Posted by Mark Silva at 11:20 am CDT
President Bush, outlining repeated foiled plots by al Qaeda to attack the United States since the terrorism of Sept. 11, 2001, today described a select piece of once-classified information to support his argument that terrorists hope to make Iraq a “safe haven’’ for planning new attacks on the U.S.
“Al Qaeda leaders have repeatedly made it clear that they intend to strike our country again,’’ Bush said in a commencement address at the Coast Guard Academy. “There is a reason that these and other plots have thus far not exceeded. Since Sept. 11, we have taken bold action at home and abroad to keep our people safe.
“Now, in 2007, we are in a pivotal moment in this battle,’’ the president said. “Our security depends on helping the Iraqis succeed in defeating al Qaeda in Iraq.’’
This is hardly the first time that the Bush administration has released previously classified information in attempts to bolster its case for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the ongoing war there.
This newest release comes as the White House presses Democratic congressional leaders for a long-sought, $100-billion war spending bill for the U.S. military missions in Iraq and Afghanistan before the long Memorial Day weekend and congressional recess planned next week.
The latest declassified information expands upon a bulletin which the Department of Homeland Security issued in March 2005 warning that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had enlisted Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then his top operative in Iraq, to plan strikes in the U.S. The administration deemed the information credible, but it did not result in an increase in the national terror alert level.
The declassified intelligence shows that in January 2005 bin Laden had assigned al-Zarqawi to organize a cell. But a U.S. air strike in June of 2006 killed al-Zarqawi and others in Iraq.
In January 2005, Bush said today of the latest declassified information, bin Laden charged Zarqawi “with forming a cell to conduct terrorist attacks outside of Iraq.’’ Bin Laden emphasized that the U.S. should be “the No. 1 priority,’’ Bush said.
In the spring of 2005, bin Laden instructed Hamza Rabia, a senior operative, to brief al-Zarqawi on al-Qaeda plans to attack locations outside Iraq, including the U.S., according to the report. Abu Fajah al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda manager, suggested that bin Laden send Rabia to Iraq to help al-Zarqawi plan the operations.
The information now has been declassified because the intelligence community has tracked all leads from it and the players are either dead or in custody, according to Frances Frago Townsend, the president’s homeland security adviser.
Bin Laden still “believes that if al Qaeda can drive us out, they can establish Iraq as a new terrorist’’ haven, the president said today at the academy. “Victory in Iraq is important for Osama bin Laden, and victory in Iraq is vital for the United States of America.’’
Tim Roemer, a former congressman who was a member of the 9/11 Commission, maintains that Bush is “right to keep an eye on al-Qaeda in Iraq.’’ However, he calls the president “gravely mistaken when he claims that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.’’
There is no “central front’’ for terrorism, Roemer maintains, but rather a “center of gravity’’ – and al Qaeda’s center of gravity is Pakistan. Roemer, now president of the Washington-based Center for National Policy, argues that “focusing too much energy on al Qaeda in Iraq is only going to make the situation worse.’’
Richard Clarke, former director of counterintelligence in the Bush and Clinton White Houses and a private consultant now, posed this question today: “One day Bush tells us we are fighting in Iraq so that terrorists won't come here, then he releases intelligence that says terrorists trained in Iraq are coming here. Which is it?"
Rand Beers, who served as an assistant secretary of state during the Clinton and Bush administrations and served as Democrat John Kerry’s national security adviser in the presidential campaign of 2004, said today: “The selective release of intelligence to buttress the notion that Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism undermines the intelligence community and fails to make the case.
“According to a number of sources, the most recent attacks or planned attacks against the U.S. and its allies all originated from Pakistan not Iraq, and they were initiated in the time frame that bin Laden was ordering al-Zarqawi to open a cell,’’ Beers said.
“Bin Laden is using Iraq to kill and demonize the United States while remaining secure and planning further operations in Pakistan,’’ Beers said. “When is this administration going to prosecute the real war against bin Laden?
The administration’s release of information about al Qaeda is the latest in a long series of unveilings of once-classified reports.
In early February, a White House struggling to bolster its case for an escalation of military force in Iraq in the face of congressional criticism, released selected excerpts of a new National Intelligence Estimate painting a dire picture of violence in Iraq that the term "civil war" could not "adequately capture."
The report, warning that a withdrawal of forces could bring “massive civilian casualties,’’ also acknowledged that Iraqis would be "hard-pressed" to gain control over sectarian violence. The White House maintained that the situation detailed in the report motivated Bush's decision to deploy an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.
"It is this intelligence and the picture it paints that caused the president to conclude and then develop a new strategy or new approach to Iraq," Stephen Hadley, Bush’s national security adviser, said at the time. "It makes it clear once again, as the president has been saying, that the consequences of failure are grave indeed."
At the same time, the report served to stir debate over the nature of the conflict in Iraq. Concluding that "the term civil war does not adequately capture the complexity" of the conflict, the report portrayed a chaotic situation in which sectarian violence posed a greater threat than specific terrorist attacks.
On Sept. 26, the Director of National Intelligence released selected “key judgments’’ from a National Intelligence Estimate that was made, and had been classified, in April of 2006. The NIE is a consensus report of 16 government intelligence agencies.
It stated that, while al Qaeda’s leadership had been “seriously weakened,’’ the organization continued to pose the greatest threat to U.S. homeland security from any single terrorist group. Yet it also called the global Jihadist movement “decentralized,’’ lacking in “a coherent global strategy’’ and “becoming more diffuse.’’
The conflict in Iraq had become “the cause celebre’’ for jihadists, “breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world,’’ that NIE had concluded. It also concluded that al-Qaeda, now merged with al-Zarqawi’s network, was “exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors.’’
Portions of the report had been leaked to major newspapers focusing on the war in Iraq as serving as a recruiting and breeding ground for Islamic radicals, in a bid to bolster support for the war as the critical midterm congressional elections of 2006 approached.
In October 2005, the DNI released a previously classified letter between two senior al-Qaeda leaders, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and al-Zarqawi that was dated July 9, 2005.
The letter pointed to “the centrality of the war in Iraq for the global Jihad,’’ the DNI maintained, and included an assertion that the war would not end with the American departure from Iraq.
“We must think for a long time about our next steps and now we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinio that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals,’’wrote al-Zawahiri, who is bin Laden’s chief strategist. “The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then deveop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate – over as much terrority as you can to spread its power.’’
During the investigation of who leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald revealed that Lewis “Scooter’’ Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s then-chief of staff, had told a grand jury he was authorized by his bosses to leak classified information from a National Intelligence Estimate to reporters in the summer 2003 to defend intelligence used by the Bush administration to justify the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Fitzgerald employed that evidence in the prosecution of Libby, who resigned as chief of staff and later was convicted of obstruction of justice and lying to federal authorities in the investigation of the CIA leak. Cheney never was compelled to testify in that trial.
Libby had testified that he met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003, "to transmit information concerning the NIE." Miller, who later left the Times, wrote that Libby had discussed the NIE’s finding about Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium, intelligence which had been refuted by Plame’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, after a government trip to Niger.
Critics have accused Bush of selectively declassifying intelligence, including portions of the early National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, to justify the U.S.-led invasion on grounds that then Iraqi leader-Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction – intelligence that later was proven misguided.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The information now has been declassified because the intelligence community has tracked all leads from it and the players are either dead or in custody, according to Frances Frago Townsend, the president’s homeland security adviser.
Oh good Bin Laden is dead. Something smells a little funny to me. Might be something like those terrorists in Florida who were going to bring down that building by throwing empty beer cans at it or something.
Posted by: bill r. | May 23, 2007 11:29 AM
Umm, so does this mean Bush admits that when he was telling us, prior to the spring of 2005, that we we were fighting them there so that we wouldn't have to fight them here, that he was lying?
We had already been fighting in Iraq for 2 years when these events happened. Once again proving that Bush's policy on Iraq has created the very conditions he claimed we were there to prevent.
