When will we unite
to win this fight?
By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
WHEN OUR board discussed what to say upon the fifth anniversary of the devastating terror attacks on American soil, I had to be talked into taking the approach we did: Examining what we have done and failed to do in response, right here at home.
For me, the domestic situation is more depressing than conditions in Iraq or Afghanistan. It’s a matter of expectations.
When we sent our troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, I knew we were beginning a long and costly endeavor that, even with solid support among the U.S. electorate, would take longer than the time we’ve given it so far. While much that has happened over there has dismayed and even horrified me, little has surprised me.
But the reaction over here has been a bitter disappointment, made more painful because I had hoped so ardently for something so much better.
In late October 2001, I wrote:
“On Sept. 11, amid all the horror, I started seeing and hearing things that gave me a new hope. I felt like the American spirit was maybe, just maybe, awakening from a long and fitful slumber. I knew that defeating this new evil that faced our country would be an all-consuming task that would leave us little energy for the petty bickering that had come to dominate public life. And I believed we would most certainly defeat it. We would rise to the occasion, and in the end we — and the world as a whole — would be better.”
I haven’t had the opportunity to go to Iraq, and I don’t know how well I could assess the overall situation if I did — a battle looks different to each individual in it. I don’t trust the accounts of the Cassandras and Pollyannas who would have us either despair or pretend everything is all right. The voices I seek are those that speak of what we need to do to achieve success, starting from where we are right now.
Such voices are all too rare, although sometimes they pipe up in unexpected places. I was pleased last week to see veteran scribe Joe Galloway, who up to now has done little but carp and criticize over the war effort, use his contacts among military leaders to pull together advice on how to win. The same day I read that, I read a column by Newt Gingrich — the very embodiment of pointless partisan infighting — that honestly analyzed grave mistakes made by leaders of his own party, and prescribed stern remedies.
The best part of that piece was this quote from Abraham Lincoln: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present… . As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves.”
We must indeed think in new ways, but we don’t. And no one among us is blameless.
Most congressional Republicans give little more than lip service to winning the war. They devote themselves to tax cuts, while at the same time spending at levels previously unimagined. They, along with the president, have not acted as though they acknowledge the crucial connection between the war on terror and our insanely self-destructive energy habits. The president himself has left little hope for leadership — the kind all can follow — until his replacement takes office in 2009.
The Democrats, rather than acting like a principled opposition and proposing the kinds of sacrifices that would be necessary to free us from foreign oil despots, have chosen instead to demagogue over gasoline prices (which obviously aren’t yet high enough to persuade us to conserve). In the first months and years after 9/11, they seemed stunned into having no ideas to present whatsoever. Now they seem energized by what they tout as our failures in battle, almost as if they welcome such outcomes.
But you have to understand: The priority for Democrats as a party is not winning the war — it’s winning control of Congress in November.
The priority of Republicans in general isn’t winning the war, either: It’s stopping the Democrats.
I wouldn’t give two cents to affect the outcome of that pointless struggle either way. If I could, I’d get rid of most of them and start over, stocking the Congress with people whose priority is asserting and defending the values and interests we hold in common.
The sin of the rest of us is letting the parties get away with it, while our best and bravest spill their blood on behalf of a people who have done too little to demonstrate that we deserve it.
Five years ago, for a brief time, we were better than we are today. When will we “disenthrall ourselves,” and this time for good?
Brad, I can only wish that your words calling for unity would be listened to and acted upon by both the left and right. The odds of that happening are remote. And yes, serious mistakes have been made in the conduct of the Iraq war. But what is new about that? Mistakes happen in war. Bombs cannot be undropped, deployments cant be undone like we are playing a board game. For those who have read about the mistakes of WW2, we know there were literally hundreds if not thousands of mistakes. Ignoring the intelligence about Pearl Harbor, concentrating the entire Pacific fleet in one bay, friendly fire bombing 600 Americans on D-Day, McCarthur abandoning the soldiers in the Phillipines effectively serving them a death warrant. The list is endless. What was different then is the inability to “hate” our own political leaders. The right is not blameless but this is a phenomenom of the left. The hatred is so deep that it permeates every view of everything that happens. And it is pervasive in every action of the left. There have been some signs that the American people are beginning to fully recognize this hatred for what it is and turn against it. McKinney’s election loss was one such sign recently. The lack of street protesters like we saw in the anti-war 60’s is also a positive. On a cultural perspective, we see the once extremely popular Dixie Chicks losing their fan following after spewing their venom at the president. And Air America, the 24 hour a day Hate America radio station, survives on charitable handouts from dogmatic leftists, unable to support itself in the free market. So there is reason to be hopeful that the American public is not as dumb as the NY Times thinks they are but time will tell.
We can start by avoiding broad brushed simplistic referrals to people as neo-cons or liberals based on an a single issue. E.G. A response to someone questioning the war; “the lefties are cowards who won’t stand up for America”. This is common rhetoric on this blog.
Brad, I think the media plays a large role in this. You guys often set the tone. For example, I questioned you back in June about focusing the discussion on the state super race on private school choice. You maintained that this was THE issue. The end result is having dialogue focused on little else (my on going debate with Lex is the result of his hate comments towards schools).
I agree that the parties are more interested in winning than in service. This is why I take issue with straight-ticket voting. If this is how you want to vote, then ballots shouldn’t include the names and list the candidates at Democrat #1 or Republican #2 because the party and not the person is what matters. This is why I am a big fan of Liberman, Graham, and McCain and why hardliners deride them. They think for themselves.
Dave fires the first salvo with a partisan, mean-spirited attack on the left. I’m going to take the high road.
Here’s my non-partisan plan to reduce the threat from terrorism. I stress the word reduce. Terrorists have always been around and always will be. It’s naive to think we can ever eliminate the threat.
1. Redeploy our military forces away from Iraq to places where they can effectively fight terrorists. It’s been clear for some time now that continuing this effort is nothing but a wasteful diversion of resources away from the actual fight against terrorists. Indeed it creates a nurturing environment to breed more terrorists. After we leave, this war-weary nation will probably settle down in time.
2. Begin a dialogue with moderates in all parts of the world. This is a delicate process that needs a great deal of nurturing in order to succeed. We must strike a balance between force and diplomacy. The all-force, all-the-time approach will inevitably fail.
3. Increase spending for security measures at home. Far too few resources have been devoted to inspections of shipping cargos, railroad security, powerplants and others.
4. Greatly increase expenditures on alternative energy sources. The large oil finding in the Gulf of Mexico will buy us some time but it’s an illusion to think we can drill our way out of our oil delimma. Energy independence would go a long way toward freeing us from dependence on oil from countries controlled by foreign despots. Despite it’s risk, nuclear power probably needs to be a part of this plan.
This is my outline for a non-partisan plan that will help make us more secure at home and free up resources to address the very real, but ignored, problems at home including crime, traffic crashes, poverty, health care, education, infrastructure needs and other.
But you have to understand: The priority for Democrats as a party is not winning the war — it’s winning control of Congress in November.
The priority of Republicans in general isn’t winning the war, either: It’s stopping the Democrats.
This “pox on both your houses” is a weak abdication of Brad’s responsibility to observe and draw conclusions.
Bush and Rove have used this war from the beginning as a political cudgel. Take Bush’s opposition to the Dem’s idea of a Homeland Security Dept. At least he and the Republicans adamantly opposed it until Rove figured out how to use it as a tool to simultaneously bust government employee unions AND accuse Dems’ of being unpatriotic for opposing union busting.
Yeah, those Dems aren’t really serious about winning the war on terror. What exactly would Brad want the Dems to do? They tried rolling over for Republicans (the “bipartisan” phase) but soon found that Rove simply orhestrated their electoral executions by wrapping Republicans in the flag and comparing Dems to Osama (see Cleland, Max).
Perhaps if Brad would actually observe, and remember then he’d figure out that Bush (under Rove’s advice) has consistently subverted national security to partisan political goals from the beginning.
When the administration let Osama escape and the Taliban regroup in Afghanistan by pulling out troops for the Iraq invasion that wasn’t in our best interest. But, it was in the interest of fulfilling the pipe dream of his neo-con advisers.
Brad might remember Bush Chief of Staff Andy Card famously told people prior to invading Iraq that “you never roll out a new product” in August. Does that sound like global geo-political thinking about our security– or like a Rove formulation for winning a domestic political campaign?
Some Dems have finally recognized that “playing nice” with Bush is like sharpening the knife for your executioner. Cooperating with Bush is like the Jewish leaders who selected people for the concentration camps– eventually your name is on the list of people bound for oblivion.
Joe Lieberman thinks that joining the Republicans in all but name will save his career. If he’s sucessful then he’s only postponing his date with defeat.
Better to go down fighting.
