spoken against him (Cabinet members), paper trails , no WMD, and countless other findings that completely debunk his reason to go to war hurts this country. Nobody is ridiculing the war, they are standing in the street and saying "this is wrong." Why isn't China being invaded? they have horrible human rights violations that should be addressed? Many other countries as well. That is why people ask questions/ulterior motives begin to be examined. It's common sense. People are going to ask, "Gee why haven't we gone after S Korea? Funny, that Iraq sure has oil. Uhh...Chenney was the VP of Halliburton and still has financial gains from their contracts....gee that sure is strange...." I mean c'mon man! You'd have to be a complete moron to NOT have questions about ulterior motives!

but those are the people that are probably more motivated to fry Bush then to try and look forward to see what is best for the country.

That would be what is best for the country.

[SLCPUNK]

lan Elsner Thu Aug 18,11:16 AM ET

BROKEN BOW, Nebraska (Reuters) - In the solidly Republican state of Nebraska, voters are expressing deep anxiety about rising gasoline prices and the war in
Iraq, a possible early warning sign for
President George W. Bush in one of his most reliable strongholds.
ADVERTISEMENT

When Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) traveled around his home state this week, citizens at every stop brought up Iraq policy and the inexorable rise in fuel prices.

"Is there anything the United States can do to get some stability in crude oil prices in the world, because it affects everything we do?" Larry Ahlers, a manager at medical device manufacturer Becton and Dickinson in Broken Bow, asked Hagel in one of dozens of such encounters.

Hagel, a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2008, responded that gasoline prices were likely to stay high for the foreseeable future because of rising world demand and the U.S. failure to develop new energy sources and conserve.

Earlier the same day in Lincoln, an elderly woman asked about Iraq. "Why are we there in the first place?" she asked.

On Tuesday in the central Nebraska town of Lexington, after a meeting with law enforcement officials on drug problems, three sheriffs expressed serious doubts about what the United States was doing in Iraq and whether it could succeed.

Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, acknowledged the U.S. military presence was becoming harder and harder to justify. He believes Iraq faces a serious danger of civil war that would threaten Middle East stability, and said there is little Washington can do to avert this.

"We are seen as occupiers, we are targets. We have got to get out. I don't think we can sustain our current policy, nor do I think we should," he said at one stop.

UNCERTAINTY, NOT PANIC

In an interview, Hagel said uncertainties over Iraq and oil prices fed off and reinforced each other.

"The mood is one of a certain sense of unsteadiness," he said. "I have sensed that since September 11, 2001. Our people have still not found an equilibrium and when you get these shocks, like gasoline at $2.50 a gallon and projecting natural gas costs doubling and tripling from what they paid last year, that further shakes them."

"I don't think there's panic, I don't think there's cynicism. I think there's this steady unsure sense about where is this all leading -- the constant daily reports on Iraq, our people being killed there, the money being spent there," he added.

Nebraska has been a solid Republican state in presidential elections for decades. Republicans dominate state politics and hold most elective offices.

But Hagel said even some who had previously backed Bush strongly on Iraq now felt deep unease.

"The feeling that I get back here, looking in the eyes of real people, where I knew where they were two years ago or a year ago -- they've changed," he said. "These aren't people who ebb and flow on issues. These are rock solid, conservative Republicans who love their country, support the troops and support the president."

Hagel said Bush faced a growing credibility gap. "The expectations that the president and his administration presented to the American people 2 1/2 years ago is not what the reality is today. That's presented the biggest credibility gap problem he's got," he said.

"I hope he has some sense that something's going on out in the country, that there's a lack of confidence that has developed in our position."

[Surfrider]

Former aide: Powell WMD speech 'lowest point in my life'

Friday, August 19, 2005; Posted: 1:04 p.m. EDT (17:04 GMT)

Programming Note: "Dead Wrong -- Inside an Intelligence Meltdown" airs Sunday at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET on CNN.


Manage Alerts | What Is This? (CNN) -- A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.

"I wish I had not been involved in it," says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life."