Posted by: Tony | May 23, 2007 11:31 AM
Oh come on! Does Bush really think we're that stupid? He has "cooked the books"--or had someone else do it--on so many other occasions, that he has zero credibility.
Posted by: Gibster | May 23, 2007 11:35 AM
Wait, wait. You mean Osama didn't get the idea to use Iraq as a safe-haven for terrorism until AFTER we toppled the Hussein government and created chaos?
Whoops.
Posted by: Jeff C. | May 23, 2007 11:36 AM
When are these GOP idiots going to stop with their insane rantings about Osama and Iraq having ties?
The only one who believes this is...Bruce.
Posted by: John E | May 23, 2007 12:00 PM
Yes W. That's what we've all been saying. You were wrong to start the war in Iraq. It just created a mess to be taken advantage of by our enemies.
Posted by: San Miguel | May 23, 2007 12:11 PM
"Bin Laden still “believes that if al Qaeda can drive us out, they can establish Iraq as a new terrorist’’ haven."
So does that mean the plan is to stay forever in Iraq? I thought we were supposed to stand them up so they could stand down. Glad it was clarified that the United States under George W Bush has no intention of leaving Iraq. But at least they'll have "democracy" while we permanently occupy their country (and claim their natural resources for the multinationals).
Posted by: Bryan | May 23, 2007 12:12 PM
Our distinguished President Bush is like the joker that apprears in a bad dream that keeps on going, and going, and going and guess what? You wake up and find he keeps going, and going, and going. Aint it crazy? Aint it day va ju all over again? Aint it ground hog day? When do it end. T'were it funny we could laugh, but taint funny. This man is insane. I hate to say that, cuz we are sposed to respect our president, but he dont respect us by repeating the same ol bull feces. If the Democrats don't start talking about impeaching Da Bush, they aint gonna get my vote next time around. He ought to be impeached just for being stooopeeed.
Posted by: GW | May 23, 2007 12:32 PM
People just dont get it. Everyone will realize just how important this war is when the bombs start going off over here.
Posted by: Robert M | May 23, 2007 12:50 PM
I finally understand George W. Bush. He really does think that our involvement in Iraq keeps us safe here at home.
He apparently figures that as long as we have plenty of our brave young men and women on the ground in Iraq, the terrorists will have so many targets in their backyard that they won't have to try to sneak into the U.S. to kill Americans. It's a sick, disgusting strategy that dishonors the American soldier, but still, you have to appreciate the devious evil genius of the whole scheme.
More evidence that Bush and his cronies believed all along that the way to unending power is the establishment of an unending war, and an unending progression of increasingly authoritarian figures in the oval office to prosecute that war.
Posted by: Tim Howe | May 23, 2007 12:59 PM
Bush is a complete fool and completly destroys his own credibility by inserting this piece of propoganda into a commencement speech instead of intoducing it to the intelligence community instead. By the very nature of the comments, Bin Laden asks al-Zaqwari to "establish" a foothold in Iraq, it proves that there wasn't any linkage to begin between Saddam and Bin Laden. It was Bin Laden's idea to drag us into a pointless war in the Middle East which is exactly what he has done. And, Saddam hated Bin Laden about as much as we do; he was a secularist who believed that the country of Iraq wasn't big enough for himself and Brother Bin. Remember, Bin Laden had been tossed from Saudi Arabia and the Sudan before he went to Afghanistan taking advantage of lack of control and concern on the part of the world at-large. Now we have handed him Iraq on a silver platter. And, it is the US that's building the biggest Embassy on the globe in Baghdad reaffirming his original irrational concerns that led him to the Saudi government to begin with when he was concerned that the US of A had the intention of becoming an occupying force in the Middle East which, oddly, is exactly what we have done. Bush is an actor who doesn't even understand the cue cards he is reading. I'll bet Karl Rove and Cheney decided that pimping the graduates at the Coast Guard Academy was a great idea. He could have listed his many successes.......oops I guess he couldn't that would have been a very short speech. Got to hand it to him though, I've never seen a public figure who so embraces failure like he does. Good work Decider.
Beltway Greg
B. Co 1/3 Weapons PLt.
USMC 81-85
Posted by: Beltway Greg | May 23, 2007 1:03 PM
No NEW news here. Our president has stated many times (even before Saddam was topppled) that the main reason we were in Iraq was to deny Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations safe haven which they would surely use to organize and spread terror. Sure, they find other places like Pakistan, but they have to watch their back and organize undercover. If we left Iraq, who would prevent Al-Qaeda from moving in and setting up "business as usual"? Iraq is WIDE OPEN and it would be easy for them to convert Iraq their own safe haven with little or no resistance.
It is all very nice for the Dem's to support our withdrawl from Iraq. But, have we noticed that NOT one of them, not Nancy, not Hillary, not Barock, not ONE of them has come up with even one small suggestion on how our country can prevent terrorists bent on murder from using Iraq as a base to rain terror down on the world?
You all know they want to do that real, real bad, don't you?
Then lets stop playing into their hand!!
Posted by: Bob | May 23, 2007 1:06 PM
Ah the usual uninformed stupidity that constitutes the makeup of the Loony Left.
Like Al Qaeda never desired to attack the U.S. until Bush became prez or we invaded Iraq. No, they never tried to attack us on Jan. 1, 2000. No, in the nonexistent minds of the Loony Leftt.
Here is something that is correct:
What is Al Qaeda's best friends in the whole wide world? The Loony Left!
Posted by: John D | May 23, 2007 1:08 PM
Funny how much this declassification of "intel" smells like propoganda. How about this "intel"? If we stop the war, Halliburton loses billions in sales and Bush's companies don't get new oil properties. Of course, "government intel" is an oxymoron anyway.
Now, I applaud Jimmy Carter. While he was not a very good president, he is a great,honest, and decent man, a foreign concept to Bush. This is proven without a doubt with the courage he used in stating that we have the worst government ever. How true!
Posted by: EW | May 23, 2007 1:14 PM
I find it funny that no one has ever cited any "Bush intelligence."
Posted by: Bin Laughin | May 23, 2007 1:15 PM
But then... why did he shut down, that same year, the CIA unit hunting for OBL?
See SF Chronicle for freebie version of NYT archive article :
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/04/MNGAHJOS611.DTL
CIA shuts down secret unit that hunted for bin Laden
Spy agency feels al Qaeda is now less hierarchical
Mark Mazzetti, New York Times
Tuesday, July 4, 2006
Washington -- The CIA has closed down a secret unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials said Monday.
The terrorist tracking unit, known inside the spy agency as "Alec station," was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned to other offices within the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.
(m0re)
Posted by: Carrie C. | May 23, 2007 1:26 PM
So does this mean that you guys only post comments that bash bush or do you give everyone the right to speak there mind. Talk about media deception!!!
Posted by: Robert M | May 23, 2007 1:36 PM
I am ashamed to be an American these bloody days under Bush. Impeach bush we gave him a chance to clean his act up he can't he won't for the benefit of classified buisness whatever that is? it's too confusing to figure out and unravel this ball of confusion & Lies Bush created, Impeach Bush!!!!!!!!! before Bush destroys what America built for itself decades before bush just about destroyed in these few years in office.
Posted by: AL | May 23, 2007 1:47 PM
bush's speech verifies that he took his eye off the ball when he let bin laden go. bush verifies that bin laden has always been the biggest threat to the u.s. the intel is two years old and look who it's coming from, an uncredible spokesman following cheyne's philosophy, "feed them garbage long enough and pretty soon they'll believe it." america wanted a king and they got one. how many more dead before those who have eyes see and those who have ears hear?
Posted by: ar.mille | May 23, 2007 1:54 PM
Oh Bush,
Who will believe you again? What a joke!!!