BTW, Brad falls for the Republican talking point that the Dems don’t have any ideas– aren’t a “principled opposition”– simply because the Republicans shut the Dems out of any decision making role in the government.
Yeah, it’s too bad that Bush and Rove decided to make war a political tool. But, cricticizing the Dems for being unwilling to go to the political slaughter quietly is a wildly erroneous interpretation.
It’s doubtful there will EVER be unity regarding the “war” in Iraq and against terrorism because virtually no one really wants unity. All people want is for their view/opinion to prevail (consider the posts on this blog). All politicians want is POWER. Once they get it, they want to keep it forever. POWER is the “super drug” for them, IMHO.
The only way unity and change can truly come is to vote OUT every single politician currently in office. Elect no “new” politicians; not Republicans, not Democrats, not Incumbents. Probably ain’t gonna happen, right?
Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman and EXTREME partisans, contrary to what most think of them. Graham is a 90-100% conservative, and Lieberman is a 90-100% liberal. NOTHING is going to change that except a good house cleaning. As for John McCain, he is 100% McCain, nothing more, nothing less. Whatever does the most good in salving his ego is what he will do.
Posters on this site are the perfect example of why there will be NO unity, NO change. EVERYONE wants the status quo to prevail. Mr. Bwarthen says it best “.. I’d get rid of MOST of them ..”.
All the grand ideas posted regarding redeployment, alternative (nuclear) energy, etc., are quite good. And true. But with the current system, there ain’t gonna be no change.
No Democrats, no Republicans, no Incumbents. That’s the ONLY answer.
No Democrats, no Republicans, no Incumbents. That’s the ONLY answer. Spencer
Didn’t Lennon write a song about this? Imagine there’s no…democrats…it’s easy if you try…
Fewer than 10% of Americans were part of the unity which won our independence from England. The majority were naysayers, fence straddlers, and cowards.
You have to realize that a bunch of people who live in America don’t consider themselves to be Americans. They flatter themselves as enlightened citizens of the world. Patriots are yokels, and they feel a visceral sympathy and alignment with any enemies of Americanism.
From Stalin to Bin Laden, there has always been a Fifth Column of sedition in the press, academia, entertainment and arts. They want Bin Laden to win victories against any political group which the voters chose over themselves, as long as it stops short of Bin Laden attacking them. They don’t give a rat’s rear about the victims of the Sept 11 hijackers, the USS Cole bombers, those murdered in our embassies, our soldiers, police or firefighters.
Out, durned italics, out!
Someone’s been reading Dilbert.
We shouldn’t have to endure Lee’s defamation of everyone who disagrees with him. It isn’t civility when he assumes that everyone who is not of his persuasion wishes the worst for the US republic. Lee, this total disrespect for others is no way to conduct public discourse. You should be ashamed of yourself.
And since you claim to be doing “God’s work,” (which is something you should not be claiming, period), you should know that many Christians were divided over the legitimacy of the American revolution. John Wesley was against it. It was not an easy time for anyone in American society. Not all who disagreed were traitors and cowards or Benedict Arnolds, and to characterize others as such on a general basis is ridiculous and self-defeating.
And how did I get sucked in to responding to Lee?
I didn’t say all who disagree with fighting our enemies were or are cowards or traitors. Most are just lazy, not paying attention until a bomb hits their town, and in denial that they might be inconvenienced and have to give up some material pleasures of the peace and prosperity which our freedom has brought us, and which is the envy of some many others.
The so-called “approval ratings” of the war effort in Iraq are higher than they were for Lincoln or Washington.
Herb, you have an innate need to stand up to injustice, venom, and hate.
It takes hold of me as well.
“From the largest to the smallest, happiness and usefulness are largely found in the same souls, and the joy of life is won in it’s deepest and truest sense only by those who have not shirked life’s burdens.”
Syracuse, NY Sept 7, 1903
Q: How many scientific opinion surveys were done during the American Revolution or the Civil War?
Lee, wrong again.
Part of Lee’s deranged rant:They want Bin Laden to win victories against any political group which the voters chose over themselves, as long as it stops short of Bin Laden attacking them.
This makes no sense– even on the face of it.
The basis of terrorism as a tactic is that everyone is terrorized because no one is exempt. Everyone is a potential target.
The Bush Administration has skillfully cultivated and used the low-grade fear that Americans feel– no matter where they live.
Because terrorism threatens every individual there can not be groups or locales viewed as sacrificial lambs.
This is simple logic. Amazing how a person who claims to be an expert economist and professional engineer fails to understand basic logic.
Personally I think Lee is drunk or on drugs. His various rants on this thread make no sense.
Our first duty is to stand together against bin Ladenism.
by Christopher Hitchens
Most are just lazy? That is not what you said in your first post. You said:
Regardless, suffice it to say that dissent is not necessarily laziness, nor are all those who are convinced of it necessarily cowards. Far from it. It often takes courage to run contrary to the status quo; to think through issues, and to take unpopular positions, if need be. Not all loyalists during the American revolution were lazy or cowards. Some were so because of their conscience. The issues were complicated. On others like William Franklin, I am not sure of motivation, but the man certainly paid a price for his convictions.
As to the subject at hand, the following speech by Qadhafi should make plain to us why the “war on terror” cannot be won by bombs and bullets alone. Diplomacy and dissemination of truth is hard work, and often requires a lot of courage.
The ABC drama Path to 9-11 aired last night and was an extremely accurate depiction of how Al Qaeda was left to strengthen and plan during the 90’s. To many watching the show, it must have been a surprise to find out how much Americans and Jews were hated even before the Iraq regime was removed. Tenet was repeatedly handcuffed by Madeline Notsobright who spent all of her time worrying about what other nations would “feel” about us if we did the right thing. Shots at Bin Laden were passed up while the suits dilly dallyed in the White House worried about poll ratings. Whenever the decisions were made to launch missiles, it was either too late or the wrong move. But we did get the aspirin factory. Part 2 is on tonight. In short, partly due to the incompetence of weaklings running national security, and partly due to systemic barriers that the Carter/Church gang had installed, our security was very weak. The leaders we have now, thank God, recognize that we are battling monsters, not humans who can be negotiated with.
A history lesson for those of you who are unfamiliar with the American Revolution and the Civil War:
* The Daughters of the American Revolution have found from membership applications that only 10% of those in the colonies fought in or participated in support of the American revolutionaries.
* Abe Lincoln could not win re-election in 1864, even with the South not voting, until a third party candidate split the vote and gave Abe more than 33%. There were draft riots in New York and other big cities. Hundreds of blacks were lynched by anti-war mobs.
Last night’s program on the hijackers had 20 minutes edited out after Bill Clinton’s attorneys threatened to sue. The illiberals sure don’t like free speech, especially when it uses real news clips of Democrats lying to the people, juxtaposed with the backroom betrayal documented in the 9/11 Commission report.
So much for their love of free speech and freedom of the press.
And Herb, didn’t your quoting Quadaffi make you stop and think about how warped your views are?
I watched about 30 minutes of ABC’s Path to 9-11. The disclaimer at the beginning essentially said that “stuff was made up”. But which parts? Since I wasn’t sure what was accurate (if anything) and what wasn’t I quickly lost interest. Given the fact stuff was made up, and ABC/Disney does not dispute that, the whole thing is worthless as a source for any arguments about the failures of 9-11.
But of course that doesn’t stop Dave from claiming it’s an “extremely accurate depiction of how Al Qaeda was left to strengthen and plan during the 90’s”. Really Dave, how do you know? Disney admitted that stuff was made up. Can we put this whole “liberal media” balderdash to rest once and for all.
If you haven’t been keeping up with current events enough to know which parts are 100% accurate and which even more damaging facts were omitted or edited out, you probably shouldn’t let the Iraq war be an issue for you.
if you haven’t been keeping up with current events enough to know which parts are 100% accurate
This is exactly what the propagandists who made this film are counting on. They’re counting on the fact that most people don’t have the time or inclination to immerse themselves in the intricacies of politics and foreign terrorism.
“Path is 9/11” is a brilliant propaganda strike at the truth. It’s a bid to re-write history and condition Americans not to blame the Bush Administration. Two former FBI agents resigned because of the inaccuracies.
Shamefully, ABC is an accomplice. Every affiliate that broadcast this atrocity should have its broadcast license revoked.
re: freedom of speech
Lee, I’ll bet that you were foaming at the mouth when the docudrama about the Reagans was aired.
“Path to 9/11” is much worse.
* The Daughters of the American Revolution have found from membership applications that only 10% of those in the colonies fought in or participated in support of the American revolutionaries.
No kidding, Lee? This is a great sound bite until you actually stop to examine it.