Wilkerson is one of several insiders interviewed for the CNN Presents documentary "Dead Wrong -- Inside an Intelligence Meltdown." The program, which airs Sunday at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET, pieces together the events leading up to the mistaken WMD intelligence that was presented to the public. A presidential commission that investigated the pre-war WMD intelligence found much of it to be "dead wrong."

Powell's speech, delivered on February 14, 2003, made the case for the war by presenting U.S. intelligence that purported to prove that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Wilkerson says the information in Powell's presentation initially came from a document he described as "sort of a Chinese menu" that was provided by the White House.

"(Powell) came through the door ... and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers, and he said, 'This is what I've got to present at the United Nations according to the White House, and you need to look at it,'" Wilkerson says in the program. "It was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose."

Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says.

"There was no way the Secretary of State was going to read off a script about serious matters of intelligence that could lead to war when the script was basically un-sourced," Wilkerson says.

In one dramatic accusation in his speech, Powell showed slides alleging that Saddam had bioweapons labs mounted on trucks that would be almost impossible to find.

"In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator," says David Kay, who served as the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. That source, an Iraqi defector had never been debriefed by the CIA, was known within the intelligence community as "Curveball."

After searching Iraq for several months across the summer of 2003, Kay began e-mailing Tenet to tell him the WMD evidence was falling apart. At one point, Wilkerson says, Tenet called Powell to tell him the claims about mobile bioweapons labs were apparently not true.

"George actually did call the Secretary, and said, 'I'm really sorry to have to tell you. We don't believe there were any mobile labs for making biological weapons,'" Wilkerson says in the documentary. "This was the third or fourth telephone call. And I think it's fair to say the Secretary and Mr. Tenet, at that point, ceased being close. I mean, you can be sincere and you can be honest and you can believe what you're telling the Secretary. But three or four times on substantive issues like that? It's difficult to maintain any warm feelings."

[SLCPUNK]

Come to the light........

EDIT: This is probably one of the more damning pieces I have read lately.

[SLCPUNK]

This is huge really. Powell is claiming that he was given info that was KNOWN to be false by W and his cronies in the white house. Looks like the house of cards is about to fall............Grounds for impeachment.

Wonder how low W's ratings will dip after this airs sunday night?

[SLCPUNK]

By JAN DENNIS
The Associated Press
Friday, August 19, 2005; 8:32 PM

PEORIA, Ill. -- A former employee of a Halliburton Co. subsidiary pleaded guilty Friday to accepting more than $100,000 in kickbacks from an Iraqi company in exchange for securing it a U.S. military construction contract, prosecutors said.

Glenn Allen Powell, 40, of Cedar Park, Texas, will be sentenced Nov. 18 in federal court for major fraud against the United States and violating the anti-kickback act. He faces 10 years in prison on each count and up to $1.25 million in fines.
   

"He's very sorry about what he did. He made a mistake and he wants to make it right," said Powell's attorney, Samuel Bassett.

Powell, who was fired after an internal investigation, has repaid part of the money to Halliburton and plans to repay the rest, Bassett said.

Prosecutors say Powell was a subcontracts administrator for Halliburton subsidiary KBR Inc., which provides engineering and other project management services for the military.

In exchange for $110,300 in kickbacks, Powell recommended the Iraqi company for a $609,000 subcontract to renovate four buildings into office and warehouse space, prosecutors say. Prosecutors declined to name the company.

"A government contract is not a license to steal," U.S. Attorney Jan Paul Miller said in a statement. "The public should be able to trust that the individuals who implement government contracts do so honestly."

Halliburton has removed the Iraqi company from its list of subcontractors and given the military a credit for the amount of the kickback, spokeswoman Melissa Norcross said.

Vice President Dick Cheney headed Halliburton from 1995 to 2000, and Democratic members of Congress have repeatedly questioned whether Halliburton and its subsidiaries received favorable treatment because of its connections. Cheney and other administration officials have denied Cheney had any role in Halliburton's government contract work.