Posted by: Angel Q. | May 23, 2007 1:56 PM
Only the Executive can know the facts; or make them up; or declare war; or end it; give the orders; know the secret budget; make the secret treaties; count the secret weapons; decide whether you get trial or torture; or decide when or if the congressman is allowed back to his office after the next anthrax scare. Congress can only puff and bluster until the signing statement is filled out. The U.S. was chased out of Saudi Arabia, is losing to the Taliban, dares not touch Pakistan, and has given 3000 lives to put radical Islam in charge of Iraq. Even our own media are afraid to anger radical Islam now. If Bush truly represented the U.S. in person we'd see him weeping and licking Osama's toes begging for forgiveness - and inspiration. In combat, propaganda, and fundamental principle, the war is truly lost, because the people in charge were never on our side.
Posted by: Mike S. | May 23, 2007 2:03 PM
Here is something that is correct:
What is Al Qaeda's best friends in the whole wide world? The Loony Left!
Posted by: John D | May 23, 2007 1:08:35 PM
If that's the case, looks like Bush's next move will be to invade and defeat and then occupy (for an indefinate period of time)Massachusetts.
Get a grip.
Posted by: kg123 | May 23, 2007 2:10 PM
People just dont get it. Everyone will realize just how important this war is when the bombs start going off over here.
Posted by: Robert M | May 23, 2007 12:50:20 PM
LOL!! So important calling for a draft is a ridiculous idea to Republics. It's important until there is a risk you may be sent into that meat grinder.
Posted by: jethro | May 23, 2007 2:17 PM
John D
"Like Al Qaeda never desired to attack the U.S. until Bush became prez or we invaded Iraq. No, they never tried to attack us on Jan. 1, 2000. No, in the nonexistent minds of the Loony Leftt."
Riddle me this: what did Iraq have to do with Al Qaeda before the invasion paved the way for the foothold they had always desired? (Oh, and nice spelling by the way. I'm pretty sure there's only one "t" in left. Apparently Reality-Starved Righties also make the occasional typo)
Posted by: Bryan | May 23, 2007 2:18 PM
Beltway Greg,
Great post, you nailed it.
Posted by: John E | May 23, 2007 2:21 PM
John D.
For years I have given people on the right the benefit of the doubt. I always figured that they were not bad people, just people with a different perspective. But if you still support this President after all the mistakes and unnecessary death and record deficit and fraud and treason, well then I must conclude that you are not receptive to the facts. Do you still think the world is flat?
Posted by: Natedogg | May 23, 2007 2:30 PM
"What is Al Qaeda's best friends in the whole wide world? The Loony Left!"
Posted by: John D | May 23, 2007 1:08:35 PM
If YOU are not Al Qaeda's "bestest friend" why are you sitting on your fat butt watching your
401(k) grow? Shouldn't you be over there "gittin' the terrrerists"?
Posted by: Janet | May 23, 2007 2:37 PM
So now we must stay in Iraq to suppress the terrorist organizations that we created. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Every day that Americans are in a Muslim country, more terrorists are made. Just by being there, we are fanning the flames of hatred. Bush says that when we leave terrorism will flourish. Why should anyone believe that? EVERYTHING this president has said has been wrong. He is just scaring Americans into supporting an illegal war so his supporters can get richer. This is all about war profiteering and claims on oil reserves. If Bush cared about our safety, he would be in Pakistan.
Posted by: Natedogg | May 23, 2007 2:42 PM
God help our republic. The executive is fear mongering, yet again. A good leader would fight the terrorists without terrorizing us with fear. For crying out loud Mr. President, if they find a terrorist cell in Iraq, special ops them, just don't tell me. You could do this without our current troop levels. If you have to tell me to be afraid, I just might think that you have a different agenda that has nothing to do with Al Qaida.
Posted by: FirstnameLastname | May 23, 2007 2:49 PM
Carrie C;
Good Point! Why DID the CIA close down Alec Station??? The article you attached painted those in Alec Station as being obsessive about OBL's capture. I would think that an obsessive nature is just what you would want. The excuses given to close it down don't make much sense and today it still would be a big plus to capture / kill him.
Who knows? Could have been a big mistake. Maybe the CIA had other motives. But this does not minimize the main point. We cannot let Iraq (or any country that is easy prey) fall into the hands of the likes of Al-Qaeda. God help us all if they can get organized!!
Posted by: Bob | May 23, 2007 2:51 PM
The day after we re-deploy from Iraq there will be a massacre there --- the Sunni's and Shia will unite to drive the foreign alQeda jihadists out of the country...or kill them. Iraq never was and never will be part of the terrorists network that threatens us -- they'll be too busy re-aligning the political map and re-building their own country after Bush's catastrophe....
Posted by: pitsniff | May 23, 2007 2:52 PM
People just dont get it. Everyone will realize just how important this war is when the bombs start going off over here.
Posted by: Robert M | May 23, 2007 12:50:20 PM
Robert M,looks like the real terrorists are here,and they're your nut jobs!
LYNCHBURG, Virginia (CNN) -- A first-year Liberty University student was arrested in what police said was a plot to detonate explosive devices Tuesday, the day of the Rev. Jerry Falwell's funeral.
Mark David Uhl's intended target is unknown, authorities said.
Posted by: Raving Loon | May 23, 2007 2:59 PM
John D
"Like Al Qaeda never desired to attack the U.S. until Bush became prez or we invaded Iraq. No, they never tried to attack us on Jan. 1, 2000. No, in the nonexistent minds of the Loony Leftt."
You know what’s sad about that statement. I’m betting that in your tiny closed mind you feel like you made a valid point with that comment. “Oooh, choke on that Liberals!! Feel the wrath of the buzzword that I inject into every single comment I post on this website.” Well, for an exercise I’d like you to try and create an actual well thought out argument. Here’s an example: Prior to 911 the Clinton administration gathered much intel about Al Qaeda that was thrown out or ignored by the Bush administration(look it up), this helped to create a lack of information and vigilance that made it easier for Al Qaeda to attack our country. (You’ll notice here that I’m inferring based on the evidence I have gathered, but since there are other factors that played into Al Qaeda’s attack I do not make a blanket statement that I cannot support.) Now here are some of the faults I find with Bush’s argument that we would create a haven for terrorists by leaving Iraq (Note this is my personal point of view flavored with some common sense). A: Terrorism does not need a haven, that is one of the reasons they are terrorists and not an army. They don’t have the numbers to take on a military force like ours so they remain civilians bombing targets they choose. B: For this one I need you to take a step back from your point of view, because Jack Bauer is a fictional character, and this doesn’t relate to 24,cowboys and Indians, or any other black and white dichotomy that the Republicans believe justifies the violence we perpetuate over there. If you are an Iraqi civilian, with no prior radical leanings and our military blows up your house, shoots your family, etc. Do you honestly think that this will endear their hearts and minds to us, OR is it possible that it will make it more likely for them to perpetuate a terrorist attack. Keep in mind that regardless of whether or not Iraq is under our control or not, this does not affect their ability to catch a plane and plan terrorist attacks in the US. Or perhaps as the “loony left” (is that copyrighted yet?) has been suggesting, does it make more sense to tighten our security here and stop increasing our enemies abroad. Roll that over in your head for a while and see if it makes any of those neurons fire.
Posted by: Ben | May 23, 2007 3:00 PM
Bush does not KNOW anything. And this particular statement is another obvious lie.
Bush is too obtuse to recognize an insult or utter failure.
For everyone, please stop calling this a war. This action by Bush is an occupation. It is an occupation, not a war. Our men and women, our soldiers, are targets/pawns in an occupation. Follow the money and you will know why.
Posted by: KC | May 23, 2007 3:07 PM
BUSH! A BIG JACKASS IF THERE EVER WAS ONE! I DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM LIKE YOU STUPID REPUBLICANS DID!
NOW YOU ALL HAVE HELPED RUIN THIS COUNTRY FOR PUTTING HIM IN OFFICE! WAY TO GO REPUBLICANS! YOU DESERVE IT!