How did the DAR extrapolate from modern day membership applications the exact percentage of American colonists who were revolutionaries? Does the DAR make this claim or this claim made by another party– probably a partisan wingnut blogger who’s trying to support failed Bush policies in Iraq?
Now on to my real objection to this factoid: It’s irrelevant. Revolutions have always been led and fought by a small group of revolutionaries.
The occupation of Iraq is not an American revolution. It started as an American invasion of a foreign country that did not present an imminent threat to the U.S.
One of Bush’s crimes is stupidity. He lied and misled the American people about he reasons for going to war. Now, finally, the real reason is coming out: Bush, convinced by the neo-cons, thought that “remaking the Middle East” would “drain the swamp” that created fertile ground for Muslim fundamentalism that spawns terrorism.
Had Bush leveled with the people whom he expected to support the war their with blood, money and lives then he would have said this:
“Iraq is no imminent threat to us. Iraq presents the best place for us to invade, set up bases and threaten other countries into adopting democracy.”
“Iraq is just the first stage of a plan to spread democracy by aggession against the country of the soon-to-be free peoples. We’ll kill these peoples’ children and relatives; imprison “suspects” by the hundreds with little or no evidence and absolutely no “due process”; torture the ones that we chose; demolish the infrastructure; and expect them to grasp the fine points of democratic elections with absolutely no tradition or experience in self-rule.”
“We’ll pour massive numbers of troops and dollars into each country for decades in this attempt at nation building. Our troops will die by the tens of thousands fighting people who long before ceased thinking of us as liberators and believe us to be foreign occupiers.”
But, Bush and Rove knew that telling the truth to the American people wouldn’t sell.
Instead they relied on lies, fearmongering and fraud. They probably said to each other “Well, once we’re in there we’ll make the case that we can’t leave because withdrawal would mean admitting defeat which Americans can’t tolerate. We’ll accuse advocates of withdrawal of being irresponsible traitors and cowards.
And, so we’ve come to this point. Many Americans are slowly waking up to the fact that they’ve been conned by the Bush Administration. They’re understanding that we’ve been put in a no-win situation by Bush and the neo-cons.
Other Americans are in denial. We see them post here daily. One is the editorial page editor of The State.
They are the REAL dead-enders.
Your world is really upside down.
That is why others have to lead, and you have to be taken care of by them.
How did the DAR extrapolate from modern day membership applications the exact percentage of American colonists who were revolutionaries?
By tracing back the ancestors of all who have applied for membership to the 3,000,000 people who were living in the colonies during the American Revolution.
You can contact them for the details. I got it when I applied for my daughters. My family came to Virginia in 1621.
If you count journalists, contractors and others, along with American soldires, there have probably been more Americans killed in Iraq than died on 9-11. The basic math on this war simply does not support our continued presense there. In effect we’re doing the terrorists job for them. They want to kill Americans, spread fear and compromise our values. Thanks to the Decider, we’re accomplishing Al-Qaeda’s mission. (Maybe that’s what he had in mind on the Deck of the Lincoln).
Probably the best way to kill Osama is to send him the posts from Dave, Lee, Lex and Brad concerning the Iraq situation. He’d laugh himself to death at how naive and stupid they are. He would understand how ironic it is that Americans are dying as a result of a continued occupation of a nation caught up in a civil war. Meanwhile, his own behind and most of his followers are safely tucked away in a cozy hideout somewhere in Al-Qaeda friendly Pakistan.
It’s time for the 60% of Americans who finally get it to take control this November and elect Democrats to congress. That would send a strong message to the Decider that it’s time to start actually fighting terrorists by withdrawing from a hostile region that harbors no danger to the U.S.
Why don’t you socialists count the lives saved by our soldiers, police and intel services since 9/11 by preventing more attacks?
You can contact them for the details. I got it when I applied for my daughters. My family came to Virginia in 1621.
Posted by: Lee | Sep 11, 2006 6:39:34 AM
Oh, are you descendant of the Powhatans or a member of the original 20 slaves sold to the Virginia colony? If it’s the latter, congratulations on the new information that has recently shed light on your forebears.
Why don’t you socialists count the lives saved by our soldiers, police and intel services since 9/11 by preventing more attacks?
Proof? Evidence? Link?
Lemme guess. It’s all secret. Just like that great info on Iraqi WMD was secret before the invasion.
“Just trust us.” Not a chance.
Note to Lee: reading comprehension improves when you read the entire post.
Dept of Justice press release of Sept 5, 2006
* Since the Sept. 11 attacks, and as of Aug. 31, 2006, 288 defendants have been convicted or have pleaded guilty in terrorism or terrorism-related cases arising from investigations conducted primarily after Sept. 11, 2001.
* In addition to these convictions, there are approximately 168 other defendants who have been charged since Sept. 11, 2001, in connection with terrorism or terrorism-related investigations. Those cases are either still pending in federal courts, have not resulted in criminal convictions, or involve defendants who are fugitives or are awaiting extradition.
Notable cases include:
* Richard Reid (District of Massachusetts) – British national Richard Reid was sentenced to life in prison following his guilty plea in Jan. 2003 on charges of attempting to ignite a shoe bomb while on an airplane from Paris to Miami.
* John Walker Lindh (Eastern District of Virginia) – Lindh pleaded guilty in July 2002 to one count of supplying services to the Taliban and a charge that he carried weapons while fighting on the Taliban’s front lines in Afghanistan against the Northern Alliance. Lindh was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
* Lackawanna Six: Shafal Mosed, Yahya Goba, Sahim Alwan, Mukhtar Al-Bakri, Yasein Taher, Elbaneh Jaber (Western District of New York) – Six defendants from the Lackawanna, N.Y. area pleaded guilty to charges of providing material support to al Qaeda, based on their attendance at an al Qaeda terrorist training camp. The defendants were sentenced to terms ranging from seven years to 10 years in prison.
* Iyman Faris (Eastern District of Virginia) – In Oct. 2003, Iyman Faris was sentenced to 20 years in prison for providing material support and resources to al Qaeda and conspiracy for providing the terrorist organization with information about possible U.S. targets for attack. Faris pleaded guilty in May 2003, and was sentenced to 20 years in prison on Oct. 28, 2003.
* Ahmed Omar Abu Ali (Eastern District of Virginia) – In Nov. 2005, a federal jury convicted Ali on all counts of an indictment charging him with terrorism offenses, including providing material support and resources to al Qaeda, conspiracy to assassinate the President of the United States, conspiracy to commit air piracy and conspiracy to destroy aircraft. Ali was sentenced to 30 years in prison.
* Ali Al-Timimi (Eastern District of Virginia) – Al-Timimi was convicted in April 2005 on all 10 charges brought against him in connection with the “Virginia Jihad” case. Al-Timimi, a spiritual leader at a mosque in Northern Virginia, encouraged other individuals at a meeting to go to Pakistan to receive military training from Lashkar-e-Taibi, a designated foreign terrorist organization, in order to fight U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Al-Timimi was sentenced to life in prison.
—- plus ————-
30,000 terrorists killed, 3,000 captured.
2,600 Muslims arrested crossing the Canadian and Mexican borders.
Lee, who was the third party candidate who split the Union vote in 1864? Jeff Davis? Back to school, dude.
Ah Lee, now in addition to everyting else, he is an official FFV. I love how the accomplishmentless are forced to rely on such things as the “accomplishments” of their “ancestors”. Who gives a S–T?
Lincoln only got 212 of 233 electoral votes and 55 percent of the popular vote in 1864, with just the North voting, and thousands rioting for him to surrender.
He only received 180 of 303 possible electoral votes and 40 percent of the popular vote in 1960 ( like Clinton ).
Lincoln only got 212 of 233 electoral votes and 55 percent of the popular vote in 1864, with just the North voting, and thousands rioting for him to negotiate a peace and let the South secede.
He only received 180 of 303 possible electoral votes and 40 percent of the popular vote in 1960 ( like Clinton ).
That’s why the approval polls on the war in Iraq are just propaganda.
The Civil War was fought based on the very real threat to the Union of dissolvment.
We invaded Iraq based on no imminent threat to this country.
In the case of the American Revolution, you might have a case IF the French had invaded the colonies to remove the yoke of British rule.
They didn’t and you don’t. Both your analogies are bogus.
RTH – Who cares whether Saddam was an imminent threat? The single solitary fact that he laughed and celebrated when 9-11 occurred is all the justification we ever needed. Now he is a jail skank, sitting like a caged gerbil waiting for some guard to bring him a food tray, until his OWN people put him down. Justice was done for sure. We just need lots more of it.
This administration said he was an imminent threat. You don’t care that thousands of Americans died resulting from this lie?
In one post, you claim Bush is a very upright man. In another, you don’t care if he lies or not and, basically, admit that he has.