Posted by: BIN POOTER | May 23, 2007 3:19 PM
Ben, clearly your "common sense" needs a lot of help.
A) "Terrorism does not need a safe haven." What exactly was Afghanistan under the Taliban then? Or how about the unpoliced areas of West and Northwest Pakistan? Libya? Somalia? Yemen? Lebanon at various times? All are or have been safe havens for terrorists.
B) We are blowing up Iraqi homes and shooting Iraqi people does not win their hearts and minds. Ben, stop reading your left wing blogs. Even during our invasion of Iraq in 2003, civilian areas were not targeted. We have not been blowing up homes or indiscriminently killing Iraqi civilians. However, Iraqis and Al Qaeda have been doing just that.
Ben, the Iraqi government has stated it does not want us to leave anytime soon. While the Iraqi people EVENTUALLY would like us to leave, they do not anytime soon either.
We are rebuilding schools and hospitals that faltered under Hussein.
Now, if you want to go back in history, the last time the U.S. did bomb Iraqi homes and civilian structures was in 1998. Who, Ben, was president then and who bombed Iraq for about a week straight?
Posted by: John D | May 23, 2007 3:27 PM
Good post Beltway Greg. What you state is true and accurate. Compare that to the comments posted by John D. who may be/ probably is blogging for the RNC. It is John D. who is mindless and loony and uninformly stupid.
Posted by: Doug R. | May 23, 2007 3:29 PM
I don't think as much that Bush thinks WE are stupid; he's documented as being no mental giant, and he hired ~150 of his people out of Pat Roberts "Christian" Law "school", which is a 4th tier (out of 4) school. With this lack of brain power, these guys probably actually believe this crap they put out. This would explain why it's so hard to reason with these people; they just don't understand!
Any brains tied to this administration are busy lining their pockets, sabotaging the system so they can continue unabated, and making it difficult as possible to get rid of them. (Think uncle dickie).
Look at how hard Wolfie and Gonzo were/are fighting for their jobs, these are the best paying jobs these people will ever get! They aren't qualified for high paying private sector jobs. That would explain their rabid loyalty to the current occupant; no one else would pay them that much.
Posted by: JohnJ | May 23, 2007 3:30 PM
I think Bob's comment proves my point, this logic is way beyond these last 25% of bush supporters.
Posted by: JohnJ | May 23, 2007 3:34 PM
Here's the problem - It is extremely hard to trust the Bush administration. However, if you acccept their position that this is truly the time and place to "make our stand" for civilization as we know it, then how come we don't institute a draft, raise taxes for revenue and send 500,000 troops into Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran (if necessary)? Hell, send 2 Million if this is as important as World War 2? How are we meant to believe in the dire necessity of this War on Terror when it has been our administrations position that it shouldn't inconvenience too many Americans?
Posted by: Jeff Tuttle | May 23, 2007 3:35 PM
The truly sad part here is that so many "Americans" are willing to believe the limited releases of "intelligence information" from and Administration that has proven itself worse than the Nixon Administration in paranoia and its desire to stay in power at all costs. If one were to take a serious look at history (not the glossing over that one gets in grade or high school), one would quickly realize that every tyrannical government has gained and maintained its power by lies passed off as the truth. It is when those lies are finally brought to the forefront - or other, greater lies are passed off, that the government crumbles. As long as there are people in this country willing to believe what ever is placed in front of them (yes, including this opinion), whether that be on the TV, the radio, or in print, there is no hope to save democracy. Anarchy is the only logical course after this. After a period of chaos, some government will rise to control things again. Perhaps, history can repeat itself and provide us with men of courage and distinction like Washington, Jefforson, Payne, Franklin, and Lincoln. Then again....
Posted by: Paul | May 23, 2007 3:37 PM
We have not been blowing up homes or indiscriminently killing Iraqi civilians.
Posted by: John D | May 23, 2007 3:27:26 PM
Two words: Haditha. Mahmoudiya.
While it's by no means the norm, there are exceptions to every rule.
Posted by: Jeff C. | May 23, 2007 3:43 PM
Thanks for clarifying, W. For a moment there I thought that Osama bin Laden and friends already had a safe haven in Afghanistan/Pakistan. You're right, let's create a mess in Iraq and then stay there to keep OBL away - all the while letting him hang out for 5 years in the 'stans.
It's interesting that Iraq was never truly a potential safe haven for terrorists until sometime starting in the Spring of 2003.
For anyone still backing Bush's foreign policy, fine. But I will let history be the ultimate judge of this president.
Posted by: BLukanic | May 23, 2007 3:51 PM
All these comments, and nobody points out that this "revelation" about OBL just happened to come on a day when a very knowledgeable Justice Dept. official is offering up what could be some of the most damning testimony on how the White House has politicized the DoJ? It seems to me this routine is geting old, and people should start seeing through it. Instead of focusing on what's happening today, let's talk about something that might have happened in 2005, if only we hadn't been so vigilant in protecting our homeland - a job this, and every administration, is elected to do. I don't get it.
Posted by: newanvil | May 23, 2007 3:54 PM
Bush doesn't read intel.
Exaample: "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." August, 2001.
It's all propaganda to him.
Posted by: athena | May 23, 2007 3:56 PM
John,
A much improved post although I still disagree with you on several points.
"We have not been blowing up homes or indiscriminently killing Iraqi civilians." Not true. I have several friends who have been in the military, some of their points of view echo mine, while others do not. I've heard stories of civilians who would take in the soldiers, talk with them all night and then be shooting at them in the street the next day. I've been told that when fired at on the street sometimes the soldiers just pick someone randomly from the direction of the fire and shoot at them. One of my friends put it rather simply, "We're driving tanks up and down their streets, of course they want us to leave." This says nothing of the reports that come out more and more every day about US soldiers abusing Iraqi civilians. And sadly its not terribly surprising either, they aren't trained to police a nation and they're getting tired of waiting around to get shot or bombed.
Posted by: Ben | May 23, 2007 3:58 PM
B) We are blowing up Iraqi homes and shooting Iraqi people does not win their hearts and minds. Ben, stop reading your left wing blogs. Even during our invasion of Iraq in 2003, civilian areas were not targeted. We have not been blowing up homes or indiscriminently killing Iraqi civilians. However, Iraqis and Al Qaeda have been doing just that.....
Now, if you want to go back in history, the last time the U.S. did bomb Iraqi homes and civilian structures was in 1998. Who, Ben, was president then and who bombed Iraq for about a week straight?
Posted by: John D | May 23, 2007 3:27:26 PM
Johnny, you are just plain lying.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/analysis.htm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/iraq_06-19.html
MARGARET WARNER: And there were instances where the U.S. did aim either bombs or ground fire at places that there were civilians, were there not?
COL. SAMUEL GARDINER: Yes, yes. Despite the up-front setup that we weren't going to do it, on a couple of occasions, the decision was made clearly to attack civilian areas. The most famous was on the 9th of April, when the restaurant, and where we thought the leadership was, twenty-eight people from the leadership. And it turns out probably three families were killed, and we haven't heard whether or not any of the leadership was there at all. Other instances when we were at Chemical Ali, the same thing, the neighborhood was deliberately attacked and the assumption was that... in the military logic, if military people are using civilian facilities, then it's a legitimate target.
Posted by: Tony | May 23, 2007 4:03 PM
The attack in Iraq by Bush was simply Roves way to win elections,kill a few thousand,american and Iraq citizens,and get Bush relected.
This announcement today was not on prime time TV,because less than 25% watch his (Bush's) prime time news conferences any more.
Seems America is waking up,to bad Bush,when America wakes up,your in real trouble.
The oil ,in Iraq was just a plus,Rove was going into Iraq for elections,and the plan was already on the shelf,so made it easier for Rove.
If anyone in this story is unamerican it is Rove.Send him to the front lines with a empty gun,watch how long he lasts.He wanted it,let him have it.
Posted by: Lance | May 23, 2007 4:10 PM
Ben, the Iraqi government has stated it does not want us to leave anytime soon. While the Iraqi people EVENTUALLY would like us to leave, they do not anytime soon either.
Posted by: John D | May 23, 2007 3:27:26 PM
------------------------------------------
As usual John D, you RNC types just make up nonsense to support your ridiculous positions. You have learned well from the cheerleader-in-chief.
This Iraqi parliamentary poll was conducted less than a month ago.
-------------------------------------------
By The Washington Post and McClatchy Newspapers
BAGHDAD — A majority of Iraq's parliament has expressed support for a proposed bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels.
Much like what Democrats have demanded in the U.S. Congress, the Iraq draft would create a timeline for a gradual departure and would require the Iraqi government to secure parliament's approval before further extensions of the U.N. mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, which expires at the end of 2007.
------------------------------------------
Nice try though.
Posted by: Bill H. | May 23, 2007 4:10 PM
Also, John in response to this:
"Now, if you want to go back in history, the last time the U.S. did bomb Iraqi homes and civilian structures was in 1998. Who, Ben, was president then and who bombed Iraq for about a week straight?"
I do not in any way condone the behavior of the Clinton administration for the damage it did to Iraq with the bombings or with the severe sanctions that it helped to enforce on a nation that desperately needed aid. That is a point well made. However, I think the as of right now, its the Republicans who win the award for causing the most damage to our nation. We now are despised in many parts of the world, Bush has destroyed some basic constitutional freedoms we've always enjoyed, he's destroyed our surplus and plunging us once again into debt, and effectively legalized torture. Lets not go too far back into history and concentrate a little bit on our current predicament.
Posted by: Ben | May 23, 2007 4:13 PM
DRAMA DRAMA DRAMA. THIS IS w's CONTRIBUTION TO WHAT IS HAPPENING AND WE LOVE IT! HE IS NOTHING BUT A WANNABE ACTOR. LOOK AT OUR NEWS PROGRAMS FILLED WITH THE SAME. OSAMA BIN LADEN IS USING OUR INABILITY TO WEED THROUGH THE BS TO FIND THE KERNEL OF CORN. WHAT A LOSER.
Posted by: linda franke | May 23, 2007 4:14 PM
Chicken Little starts running around screaming that the sky is falling, the sky is falling & what happens? All his lackeys take up the tune & start telling everyone how it must be true, the sky is falling, Chicken Little wouldn't lie to them. Do they bother to look up & check for themselves? No, it would be blasphemy to dare questioning the likes of Chicken Little.
Posted by: jj | May 23, 2007 4:22 PM
I'd just like to, terror, talk to you about, terror, the state of our, terror, country. Iraq, terror, terror, terror, Al Qaeda, terror, terror, terrorists, 9/11, terror, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Muslims, terror.
Thank you and God Bless, terror, America.
Posted by: Rogers Park Skeptic | May 23, 2007 4:32 PM
More mindless neo-con word drool from the worst president ever. Defended as always by the Reject Right nutters. Mind numbing!!!
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | May 23, 2007 4:37 PM
This just in.....A video tape of Bin Laden was shown today as proof that they planned to find safe haven in Iraq. The tape clearly showed Bin Laden dressed in traditional garb and somehow strangely resembled Karl Rove.
Posted by: bill r. | May 23, 2007 4:38 PM
I think we should just pull all of our troops out of Iraq immediately, leave the country to be taken over by Iran, and just all put on happy faces. I'm sure Iran will help the Iraqis, especially since they have such a good history together, and plenty of good things will then come out of Iraq.
Posted by: Brad | May 23, 2007 4:44 PM
Ben,
Great idea, I'm going to copyright the phrase "Loony Lefties" so that Little Johnny Crewcut has to pay a liberal everytime he uses it.....Brilliant!
Posted by: John E | May 23, 2007 4:48 PM
Now, if you want to go back in history, the last time the U.S. did bomb Iraqi homes and civilian structures was in 1998. Who, Ben, was president then and who bombed Iraq for about a week straight?
Posted by: John D | May 23, 2007 3:27:26 PM
Earth to John D, the initial bomb dropped in this recent conflict missed it's target. First, many of the civilian casualties from the air war occurred during U.S. attacks on senior Iraqi leadership officials. Second, the intelligence and targeting methodologies used to identify potential leadership targets were inherently flawed and led to preventable civilian deaths. Finally, every single attack on leadership failed. None of the targeted individuals was killed, and in the cases examined by Human Rights Watch, local Iraqis repeatedly stated that they believed the intended targets were not even present at the time of the strike.John D What reality do you live in. Wait I've got it, the state of denial.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/4.htm
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | May 23, 2007 4:48 PM
Is the sky falling again?
If we are attacked, does this mean the strategy of fighting them there before they come here has failed?
Look, our people are more alert and the enemy has lost the element of surprise. That's the biggest reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | May 23, 2007 5:08 PM
This is the stupidest claim yet;
Does the year 2005 mean anything?
That's two years after Mission Accomplished.
If America buys this B$ I give up.
We created the conditions for OBL and Al Quadi to move into Iraq.
Saddam was our friend in this regard.
It's sad but true. GWB has hurt America more than any terrorist. How? Stupid policies and decisions.
Posted by: C.Morris | May 23, 2007 5:41 PM
This is nothing but an attempt to make the "war on terror" and al Qaeda the issue, rather than the homegrown insurgents in Iraq.
All the President can try to do is generate headlines, so that we don't talk about the failures in Iraq in terms of policy. Of course, the Bushies refuse to acknowledge the failure of our campaign in Afghanistan to drive out the Taliban and al Qaeda. al Q was largely active in Afghanistan, and Saddam would not have permitted an "outside agency" such as al Q to operate in Iraq, proper. bin Laden despised Saddam, blaming him for the placement of "infidel" Western troops in Saudi Arabia in 1991.
All Bush's press people can do is distract through these photo-ops, and otherwise wave the flag, and attempt to frighten the public. Does anyone consider the news of bin Laden continuing to agitate as "remarkable"? This is non-news, and a sheer deflection.
If Bush really wants to make news, he should find a way to make tangible progress in Iraq.
Posted by: pb | May 23, 2007 5:42 PM
I think we should just pull all of our troops out of Iraq immediately, leave the country to be taken over by Iran, and just all put on happy faces. I'm sure Iran will help the Iraqis, especially since they have such a good history together, and plenty of good things will then come out of Iraq.
Posted by: Brad | May 23, 2007 4:44:08 PM
Brad:
There's almost no doubt but that you're a chickenhawk coward who stands behind this mess, provided someone else pays the price, so your snide little remarks come under scrutiny from the start. I may be wrong; if so, please just advise of when you enlistment date was/will be. I'm sure a tough-talking pragmatist like you was among the first to enlist.
In headier days, your Beloved Hero once spoke of Iraq becoming a democracy and a shining example for the rest of the Middle East. Since democracy means something along the lines of majority rule, then perhaps it may have occurred to even someone with your capacities that the majority Shia in Iraq would be sympathetic to the majority Shia in Iran, with the result being an Iraqi government sympathetic to, allied with, and perhaps even merging with Iran. In other words, if Dear Leader's grand plan ("Plan"? Ha!) had actually worked, then the exact result you predict above would have come true anyway.
What does this mean? It means your simpleminded, cowardly, snide and troop-hating commentary above is not the criticism of the left that you intended, but instead is a criticism of the very policy that your faded yellow ribbon bumpersticker says you supported. It means, Brad, that had you and Murderer Boy actually thought about the consequences of this unnecessary war before starting it, we would not have gotten into it, and the world would indeed be a better place now.
How many troops are you killing tomorrow, Brad? We lost only 9 or so yesterday. Maybe we'll get lucky and only a half-dozen kids will get killed. Yea Rah! Go GWB!