So, I ask you, what sort of moral doppleganger is our president (in your mind)? What sort of justice could be used to prosecute a president such as you submit?
The president is now above the law or, at least, common decency? I don’t know about you, but when a man lies to me, I lose all respect for him. It is nigh impossible to gain it back.
Yes, that applied to Clinton, too.
Since Iraq trained airline hijackers at Salman Pak, they were more than an “imminent threat”.
Since Iraq trained airline hijackers at Salman Pak,
What airline hijackers? You and the rest of the mindless wingnuts push this justification repeatedly.
Now back it up with facts from non-partisan sources. What airplanes were hijacked by people trained at Salman Pak? Where? When? Where’s the proof that the hijackers were trained, equipped and directed by Saddam?
In any event, Bush didn’t ask Americans to fight, die and spend billions to take out Salman Park.
We had air superiority. Carpet bombing would had taken care of it.
Clinton chose not to bomb Salman Pak or any of the other training camps.
The WMD and terrorist camps that we have destroyed since 2001, the traitors claim never existed. That’s why our military made an effort to capture some of the camps and WMD along with records, videotype, and photos for intel purposes, leading to some terrorists.
Lefty Democrats couldn’t protect America when they were in power, because they understand it even when they see their mess cleaned up.
Questions for those who support the war in Iraq:
1. What specifically has to occur before we bring our troops home? DO NOT use weasel words. Be specific.
2. How many lives are you willing sacrifice in order to achieve the objectives you outlined in 1?
3. Would you be willing to risk your life to achieve the objectives specified in 1?
4. Would you be willing to risk the life of your child in order to achieve the objectives specified in 1?
5. Are the lives of the Iraqi people important in determining the answer to 1?
6. Is there any set of circumstances that would change your mind regarding your answer to 1?
7. Is there any sort of timeline involved in your answer to 1?
The key is number 1. That question is never answered, never. It’s always some sort of weasel wording. “Winning” is a typical weasel word used. Brad uses it often but NEVER defines it. (I thought we won the day Saddam was captured). Or, when the job is done. Or, when the Iraqi army can stand up so we can stand down.
The costs are too high to continue without some real answers. So far the weasels are the only ones winning.
Repeating the questions that Lee refuses to answer.
(1)Lee, what airline hijackers were trained at Salman Pak?
Back it up with facts from non-partisan sources.
(2)What airplanes were hijacked by people trained at Salman Pak?
(5)Where’s the proof that the hijackers were trained, equipped and directed by Saddam?
Lee, do you know how stupid blaming Clinton makes you wingnuts look? Evidently not. It’s the Every Answer to any criticism Dear Leader.
WHO are the “traitors” that you’re referring to? Americans who refuse to believe Bush’s lies are not ipso facto, traitors despite what Jim Beam tells you.
You’re asking us to believe that the Bush Administration actually has proof that Saddam operated terrorist training camps AND had functional WMD but, for some inexplicable reason, won’t tell us?
Please get serious.
BTW, Zarqawi operated outside of Saddam’s control.
In the months leading up to the invasion Bush could easily have destroyed Salman Pak AND had two opportunities to kill Zarqawi. Maybe you should research why Dear Leader did neither.
RTH, blaming Clinton is about all the right-wingers have left. The war in Iraq is a catastrophe. They can’t even define what victory is or how it makes us safer. Afghanistan is slipping away. No Osama. Pakistan is now a safe haven for Al-Qaeda. Iran is working furiously to develop Nukes. The entire world hates us. Korea is working furiously to develop more nukes. Terrorist attacks are occurring in record numbers around the world. Airline travel is a nightmare. There guy has been in charge for 6 years. But thankfully, the right can always, somehow, someway blame Bill Clinton for all of the above. No matter how convuluted the logic. No matter how flimsy the evidence. No matter how far-fetched it is they always have their old reliable standby Clinton-out as a sort of security blanket. It might actually be fun to see how they can make the next Bush disaster into the fault of Clinton except for one problem: The ramifications of Bush’s failures are just too great. Too bad this isn’t some sort of board game.
On a cultural perspective, we see the once extremely popular Dixie Chicks losing their fan following
Posted by: Dave | Sep 10, 2006 4:58:27 AM
Dave? Paging Dave. Somehow this tidbit got by me (in that haphazardly organized and expressed paragraph of yours).
The Dixie Chicks’ latest album release is one of their biggest selling albums. The refusal by country stations to play them (more for supposed business reasons rather than any political ones)has not hurt their careers at all.
Check the album sales stats. It’s all there. In a weird sort of way, they can thank the Bush Administration for that.
Taking the Long Way gets my nomination for Album of the Year. It’s miles beyond the terrible dreck they released before and filled with beautiful, unfleetingly honest expression on every tune.
I know. My friends gape when I make that argument, too. Until they give the album a listen… I know many conservatives would rather take the long way to sheaol than do that.
Taking the Long Way is every bit as true, hard hitting and rebelliously relevant as anything Black Flag, Public Enemy, the Clash or Bob Dyan has ever released.
Are there really people still so ignorant about Iraq’s hijacker and terrorist training camps, and all the WMD we captured?
Did they quit following the news back before the 9/11 Commission itemized all this evidence of Saddam’s “imminent danger” to America?
How can they have access to post their delusions on the Internet, yet be unable to read the detailed reports of Salman Pak, Al Matar, the 112 Scud missiles loaded with nerve gas, the bank records of payments to Al Qaeda operatives in Europe, etc?
One defining characteristic of sedition and treason is the avoidance of the truth and the use of lies against our military efforts.
DELUSION of the day: “Zarquawi operated outside of Saddam’s control.”
Saddam Hussein, and his two sadistic sons, ran a reign of terror whose police tortured and murdered 200,000 Iraqis. No one ran a rickshaw outside of their control, much less a foreign terrorist operation.
Cap A – you posted — This administration said he was an imminent threat. You don’t care that thousands of Americans died resulting from this lie?
Can we PLEASE stick to the facts.
Here are Bush’s exact words from his 03 State of the Union. Now who is lying?
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
The little-known U.S. Department of Thought Suggestion has embedded a multitude of messages into popular first-run movies and DVDs. These hightech messages, lasting no more than a fraction of a second each, promote such White House-originated agendas as “Support Our Troops,” “Love Our President,” “Worship Regularly,” “Stay Married,” “Love the Opposite Gender Only,” “Vote Republican,” and “Stem Cell Research is Bad.”
So Dave, that’s the only thing anybody in the Bush White House ever said about whether Iraq was a threat to the United States?
“”There’s no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States.”
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
“We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.”
• President Bush, 7/17/03
Iraq was “the most dangerous threat of our time.”
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
“Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat…He was a threat. He’s not a threat now.”
• President Bush, 7/2/03
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03
“We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended.”
• President Bush 4/24/03
“The threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction will be removed.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
“It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended.”
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”
• President Bush, 3/19/03
“The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations.”
• President Bush, 3/16/03
“This is about imminent threat.”
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is “a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies.”
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
Iraq poses “terrible threats to the civilized world.”
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
Iraq “threatens the United States of America.”
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03
I just finished watching the Bridge on the River Kwai. Great film. And it dawned on me that in the movie there is a great analogy to our current situation in Iraq. The Japanese Colonel (Saito) needed a bridge built. His approach was to force all the British prisoners to perform manual labor. His British counterpart (Nicholson) refused to allow officers to perform manual labor. A standoff ensued. In the end, with no possibility of getting the bridge built on time, the beleaguered Colonel Saito capitulated. In effect the British won the battle.
Here’s the analogy to Iraq. At the end of the day Nicholson won the battle of wills. But the Japanese got their bridge! So in effect Colonel Saito won by losing. Same for Iraq. If we pull out we lose the war. But in the end our security is ultimately enhanced. As Saito learned, sometimes the pragmatic approach is to win by losing.
Of course if we carry this analogy further, Saito should have never attempted to make the British officers work in the first place. And Bush should have never invaded Iraq.
We don’t need to have a trial and prove to a jury that any nation aided and abetted a particular hijacking.
Anyone, anywhere who trained any hijacker has no reason to do so other than to create terror.
Saddam had direct control of his hijacker training camps. His son, Qusay, ran Salman Pak, where foreign hijackers were trained for six months in how to hijack airpliners with small knives and bare hands.
Colonel Muhammed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani of the Iraqi spy service M8, met with Mohammed Atta in Prague. This was reported to the US by the Czech prime minister and his top police.
Two high-ranking Iraqi intelligence officers who defected to Turkey in October 2001 were brought to England, where they detailed the involvement of Iraq in training hijackers and supplying some of them with poison gas and anthrax.
MR, thanks for the assist in responding to Dave’s feigned (?) ignorance. He knows, or should know, as well as any of us that the Bush Administration has had a lot more, explicitly and implicitly, to say about WMDs in Iraq.