Posted by: a blinkin | May 23, 2007 5:43 PM
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Or that young woman testifying before Congress under a grant of immunity as she discusses the criminal nature of the Justice Department's top leadership today.
I noticed that we also got a surprise rapid deployment of the Bonhomme Richard amphip strike fleet today, just to add a little panache to the distractive blitz.
It worked to a degree, news agregaters did put the Preznit's shameless exploitation of the commencement speech at the top of the pages, but there were actually more feeds on the new Repug's Monica.
New rule, no one named Monica is allowed to work in DC.
Posted by: James L. | May 23, 2007 5:56 PM
One more lie from snotty little prince Georgie. It's mind-numbing that 25% still support this big cry baby. And it's hysterical that Bushie has the neo-cons shaking in their boots and believing that there's a terrorist around every corner. If you Republicans are this gutless, maybe you should all be sent to Iraq and put on the front lines. Then you'd really be shaking. Grow some back bone for God's sake and quit listening to this idiot.
Posted by: gypsy | May 23, 2007 6:03 PM
John D.
You’re not alone.
Thanks for taking the heat from the liberal shrill… most Americans know that the media distorts the truth and that the brave men and women of our armed forces are doing a great and noble job even if the screachers on the left don’t get it.
Posted by: Joe Stirumup | May 23, 2007 6:27 PM
I don't believe a word of it.
The liar is at it again.
I am absolutely sick of Bush and his lies.
Elect Ron Paul 2008 to save this Country.
Posted by: James | May 23, 2007 6:35 PM
blinky,
nice work..
Posted by: C.Morris | May 23, 2007 6:41 PM
Careful how we criticize the failed policy of the administration! Bin Laden and followers might decide to try another 9/11 if Bush and buddies think their warning are not taken seriously!
Posted by: R.F.Karlak | May 23, 2007 6:49 PM
John D.
You’re not alone.
Thanks for taking the heat from the liberal shrill… most Americans know that the media distorts the truth and that the brave men and women of our armed forces are doing a great and noble job even if the screachers on the left don’t get it.
Posted by: Joe Stirumup | May 23, 2007 6:27:16 PM
Once again a Reject Rightwing nutter lumps the failed Bush policy in with the support of the military. Same old Republican tricks. Attack the media and dismiss anyone who doesn't tow the party line. Proof that brainwashing works. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. Keep supporting the depraved liar in the White House.
Noble you are not.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | May 23, 2007 6:57 PM
"People just dont get it. Everyone will realize just how important this war is when the bombs start going off over here. "
Folks who write things like this should actually pay attention to what Our Only President says. He has stated on a number of occasions that even he cannot protect us 100%, that attacks will occur. It's a matter of time, not whether the war succeeds or fails (whatever that means to the President), before the bombs start going off over here. His only hope is that it doesn't happen before January 2009.
Posted by: PerElvis | May 23, 2007 6:59 PM
It appears that our President, in strict adherence to biblical inerrancy, is actively pursuing an "end times" policy in the Middle East that undoubtedly will usher in Armegeddon. When Robert M says "People just dont get it. Everyone will realize just how important this war is when the bombs start going off over here" he speaks the truth without even knowing it. Oh joy... oh rapture!
Posted by: Left of Center | May 23, 2007 7:46 PM
“Logic Prisoner”,
You sound like the head screacher.
I believe most in America thank and respect our brave men and women that do the US proud even when protecting dingbats such as the one you see in the mirror.
Posted by: Joe Stirumup | May 23, 2007 8:05 PM
PerElvis
I believe Cheney said it's only a matter of time until there is an attack on one of our major cities with a weapon of mass destruction, either chemical/bio or nuclear.
But we are not supposed to remember what they said.
Did they ever catch the anthrax terrorist, BTW?
Posted by: C.Morris | May 23, 2007 8:16 PM
It is interesting how hateful the left is and how little of that hate is directed towards the radical Islamic enemy. Is the name throwing a cover for the lack of intellect and sense of reason ?
Posted by: CJ | May 23, 2007 8:18 PM
Anybody hear from the most famous 6' 5" cave dweller lately???
Maybe he's doing Geico ads?
Posted by: Terry | May 23, 2007 8:45 PM
I believe most in America thank and respect our brave men and women that do the US proud even when protecting dingbats such as the one you see in the mirror.
Posted by: Joe Stirumup | May 23, 2007 8:05:55 PM
Everyone I know thanks and repects our troops. Their lives are more important to me than the Iraqis. That's why we need to redeploy them and change tactics.
Bush will never admit he's been wrong. He believes that if he does, his manhood will fall off.
Posted by: Catherine | May 23, 2007 8:53 PM
I believe most in America thank and respect our brave men and women that do the US proud even when protecting dingbats such as the one you see in the mirror.
Posted by: Joe Stirumup | May 23, 2007 8:05:55 PM
I believe you are talking from some where south of your mouth. Thats the typical BS you hear from the weak minded sheeple from the right. I've served this country and I respect every brother in uniform and had you said that to my face I'ld show you what I mean. I was proud also to serve to protect mush for brains like you.
Posted by: bill r. | May 23, 2007 9:24 PM
catherine - redploy the troops? Please tell me where you want to redeploy the troops to.
Posted by: Terry | May 23, 2007 9:31 PM
You call this a newspiece? Finding three anti Bush quotes that match your own anti Bush piece? What a pile of garbage. No wonder the Tribune's profits are in the tubes.
Posted by: Mark | May 23, 2007 9:33 PM
I have been reading all your comments and was wondering what 'change of tactics' means?
What is going to happen if we just up and leave without giving elected government of Iraq a change to get back on their own feet? I am really puzzled how one side are the other just leave out fact when it is to their convenience but to me it seems there many here that would rather believe their own lies than someone else take on how they see the situation. I hope you all come to knowledge of what has been going on since IRAN hostage situation and all the many other attacks on USA since then.
Have any of you heard the saying, "Change Your Mind and Change Your World?" That says it all. We tend to create the environment around us that will justify our belief systems. Folks this world is what we have made it,so I wish to blame all our troubles on anyone person. It was a collective act of our Congress,UN,bad Intel,and not less the fault of our leaders who we elected or were appointed. Let's stop the blame game and work to make for a better world where we can live free of threat of terrorists here and around the globe. People should not have to travel in fear of their children being blown up. Think of others besides ourselves.
Posted by: Gman | May 23, 2007 10:44 PM
Lookin' at the devil
Grinnin' at his gun
Fingers start shakin'
I begin to run
Bullets start chasin'
I begin to stop
We begin to wrestle
I was on the top
I want to thank you falettinme
See Iraq agin
Thank you falettinme
See Iraq agin
Don't know why we came here
Can't find no WMD's
No semblance of democracy
Just death and IED's
Thank you for the quagmire
But I could never stay
Many thangs is on my mind
War is in the way
I want to thank you falettinme
See Iraq agin
Thank you falettinme
See Iraq agin
Fight through the chaos
All nite long
Shia and the Sunni's
Wishin' we were gone
Mama's so unhappy
Mama start to cry
Papa still singin'
You can make it if you try
I want to thank you falettinme
See Iraq again
(Mission accomplished, Insurgency's last throes, yeah)
Thank you falettinme
See Iraq agin
Flamin' eyes of people fear
Burnin' into you
Many men are missin' much
Hatin' what they do
Youth and truth are makin' love
Dig it for a starter, now
Dyin' young is hard to take
Sellin' out is harder
Thank you falettinme
See Iraq agin
I want to thank you falettinme
See Iraq agin
Thank you falettinme
See Iraq agin
Thank you falettinme
Fight in Iraq agin
I want to thank you falettinme
Cry in Iraq agin
With apologies to Sly and the Family Stone.
Posted by: dt | May 23, 2007 11:27 PM
Everyone I know thanks and respects our troops. Their lives are more important to me than the Iraqis. That's why we need to redeploy them and change tactics.