He must’ve spent all of his peanuts on that 63″ overcompensation with little left to afford a fact-checker.
Jeez, no wonder things are going so badly in Iraq. We’ve got an administration that takes us to war based on “secret intel” and then, somehow, neglects to announce that the “secret intel” has been confirmed and the war is justified.
The administration may be incompetent (Rumsfeld) and ideologically delusional (various neo-cons like Feith and Cheney) but they’re anything but politically stupid.
If they could plausibly make the case that any of the so-called evidence posted by Lee is valid then they certainly would have.
Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind
By Jim Miklaszewski
Updated: 6:14 p.m. CT March 2, 2004
[..]NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.
In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement
The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.
‘People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of pre-emption against terrorists.’
— Roger Cressey
“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.
Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.
The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.
CIA report finds no Zarqawi-Saddam link
WASHINGTON – A CIA report has found no conclusive evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein harbored Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which the Bush administration asserted before the invasion of Iraq.
“There’s no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi,” a U.S. official said on Tuesday about the CIA findings.
But the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, stressed that the report, which was a mix of new information and a look at some older information, did not make any final judgments or come to any definitive conclusions.
“To suggest the case is closed on this would not be correct,” the official said in confirming an ABC News story about the CIA report that the network said was delivered to the White House last week.
ABC quoted an unnamed senior U.S. official as saying that the CIA document raises “serious questions” about Bush administration assertions that Zarqawi found sanctuary in pre-war Baghdad.
“The official says there is no clear cut evidence that Saddam Hussein even knew Zarqawi was in Baghdad,” ABC reported.
Medical trip doubted
The CIA report concludes Zarqawi was in and out of Baghdad, but cast doubt on reports that Zarqawi had been given official approval for medical treatment there as President Bush said this summer, ABC said.
Wikipedia’s Zarqawi entry:
A CIA report in late 2004 concluded that it had no evidence Saddam’s government was involved in, or aware of, his Baghdad medical treatment, and that “There’s no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi.”  One U.S. official summarized the report: “The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything.” [..] However, one of the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents that the Bush Administration has been releasing to the public indicates that Saddam had actually made the search for Zarqawi a “top priority” of his security forces, but that they were unsuccessful in locating him. 
In June, 2006, the Weekly Standard published an article by Thomas Joscelyn citing the claim by Dr. Muhammad al-Masari that Saddam’s government actively aided Zarqawi prior to the invasion of Iraq, and that “Iraqi army commanders were ordered to become practicing Muslims and to adopt the language and spirit of the jihadis.” Joscelyn asserts:
Just as Saddam ordered, many of Iraq’s senior military and intelligence personnel joined or aided Zarqawi’s jihad. […]
Whether this actually strengthens the case that Saddam collaborated with al-Qaeda is unclear. Former regime luminaries could easily have their own reasons for working with Zarqawi, not necessarily “Saddam’s orders.” Al-Masari is a Saudi exile who’s lived in London since 1994. His claims about Saddam’s policies are contrary to the intelligence community’s consensus, and the reliability of his sources is unknown to the public. Joscelyn’s source, Abdel Bari Atwan, admits that al-Masari’s claims are “disputed by other commentators” and offers no reason that al-Masari should be believed and not these “other commentators.”  Reports of cooperation between Saddam and al-Qaeda aren’t new, but have been assessed by intelligence professionals as being “of varying reliability and contradictory.”  Salon.com:
Former CIA counterterrorism chief [Vincent] Cannistraro explains that hundreds, if not thousands, of raw reports from first-, second- and third-hand sources flood into the CIA offices around the world every day. But these are of little or no use until they can be analyzed. “The problem with raw intelligence is you can cherry-pick it,” he says. “It’s like having the Bible in your hand; you can pick and choose individual passages to prove almost any point.” No one from the Bush administration has indicated, even on background, that al-Masari’s claims represent evidence strong enough to affect the intelligence community’s consensus that there there does not appear to have been a “collaborative relationship” between al-Qaeda and Saddam. 
The 2006 Senate Report on Prewar Intelligence concluded that Zarqawi was not a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda: “Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.”
Claiming that any report issued by the Republican-controlled Senate Intel Committee is biased for the Demorats doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
Lee, Qadhafi has become a spokesman, or apologist for Islam. The only way to meet ideology is, not with bombs, but with ideas–attitudes–thoughts.
Qadhafi says the Bible was corrupted.
Why? On what evidence? Show me the first and second century manuscripts that give evidence?
Qadhafi says that a forgery from the Middle Ages is the true Gospel of Jesus.
Only if you want to believe lies.
I guess you can meet ideology with bombs, if you just nuke them all. Except that none of us can live on this planet after that. I think it is far better to meet ideology with the knowledge and experience of a God who does not demand submission, but lovingly calls us to Himself, (the old fashioned word “woos” is not a bad one here) and to see life through His loving eyes. It makes a big difference who, or what, your God is. Ultimately human worth and dignity depend upon it.
You see Lee, too many people have never had a chance to hear the truth. And you just seem to want to bomb them to smithereeens. Methinks you almost live in as much fear as do those who constantly fear the spirits and the jinn.
If that is what you call “warped”, then so be it. Christians have been called worse.
The anti-American crowd is so eager to accept the “conclusions” of anyone else that Saddam was innocent of aiding and abetting the terrorists.
The “conclusions” they cite were written by a sub-group of committee staffers to Jamie Gorelick, who had blocked the FBI from receiving information about the hijackers from US Army intelligence. Gorelick was also part of the team at DOJ that made the decision to not accept the extradition of Bin Laden.
Their concluders, like themselves, simply refuse to discuss the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of Iraq’s LINKS to the Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, because they are unable to explain it away.
Democrats have been waging a propaganda war of lies to cover up their failures to stop the terrorists. Part of that effort includes the constant repetition of lies from people who sound authorative, talking about fabrications as if they were facts. The intention is to create a noise of false impressions and confusion to drown out the mountain of evidence that Saddam trained hijackers and other terrorists in Iraq, just as Bin Laden did in Afghanistan.
Herb, why are you blathering to me about some ignorant Muslim slander of Christianity? Do you think our government should try to reason with such idiots?
Their crazy perversions of religion are irrelevant, except when they become part of a political ideology of hate. The USSR worked for decades to pervert some Muslim clerics into apologists for communist terror cells against Jews and America. It worked, and we have been fighting them since the 1970s.
Some people didn’t figure it out until the 1990s.
Others didn’t figure it out until Sept 11, 2001.
Others will never figure it out.
For any reasonable person who continues to support the Iraq quagmire, read the utter nonsense that Lee has been posting. He represents your side in this ongoing debate about Iraq. I think this speaks volumes about how bankrupt the stay the course position has become.
Why don’t you try to refute the facts about Saddam Hussein running hijacker training camps ? Don’t cite the “conclusion” of some partisan Democrat staffer. Discuss the photos, videotapes, Boeing 707 that was at the camp, the trains and busses.
Explain how every time Mohammed Atta flew to Europe and met with an Iraqi, his Florida bank account increased by $50,000.
Do you folks also deny that Bin Laden was running terrorist training camps at Al Matar, Afghanistan?
Iraqi mural of plane crashing into a skyscraper
Yes and no, Lee. The government is obviously not responsible for the spread of religious knowledge, but at the same time, it can do a lot in general towards the dessimination of ideas. Of course this is a harder course of action. It requires commitment, it requires culturally sensitive use of media, and many other things. So it is easier just to blow everybody up, since they are not like we are, and our culture is superior, right?
Your characterization of the Muslim world in general as “such idiots” is symptomatic of your cowboy approach to foreign policy. Instead of making the effort to understand the situation, you seem to want to go ahead and shoot up the saloon. The problem is picking up the pieces after it’s over.
The Christian population of Iraq was free to meet for worship under Saddam Hussein. Now, over half of the 700,000 Christians have had to flee the country, and Syria has taken them in. Five Baghdad churches have been bombed. It is obvious to Christians in Iraq, whether Protestant, Cathoic, or Orthodox (a church that goes back to the first century), that there is no future for them there, and they are fleeing to Syria, which is the only country where they can find refuge. These are bank managers, engineers, pharmacists, scientists, you name it. They are needed in their country, but they have to flee the chaos we have created there.
You know, Lee, there is more to foreign policy decisions than just defending your ideology. There are people involved. And even our own people are not served by our making more enemies.
“mewling, puking infants”
We need unity, not denial.
Yeah, Lex, basically the article says, yeah, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, the “left” said they didn’t, they were right, and you were wrong, but your willingness to send others into combat based on claims that were easily proven false makes you brave, rather than the bedwetting crybabies one would think you are by looking at you.