Bush will never admit he's been wrong. He believes that if he does, his manhood will fall off.
Posted by: Catherine | May 23, 2007 8:53:56 PM
The issue is bigger than the Iraqis, (though I think our troops consider them important); the battle is bigger than Iraq. Fortunately the troops by-and-large know that. They understand the importance of this battle, and the other fronts of this war.
But tell me Catherine, how does surrendering thank and respect our troops?
From the statement you made you sound naive and ignorant (and like a silly little child) and you are stupid to think that cutting and running will help overcome our enemy. Understand our enemy, listen to what our enemy says, they prove over and over that they mean it.
Posted by: cj | May 24, 2007 12:06 AM
RE:
I believe most in America thank and respect our brave men and women that do the US proud ...
==============
You have your issues confused. We all respect the troops. The problem is the idiot in charge, and his policies, which have caused those troops to sacrifice, without an overall plan to end this miserable situation. Bush declares Iraq as the center of his "war", when it was his own failure in Afghanistan to eliminate al Qaeda that led to that Iraq problem. Like a guy who starts a fire; and then applauds the fire department's performance.
Bush hides behind those troops in order to keep the public behind his failed policies. It's the brainwashed like you that he appeals to, because he's lost the support of anyone with judgment.
Posted by: pb | May 24, 2007 12:18 AM
It's like 911 never happened. Americans have short memories and are wholly unaffected and untouched. They don't believe in what doesn't touch their lives.
I guess they have to bring down a few buildings or even some cities with biological weapons before it will be taken seriously. Let's wipe San Francisco, Dallas or Chicago off the map, then perhaps the tune will change and nobody will be stupidly talking about Presidential manhoods "falling off."
Contempt for a man who wants to protect the American people is a head-shaker, but certainly not unprecedented in history. As Hitler exterminated the "undesirables" in Camps from Hell, and even after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, there was still a vocal contingent of Americans who "didn't want to get involved."
If they had their way, this page would be printed in German.
Nobody wants to hurt us, we're perfectly safe. And it's our fault, isn't it, that they downed the World Trade Center towers, we're terrible Americans and we live too well and we butt into other's business even though we're the first one they scream for when there's a problem. They aren't asking Canada and France for help.
Why is Darfur different than Iraq? Nobody seems to be able to explain that. One is PC, and one just isn't.
Posted by: sigh | May 24, 2007 1:08 AM
Impeach The Liar In Chief George W Bush And
Impeach Vice Liar Deranged Draft Dodger Cheney!
Posted by: Sandy | May 24, 2007 3:44 AM
“Logic Prisoner”,
You sound like the head screacher.
I believe most in America thank and respect our brave men and women that do the US proud even when protecting dingbats such as the one you see in the mirror.
Posted by: Joe Stirumup | May 23, 2007 8:05:55 PM
Once again you knuckle draggers post without reading. I don't know anyone including men like myself who have served that wish nothing but the best for our troops. With the possible exception of Rosie O'Donnell!!! What I can't stand beside ignorant people who don't even read or understand comments before stirring um up (Joe Stirumup), are those who divide the country into two camps. 1) people who oppose the current war policy are anti troop. Untrue. See yourself as an example. 2) Those who support the war are the only people who support the troops. Once again untrue. Look if you want to bag on me at least read my comment first. Then again that assumes you can read. Enjoy your Kool-Aid. Remember I served defending your right to drink it!!!
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | May 24, 2007 5:01 AM
It's like 911 never happened. Americans have short memories and are wholly unaffected and untouched. They don't believe in what doesn't touch their lives.
Posted by: sigh | May 24, 2007 1:08:29 AM
And some invent their memories. How many times do you need to be reminded before you get the idea? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. One more time because I know how short a memory you all have. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Posted by: bill r. | May 24, 2007 6:51 AM
Everyone I know thanks and repects our troops. Their lives are more important to me than the Iraqis. That's why we need to redeploy them and change tactics.
Bush will never admit he's been wrong. He believes that if he does, his manhood will fall off.
Posted by: Catherine | May 23, 2007 8:53:56 PM
Catherine, kudos to you for the first half. Second half you veer into loony left land. Bush believes that if we leave Iraq, Iraq will definitely fall into the hands of terrorists and whacked out Islamics. The Iraqi government does not want us to leave -- not yet anyway because our presence is needed while the country and its government develops. Is the development taking an awfully long time? Unfortunately, yes. It's not about his manhood, it's about completing the job and hopefully attaining a better Iraq and a better world.
Posted by: John D | May 24, 2007 7:51 AM
Tony, Ben and Bill H:
When insurgents or terrorists are holding themselves up in civilian neighborhoods, then yes we have had to go in there. Terrorists have a history throughout the world of shielding themselves within civilian homes and neighborhoods.
From the beginning in 2003, the U.S. has not wantonly gone into civilian neighborhoods just to kill people and blow things up. Though you may recall that in many wars this was standard procedure, it is not today.
And Bill H, didn't the Iraqi Prime Minister and President both just say last week: U.S. do not leave???
Posted by: John D | May 24, 2007 7:57 AM
"I believe most in America thank and respect our brave men and women that do the US proud even when protecting dingbats such as the one you see in the mirror.
Posted by: Joe Stirumup | May 23, 2007 8:05:55 PM"
bill r,
Some people are so muddled they don't even suspect that someone with a different opinion from their's just might have worn the uniform.
Posted by: C.Morris | May 24, 2007 8:17 AM
Clearly, not all characteristics are present in our society, but the similarities are alarming.
Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Source Free Inquiry.co http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. (homosexuals)
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Posted by: Bryan | May 24, 2007 10:54 AM
John D,
The issue is not terrorists taking over villages and holding people hostage. These people aren't praying for us to deliver them from the bad guys. In this case, we are the bad guys. We have destroyed a country that was honestly no threat to us or its neighbors. Everything Saddam did while president was stamped and approved by the US government. We did put him in power and gave him his weapons to begin with, so I'm very reluctant to believe that we have done this to help the poor downtrodden people of Iraq, especially with so many other horrors going on in the world in poorer(less freedom-loving I guess) countries. Iraq's middle class is rapidly leaving the country, and it's become a haven for extremists based on our involvement in the first place. In most cases, the people who are attacking us are also civilians. They have homes and are citizens of Iraq and who knows if they attack us because of their religious beliefs or because they're pissed off as hell at our presence there, but regardless they blend in with the rest of the populace and that's what makes fighting them over there so tough. In regards to your second point, I do not mean to suggest that most of our troops have killing civilians in mind and aim to do so. What I mean to say is that when being shot at random or bombed, soldiers get jumpy and civilians get shot. And trust me, most Iraqi people who have friends who have been killed by us would have a hard time convincing themselves that we're still the good guys. I am infuriated with the arrogance that made us unilaterally invade a foreign nation and now all the Republicans will admit to was that "the war was mismanaged." How about a horrific mistake that we should be ashamed of and learn from. Stop this stupid war. Bring em home.
Posted by: Ben | May 24, 2007 10:55 AM
Terry, I'm not a chess player so I want the troops home. Let Irag have its civil war.
Do you have any friends or family serving in the "surge?"
Posted by: Catherine | May 24, 2007 11:12 AM
um excuse me? bush's support is at 25%...
and the republican party as a whole isn't responsible for the iron defense they constructed around this monkey (no offense meant to monkeys)?
so the republicans are going to get their azzez handed to them in '08?
I doubt it... i hope and pray they do, but i doubt it...
why? simple. racism, sexism, homophobia... somehow, someway, that half of the country who has no morals (republicans) will find a way to conjure a version of reality that suggests bush and the republican party have nothing to do with each other...
brothers and sisters we are not even close to being out of the woods yet with these sick, twisted freaks...
it is like invasion of the body snatchers with these regent graduates et al...
they have surrendered their humanity and are nothing more than pod people now...
any evangelicals here? i've been to a few services... what was the message?? VERY CLEAR-- "Ignore the world around you... Reach out to Jesus..."