Again, a willingess to send others into danger is not personal courage. The fact that you are willing to send our soldiers into danger to provide yourself with an illusion of total security from all danger doesn’t make you brave, it makes you a coward.
Excellent News on the Lieberman race in CT. From latest Survey USA poll:
7% Schlesinger (R)
38% Lamont (D)
51% Lieberman (I)
With Lieberman up this far, he is a shoo-in. The Dems will not get their extremist into the Senate. Brad, here is one win coming up for the centrists.
Sorry, Dave, Zogby’s poll dated 9/11 has Lamont within the margin of error. Trend lines show Holy Joe tanking and Lamont rising.
Margin of error, +/- 4.3%
Another poll by “Amer. Res.” and dated 8/17-21 has Lieberman’s “lead” down to two points, probably within the margin of error but the MO wasn’t cited:
The Quinnipiac poll which your cited was done 8/10-14.
D’ya think Dear Leader will give Joe another kissy if he holds on?
Herb, I did not “characterize the Muslim world as idiots”, but I could characterize your fabrication as an admission of your not having anything to say.
Polls just show how many people are not informed, or misinformed by seditious propaganda, or are actively hoping for America to fail to defeat its enemies.
The war is right and necessary, in spite of the ignorance and treason of a few.
RTH – If Lamont gets too close, it will be Diebold time. hahahahhahahahahahah But seriously, Lieberman will win much to the dismay of the anti-Semites who are pouring money into Lamonts campaign.
It could be worse. They could be sending the money to Bin Laden directly.
I’m sure Bin Laden is well funded from the Afghan poppy fields thanks to our failure to secure the country and help them build a real economy.
Get up to speed, Mr. Hurl. The Democrat press and the prosecutor, Fitzgeral, knew all along that the source for Valerie Plame’s employment as a CIA analyst was a State Department honcho.
They were lying to you all this time, and you bought it, hook, line and sinker.
I think it’s hillareous that the RNC poured huge amounts of money into the Lincoln Chafee campaign even though he’s fairly liberal. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.
Rasmussen also has Lamont/Lieberman within 2 points.
I’m not sure why, but the political tide does seem to be shifting just a bit in favor of the GOP. They should hold onto the senate, perhaps losing a net of 3 seats. It will be very close in the house. Perhaps one side or the other will win by a seat or 2. I sense an all-nighter come November 7.
Now finish coming clean and admit that you like McCain and Lindsey Graham because they are selling out the core that elected them.
The Democrat press and the prosecutor, Fitzgeral, knew all along that the source for Valerie Plame’s employment as a CIA analyst was a State Department honcho.
Off your meds again, Lee?
Looks as if RTH is uninformed as usual!
Novak: Real story behind Armitage’s role
September 13, 2006
BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, the former deputy secretary of state’s interviews obscured what he really did. I want to set the record straight based on firsthand knowledge.
First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he ‘‘thought’’ might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson.
Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column.
An accurate depiction of what Armitage actually said deepens the irony of him being my source. He was a foremost internal skeptic of the administration’s war policy, and I long had opposed military intervention in Iraq. Zealous foes of George W. Bush transformed me improbably into the president’s lapdog. But they cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he and not Karl Rove was the leaker was devastating news for the left……
Mrs. Wilson’s name appeared in my column July 14, 2003, but it was not until Oct. 1 that I heard about it from Armitage. Washington lobbyist Kenneth Duberstein, Armitage’s close friend and political adviser, called me to say the deputy secretary feared he had ‘‘inadvertently’’ (the word Armitage used in last week’s interviews) disclosed Mrs. Wilson’s identity to me in July and was considering resignation. (Duberstein’s phone call was disclosed in the Isikoff-Corn book, which used Duberstein as a source. They reported Duberstein was responsible for arranging my unexpected interview with Armitage.)
Duberstein told me Armitage wanted to know whether he was my source. I did not reply because I was sure that Armitage knew he was the source. I believed he contacted me Oct. 1 because of news the weekend of Sept. 27-28 that the Justice Department was investigating the leak. I cannot credit Armitage’s current claim that he realized he was the source only when my Oct. 1 column revealed that the official who gave me the information was ‘‘no partisan gunslinger.’’
Armitage’s silence the next 2œ years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source. When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s request, that does not explain his silence three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald’s appointment on Dec. 30. Armitage’s tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive.
Bud, the majority liberal dingbats in Rhode Island will never ever ever elect a conservative Republican. So, as much as I cannot stand Chafee, because he does NOT vote for Iraq, for tax cuts, etc. BUT he does vote with the GOP on many other issues. When the final election tallies are in, and if Chafee wins, he will vote for the Senate majority leader. A democrat wont do that. So, as much as I cannot stomach Chafee, he can hold a seat that keeps the DEms from gaining chairmanships of all Senate committees. A Faustian choice.
The liberal dingbats in Rhode Island are wealthier and healthier than the neo-cons from South Carolina. (I thought I’d save Mary Rosh some time).
OK, I give up. Rove wasn’t the primary source.
He was just a confirming, secondary source in exposing the identity of a CIA operative.
Big difference, right?
No, he wasn’t, Hurl.
But Democrat reporters at the NY Times, Washington Post and Newsweek knew that Armitage was the source, and they covered it up in order to smear Rove and Cheney.
Bud, I would conjecture that neo-cons in SC are about just as wealthy and healthy as liberals in RI. The poor and non-healthy in SC are democrat minorities and dirt poor rednecks (most of whom dont even vote). So your theory is offbase.
RTH – ARe you still trying to claim that deskbound, typist/clerk, Valerie not-so-secret Plame Wilson was a CIA operative. If this blonde, (and she must have had a blonde moment when as a secret agent she put herself on the cover of Vanity Fair and how many secret agents use their REAL first name) is what we are using as operatives in the CIA, no wonder they couldn’t find Bin Laden. They cant find the end of their own noses.
WHRRRRRRRRR. Dave you’re spinning. Face it, liberal states perform better. It’s a proven fact.
Joseph Wilson exposed his wife when he made an illegal campaign contribution to the Gore 2000 campaign, and tried to cure it by splitting it into 2 donations, one from his wife. Her address and occupation are listed on the FEC website.
Reporters confirmed that she had also listed her occupation as a CIA analyst in several public web sites, and memberships to organizations.
Wilson and his media pals contrived the scandal as a diversion after his guest column in the New York Times was exposed as being riddled with falsehoods and omissions, by official reports which contained the opposite information from Wilson.
The elitist left has dropped Joe the Liar like a hot hunk of lead. His 15 minutes of fame are up unless the Senate prosecutes him for lying under oath.
Reality paging Dave…
— Was Mrs. Wilson’s CIA status classified information? In a Feb. 15, 2005, concurring opinion written in a case involving Judith Miller’s efforts to avoid the grand jury, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge David S. Tatel noted the following: “The special counsel refers to Plame [Mrs. Wilson] as ‘a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last five years.’ “
Joe and Valerie should have taken more care to protect her “secret agent identity”, by not listing her occupation on public forums and memberships, not posing for magazines, not making big campaign donations, and not writing political lies in the New York Times.
RTH – The management at the CIA, realizing that they had a dumb blonde on their hands, probably did do everything to conceal her employment. When you are out trying to recruit the best and the brightest, you want to hide your losers. Anyway, simply put, she was not “secret” either within or outside the CIA. And that is why Fitzgerald sloughed off that entire aspect of the case. If she were, Armitage would be indicted right now.
“The special counsel refers to Plame [Mrs. Wilson] as ‘a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last five years.’ ”
Let’s parse this sentence for ya, RTH.
“The special counsel refers to Plame”
Just because the special counsel “refers” to something doesn’t mean it’s true.
“as ‘a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal”
Not so. There is substantial evidence that the CIA made no serious effort at all to conceal her identity.
and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last five years.’ “
On the contrary. There is substantial evidence that Plame had NOT carried out covert work overseas within the last five years.’ ”
Bottom line is this: if there had been anything illegal about her non-outing don’t you think Fitzpatrick would have charged someone with something by now? (Libby doesn’t count here because he was only charged with technical offenses long after Plame was non-outed)
Fizzlemas was one of the worst abuses of our legal system. Fortunately, it’s all over, having fizzled far worse than anyone could have imagined. Now let’s give Libby a pardon.
Lex, I don’t think you understand what the word “evidence” means. “Evidence” refers to actual facts and information that you can perceive with your senses and from which you can reason to conclusions. Your invented “facts”, created from your imagination to support your desire to deny that Valerie Wilson wasn’t undercover do not constitute “evidence.”
Nobody who is claiming that Wilson wasn’t undercover can cite any document or other information indicating her CIA status dating from before her cover was illegally blown by Robert Novak. Look at you. You talk about “substantial evidence” without saying what any of it is. That’s because there isn’t any.
Remember, the fact that she existed wasn’t a secret. The fact that she was married to Joseph Wilson wasn’t a secret. The fact that she worked for Brewster Jennings wasn’t a secret. What was secret was that she worked for the CIA, and that Brewster Jennings was a front company for the CIA.
Neither you or anyone else can point to any indication of her CIA status dating before Novak blew her cover.
We can cite Plame’s own public information about her non-secret job title and place of employment, her staged photos at restaurants, her articles in Vanity Fair.
She misused her position to maneuver her husband in to a role where he could lie about the innocence of Saddam to a gullible press and Democrats grasping for anything to smear our war success.
Then, when Wilson’s colleagues contradicted him with PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that Saddam had sought uranium from Niger, and purchased an entire nuclear processing facility from Red China, the Wilsons and New York Times concocted a new story of Mrs. Wilson the Victim.
Guess the Iraqis haven’t gotten the DNC talking points yet:
Iraqi Official Testifies to Links Between Saddam and Al Qaeda
WASHINGTON — A deputy prime minister of Iraq yesterday offered a sharp contradiction of the conventional wisdom here that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al Qaeda had no connection before the 2003 war, flatly contradicting a recent report from the Senate’s intelligence committee.
In a speech in which he challenged the belief of war critics that Iraqis’ lives are now worse than under Saddam Hussein, Barham Salih said, “The alliance between the Baathists and jihadists which sustains Al Qaeda in Iraq is not new, contrary to what you may have been told.” He went on to say, “I know this at first hand. Some of my friends were murdered by jihadists, by Al Qaeda-affiliated operatives who had been sheltered and assisted by Saddam’s regime.”
A Kurdish politician who took his high school exams from inside a Baathist prison, Mr. Salih said he was the target of the alliance between jihadists, Baathists, and Al Qaeda in 2001, when a group known as Ansar al-Islam tried to assassinate him. In 2002, envoys of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, one of the two Kurdish parties sharing sovereignty over northern Iraq between the two Iraq wars, presented the CIA with evidence that the organization that tried to kill Mr. Salih had been in part funded and directed by Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard.
Those words directly contradict a recent report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that declassified a 2005 CIA assessment of Iraq’s pre-war ties to Al Qaeda and found that none existed. In an interview after the speech yesterday, Mr. Salih said he was unaware of the CIA assessment. But he added, “There were links between Ansar al-Islam and Al Qaeda. The information at time [in 2002] was quite different. Now, we could not prove this in a court of law, but this is intelligence.”……
The DNC Buzzer
When Zarqawi was wounded, he had had his men carry him all the way to Baghdad for for hospital treatment.
Hundreds of Al Qaeda members trained at Saddam’s highjacker camps on how to blow up trains, busses and airliners. We captured their photos and names in 2003 when we overran the camps.
Everytime Mohammed Atta met with Iraqis in Europe and returned to Florida, their joint bank accounts of the hijackers increased by $50,000.
“We can cite Plame’s own public information about her non-secret job title and place of employment, her staged photos at restaurants, her articles in Vanity Fair.”
Why don’t you, then? Anything identifying her as a CIA agent, dated before Novak’s column.
Let’s apply the common sense laugh test to whether Plame’s affiliation with the CIA was considered secret.
The CIA apparently thought so or they wouldn’t have formally requested the DOJ to investigate.
Administration officials said Tenet sent a memo to the Justice Department raising a series of questions about whether a leaker had broken federal law by disclosing the identity of an undercover officer. The CIA request was reported Friday night by MSNBC.com. Administration sources familiar with the matter said the Justice Department is determining whether a formal investigation is warranted.
An intelligence official said Tenet “doesn’t like leaks.”
So the CIA requested an investigation from DOJ. Bushbot Ashcroft rightfully recused himself and acting AG Comey appointed Fitzgerald, registered Republican, as special counsel.
If this was such a wild goose chase why didn’t Comey decline to appoint an SC?
Fitzgerald, a registered Republican, investigates and finds that, surprise, Scooter Libby is obstructing the investigation. Libby is indicted.
Why would Libby flush his career down the drain to obstruct a federal investigation? Well, when there are bigger fish up the food chain in danger I’m sure that a Presidential pardon sounds better than bringing down the administration a la Watergate.
RTH – You must be a real dreamer. LIbby’s frivolous yet vicious indictment was an attempt by Fitzgerald to salvage a totally useless and wasted investigation where millions in our tax money was wasted. This decent and honest guy was indicted over miscommunicating some obscure discussion he had with Tim Russert years ago. Let’s try that on you. 5 years ago, on 9-11, did you have hamburger or chicken for dinner? If you say burgers and your wife says chicken, you are indicted. How silly. The fact that Fitz KNEW who the real leaker was all along leads me to want him indicted. We aren’t the Kremlin here are we?
Dave, Dave, Dave. I see that you’re grabbing onto any piece of flotsam to keep from drowning.
My primary point in my last post was: government had numerous opportunities to snuff out the investigation.
The CIA believed that Plame’s connection with the agency was classified. The Bush DOJ might have overruled the investigation. And, lastly, a professional Republican prosecutor was appointed to investigate.
You don’t know how silly your rantings about Republican Fitzgerald’s supposed bias against the administration appears. In point of fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Fitzgerald wasn’t actually pulling punches.
But, of course, we should take the Internet rantings of wingnut bloggers over the professionals at the country’s primary spy agency where Plame was employed. We should assume, contrary to any rational reasoning, that the Bush DOJ wouldn’t kill the investigation if there were the slightest pretext.
Apparently, you would have us put on our tinfoil hats and believe that Fitzerald had a grudge against Libby simply because he applied hardnosed investigatory techniques to squeeze the truth out of these habitual liars.
RTh – Fitzgerald and Libby had knocked heads over some other issues previously. In addition, Comey, who appointed the spec prosecutor Fitzgerald, had direct confrontations with Libby over the phone surveillance program. Fitz will end up going before an ethics board explaining why when he knew NO CRIME was committed he prolonged the investigation so long. The woman who wrote the law, Victoria Toensig, was on C-Span this morning and clearly stated that Plame DID NOT meet the conditions of a covert agent, thus there never could have been a crime. Let’s indict Fitzgerald now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a Load of Armitage!
What did Patrick Fitzgerald know, and when did he know it?
BY VICTORIA TOENSING
Friday, September 15, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
Richard Armitage has finally emerged from the cover-my-backside closet, “apologizing” on CBS for keeping quiet for almost three years about being the original source for Robert Novak’s July 14, 2003, column stating that Joe Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA and had suggested him for a mission to Niger. He disingenuously blames his silence on Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald’s non-legally-based request–any witness is free to talk about his testimony–not to discuss the matter.
Put aside hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer funds squandered on the investigation, New York Times reporter Judith Miller’s 85 days in jail, the angst and legal fees of scores of witnesses, the White House held siege to a criminal investigation while fighting the war on terror, Karl Rove’s reputation maligned, and “Scooter” Libby’s resignation and indictment. By his silence, Mr. Armitage is responsible for one of the most factually distorted investigations in history.
There is a reason the old Watergate question–What did he know and when did he know it?–has become part of our investigative culture. It provides a paradigm for parsing a complicated factual scenario.
• Joseph Wilson. In July 2003, when he demanded an investigation of a White House cabal for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act by “outing” his wife, Mr. Wilson knew Ms. Plame did not meet the factual requirements for covert status under the act. She was neither covert at the time of publication nor had a covert foreign assignment within five years. He acknowledged so in his book: “My move back to Washington [in June 1997] coincided with the return to D.C. of a woman named Valerie Plame.” As the Senate negotiator for this 1982 act, I know a trip or two by Ms. Plame to a foreign country while assigned to Langley, where she worked in July 2003, is not considered a foreign assignment. I also know covert officers are not assigned to Langley…………..
Lexwolf – I personally met Colin Powell back when he was serving Bush 1 and had the utmost respect for him. The fact that he knew the real source all along and sat back and watched this unfold makes me sick. Needless to say, I have no respect for CP now. If anyone wonders why we run deficits all they need to do is look at this useless mess. Then I find that Fitz. never got testimony from Wilson or Plame. Or David Korn. What a certified idiot of a prosecutor. Inspector Clousseau would have done better, or Curly, Larry, or MO for that matter.
Fitzgeral knew enough to know that testimony from Plame, Wilson or Corn would end his case, or set them up for perjury charges.