DEAL WITH THE FACT that 10's of millions of people in this country have FAITH that anything they DO NOT UNDERSTAND is the work of satan, by definition...
al queda doesn't frighten me half as much (and they do frighten me) as 'christian' 'conservative' bushies do...
they are the only existential threat to the future health and prosperity of this society...
western civilization already tried the dark ages... it didn't work out so well...
Posted by: seth gordon | May 24, 2007 1:21 PM
have u people seen "The power of nightmares"... BBC production from a few years back??
truly must viewing...
HERE is a link:
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
Posted by: seth gordon | May 24, 2007 1:27 PM
thank u bryan!! that is exactly right...
'Sigh' u must be an ad exec... good choice of name, but u are a lier...
WWII, americans still didn't want to get involved? who would that be? the conservatives?? that's right-- the americans who didn't want to confront hitler were the xenophobe/anti-communist rightwing conservatives who thought hitler was just swell and wished we could have a some of that over here...
take your lies and shove em...
Posted by: seth gordon | May 24, 2007 1:40 PM
Some people are so muddled they don't even suspect that someone with a different opinion from their's just might have worn the uniform.
Posted by: C.Morris | May 24, 2007 8:17:50 AM
Somehow it's as if they were brainwashed into believing the rhetoric that only "republicans" serve in the forces. Whats worse is they themselves probably have never served. If you don't support Bushs war you don't support our troops. This is the biggest lie told by the right. What hogwash.
\
Posted by: bill r. | May 24, 2007 1:57 PM
American people, especially outside of the southwest part of the USA are completely unaware that BY FAR THE BIGGEST THREAT TO THE USA RIGHT NOW IS THE THREAT POSED BY THE ILLEGALS/MEXICAN MOVEMENTS ENTERING THE USA ILLEGALLY!!
"Mechistas", "LaRaza", "Reconquista"...
Hyperviolent gangs like MS-13 and the many groups of narco terrorists are the true TERRORIST threat to the USA.
They are much more of a threat to the USA then AL Qaeda ever will be.
George Bush and his constant deceit of "we can fight them in Iraq or we can fight them on our soil...."
What a bunch of Bull....the real threats to America and Americans are the threats of these terrorist groups that most Americans are completely clueless about...
If Americans really knew what these groups and their agenda were THEY WOULD NEVER BE SITTING STILL AND SHEEPLIKE while Mc Cain and his "gang of 12" tried to force this Amnesty for Illegals down the throats of Americans before Americans even had a chance to understand what was happening...
AL Qaeda is nothing compared to this.
Posted by: jw | May 24, 2007 3:15 PM
Catherine,
As a matter of fact, some of my childrens' friends are there.
As far as redeploy, we now found out exactly what you mean - RETREAT.
Posted by: Terry | May 24, 2007 6:17 PM
As far as redeploy, we now found out exactly what you mean - RETREAT.
Posted by: Terry | May 24, 2007 6:17:44 PM
Terry, we can have Frank Luntz give it a spiffy name that you can live with.
Seriously, you seem to be a sharp guy. Forget the war. Would you continue to follow a business practice that was obviously not working until the point of ruin? If you were seriously ill, would you consult the top specialists and then do nothing?
Posted by: Catherine | May 24, 2007 7:59 PM
Once again you knuckle draggers post without reading. I don't know anyone including men like myself who have served that wish nothing but the best for our troops. With the possible exception of Rosie O'Donnell!!! What I can't stand beside ignorant people who don't even read or understand comments before stirring um up (Joe Stirumup), are those who divide the country into two camps. 1) people who oppose the current war policy are anti troop. Untrue. See yourself as an example. 2) Those who support the war are the only people who support the troops. Once again untrue. Look if you want to bag on me at least read my comment first. Then again that assumes you can read. Enjoy your Kool-Aid. Remember I served defending your right to drink it!!!
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | May 24, 2007 5:01:33 AM
Logic Prisoner, I only want to address the “bag on you” part of your rant...
Your vial hatred is what drives the country into two parts fool. Most in the country respect the troops and understand what we as a free society face from radical Islam. You however are so full of hate for Bush that it clouds your ability to understand the reality of what we face. You can say you support the troops in one sentence but people with brains see through it in the rest of your screeching hate posted throughout this page… a shallow mind reacts the way you do. I know that most of our noble troops find your hate of the president disrespectful and undermining to their mission. The fact that you wore the uniform is disappointing to them I am sure.
Posted by: Joe Stirumup | May 24, 2007 8:45 PM
If I ran a business, I would choose a path that would be give me a chance at successs.
Redployment/retreat has no chance of producing that result. The surge has that chance.
As far as the medical diagnosis, if I had a disease (radical islamic terrorism) I would want a cure for that disease, not something to keep me comfortable while it slowly kills me.
If our troops leave Iraq, what do you think happens between our country and the islamic headchoppers.
By the way, with all the complaining the left does about how the United States treats the prisoneers/detainees, how about how the Islamic headchoppers treated Private Joseph Anzack? Where's the outrage from Human Rights Watch? the UN?etc....
Posted by: Terry | May 24, 2007 10:20 PM
Joe, don't take the claims of folks like Logic Prisoner that they served with much certainty. Many of them claim that. In fact, last fall, John E said his "son" was in Iraq and that he received a letter from the DoD that he is being forced back into duty and would be in Iraq by February. Funny, John E is still here (unfortunately too). Doesn't talk much about his son either. Gee, I wonder why? -- NOT!
Posted by: John D | May 24, 2007 10:44 PM
Terry, we should have surged in the beginning of the war if we were going to do it at all. (Which I don't think we should have. Saddam was a tyrant but was not linked to Osama.) But Bushco disregarded any negative intelligence that didn't predict easy victory. We didn't want anyone's help. Shock and Awe was so mucher cooler and dramatic than boots on the ground. Numerous other mistakes were made as well. I know that retreat is not the answer but this is a cluster**** for sure and Bush owns it. Does he have the guts to make changes in tactics when necessary? I don't think so.
Posted by: Catherine | May 25, 2007 7:29 AM
Were mistakes made? I think hindsight would say yes.
The surge has just started and I believe the last of the troops have just arrived or will be arriving soon. He has changed tactics.
Bottom line, this is a war that must be continued to be fought until victory is achieved. I hope the Iraqi troops can speed up their progress to support the troops and eventually take over.
Posted by: Terry | May 25, 2007 5:11 PM
Dear Oh So Intelligent Bill:
Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Forget that the vaunted Bill Clinton, too, wanted a regime change. Let's just put that aside. Let's, too, forget, that Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in, and he had WMD because he already used them. Did you hear that? Let me repeat it, in case you missed it: HE already used them on his own people.
The truth is, all the terrorists in the world stay in one place, and never communicate with each other. Heads of terrorist States never get involved with other heads of terrorist States or terrorist groups. It's very organized and isolated. They don't even email each other.
You can't wrap your mind around the fact that radical fanatics do not hail from one part of the world. They don't see a border and say, "oh no, we can't go in there, that's not where we hang out."
We wanted to stabilize the middle east as much as we wanted Saddam out. A democratic middle east looks like a dream, but it's not because America went in there. It's because these people are hellbent on killing each other.
We worry and cry and sob about Darfur but nobody gave a damn about Saddam killing hundreds of thousands of Kurds. They'd rather talk about how Americans killed innocent Iraqis. It's totally and completely insane. Your hate of your own President has made you all insane...insane and blind.
I used to be a liberal democrat. Now they make me shudder. You people are more scary than Al Qada. Let's just talk to them and they won't kill us! Neville Chamberlain is smiling somewhere. I guess it's easier to hate your own President than the ones who really want your head dangling from a stick.
Posted by: sigh redux | May 30, 2007 5:44 AM