Sometimes it’s a good idea to step back and reflect on our beliefs to see if our long-standing view of the world as it relates to politics is really in keeping with the actual facts. Now is such a time for me. Here are some questions I’ll revisit over the next few days:
1. Is the American economy healthy?
2. Is American foreign policy effective in preventing terrorist activity?
3. Does American trade policy strike the proper balance between lower product costs and protecting American jobs?
4. Are we doing enough to protect the environment? Or too much (at the expense of jobs)?
5. Is America living up to the founding father’s ideals of promoting liberty and justice for all?
6. Is America a good citizen among the nations of the world?
7. Are we as a nation doing a good job of promoting the welfare of our citizens in a morally decent manner.
Regardless of your political beliefs, take a step back and reflect on these questions. You may be surprised at the answers.
Let’s start with the health of the American economy. The numbers are, for the most, part OK. Not great, not terrible. Anybody who paints a picture of our economy as some sort of awe-inspiring, juggernaut of prosperity is cherry picking the facts. On the other hand, talk of impending economic collapse is way off the mark. The unemployment rate is low by historical standards. And both inflation and interest rates are reasonably good. The inflation number seems to be just on the cusp of becoming a problem, but so far it’s remained tame.
But there is much to be concerned with. The worst problem is the stagnant or even declining real-wages for the average American worker. This is the result of the huge losses in industrial jobs that are not fully offset by high paying jobs in the high tech sector.
For those of you on the right this one fact alone goes a long way in explaining why Americans consistently say the health of the economy is not good. Many of the talk show folks are confused at the poll numbers on this issue. It’s not some propaganda ploy by the “liberal media”, the stagnant wage situation is a real issue for many Americans.
There are other issues involving health care and poverty rates that work against the overall economy grade. But I won’t elaborate here.
Overall, I’ll give the health of the American economy a B-. A ‘B’ for low unemployment and inflaion. But the minus is for problems in the equitable distribution of the nation’s wealth. This is down from the solid ‘A’ during the last years of the Clinton Administration but still not too bad.
You know the Democrats have recognized that the economy is very good, when they change the subject to “inequality of wealth” – some people are doing better than others.
GDP is growing at 4.7% annually, and has been over 4% since 2004. Even with Bush inheriting the 3rd Clinton recession in 2001, and the terrorist attacks in 2001, the economy overall will still be far better from 2001-2008 than it was under Clinton’s tax orgy.
Bud, Clinton’s economy was a real failure until the GOP took the Congress in 94. Then, with federal spending controlled and welfare harnessed, and tax increases averted, the US economy took off. Clinton doesnt deserve much credit for it in general. At best, he stayed out of the way. If he had had his way, health care would have been socialized and we would now have another 1 million or more medical employees on the federal dole.
The economy would be even better if it were not being sabotaged by illegal Mexican labor, trade favors to Red China, and illegal tech workers from India and Asia here, and outsourcing of work overseas.
All those things were political favors to big campaign donors, and all could be reversed by some honest politicians being elected.
Economists predict that by 2009, just 3 years from now, the economy of Chindia – China and INdia combined, will be larger than the US. More and more capital formation will be centered there. The only hope for the US will be if we retain our “brain” edge and continue to lead in the development and ownership of high technology. Importing millions of uneducated and illiterate immigrants while blocking the world’s smartest people from entering America is a huge mistake that future generations will pay for dearly in quality of life and material ways.
Since no one has rebutted the main points I made regarding the health of the U.S. economy let’s move on to item 2: Is American foreign policy effective in preventing terrorist activity?
This issue is more difficult to quantify than the economy questions. There are three major points to consider. First, there has not been a major terrorist attack on the U.S. since 9-11. I would regard the antrax attacks a terrorist attack, the Malvo/Muhammad shooting spree also. And a few minor attacks by various kooks, a recent example concerned a self-proclaimed fundamentalist Christian attacking what he thought to be an abortion clinic would also qualify as an act of terrorism. Still, American soil has been largely spared significant bloodshed from bonafide terrorist attacks.
Overseas terrorist attacks are another matter. From Spain to London to various middle-eastern nations terrorist attacks are breaking out everywhere. Often Americans casualties are sustained. By most accounts worldwide terrorism is on the rise.
The third point is perception of risk from terrorist attacks. This is largely a psychological factor. Americans have changed their lifestyles in order to cope with the perceived threat. We simply do not feel safer. Air travel in particular has become an ordeal that until 9-11 was largely a routine event.
On balance we have not done a good job in reducing the terrorist threat, both actual and perceived. Therefore my grade for this is a ‘D’. This is based on (1) increased overseas terrorism, (2) high perception of risk, offset slightly by (3) few domestic incidents of terrorism.
This is down from the solid ‘B’ that existed when Clinton left office. The Cole incident kept the Clinton administration from earning an ‘A’.
Clinton mess (legacy)
USS Cole bombing – no captures
TWA 800 – coverup
1993 World Trade Center bombings
WTC bomber escapes to Iraq
Somalia cut and run helps Bin Laden recruit
Haiti – debable of reinstalling a dictator
Embassy bombings by Al Qaeda
OKC bombings linked to Muslim groups but no followup
Bin Laden let escape 8 times
Failure to find or destroy Iraqi WMD – later captured by US troops
Armed Muslin terrorist groups in Bosnia and Kosovo who now have burned out 275,000 Chrisitians and Jews
Lee, I’ve already conceeded the Cole incident was a failure by Clinton. The ship should have never been in the exposed position that it was. Clinton also failed to capture the perpetrators in that incident. But of course so did Bush Jr.
Where is your evidence of a coverup for TWA 800?
The 1993 WTC bombing was days into the Clinton administration. Most of the blame should be at the feet of Bush Sr. In the end most of the perpetrators were captured.
Somalia was an inherited mess from Bush Sr.
Haiti not relevant to this subject.
No known intelligence that could have prevented embassy bombings.
OKC perpetrators caught and punished. No known intelligence could have prevented this.
Bin Laden escapes. That is neocon spin. No proof Clinton failed. Bush failured are far more egregious as Bin Laden was cornered in Tora Bora and Bush failed to send necessary troops. Now Bush has openly turned his back on earlier promises to capture the 9-11 mastermind.
There were no significant WMD or WMD programs in Iraq.
Kosovo is a tremendous success story. Many people freed from tyranny with very low U.S. cost. Clinton is regarded a hero in the region.
Bottom Line: Terrorist activities have increased sharply under Bush.
Kosovo is still in a state of civil war. Muslim terrorists have burned 200,000 Christians and Jews out of their homes, and are buring churches and synagogues every week.
This is what qualifies as a “foreign policy success” for Democrats.
Along with the 5,000 canisters of poison gas and nerve agents captured in Iraq, which the Democrats gave up looking for in 1998.
9/11 Commission report lists 8 times Clinton, Reno and Madeline Albright gave explicit orders to not capture or kill Bin Laden.
After Clinton removed the FAA investigator from TWA 800 and put Al Gore in charge, Gore ordered the forensic engineers for the airline and aircraft companies off the premises and away from the reconstruction.
It was precipitated by the finding of explosives residue in the cockpit where a large hole was blown in the fuselage.
Keep in mind what I’m trying to accomplish with this series of posts. To take a fresh look at the events of the day in advance of the congressional elections. This honest reflection is useful for deciding who to lead our nation in the future. Point number 2: Is American foreign policy effective in preventing terrorist activity? Since we have more terrorist activity around the world now than we did 6 years ago the answer is no. A separate question, one that is only useful as a benchmark for comparison, is how well Clinton did in preventing terrorist activities. Since I’m not a Clinton appologist it’s clear that the answer to this is somewhat mixed, he was not perfect. There were some terrorist incidents and he has to share some of the blame. As do Bush Sr. and Reagan. Afterall, it was on Reagan’s watch that this whole terrorist mess really took off, fueled by the misguided Iran/Contra affair. But since January 2001 the problem has gotten significantly worse. And that is the bottom line.
Your idea of a fresh look is to fabricate coverups of the Clinton failures against the terrorists.
His own advisors have written about how paralyzed Clinton was at facing the Muslim terrorists, how willing he was to tolerate a steady series of “small attacks” in order to keep up his illusion of peace in Palestine and progress in Serbia. All lies, and they have to be followed with more lies by Democrats who hope to win back power over the Treasury, at any cost to America.
Actually it was on Jimmuh Carter’s watch that the whole terrorist mess really took off, with the Iranian hostage crisis. 444 days of the most disgraceful, week-kneed and massively incompetent behavior convinced the Iranians and other would-be terrorists that we could be pushed around and wouldn’t defend ourselves. And they were mostly right, as long as they limited themselves to killing a few dozen or a couple of hundred people at a time. Then they jumped the shark on 9/11 — and they picked the wrong president.
“USS Cole bombing – no captures”
Yeah, Lee, the Cole bombing happened in October 2000.
The fact that you blame Clinton for the lack of captures, and excuse Bush, tells us everything about you that we need to know.
Mary, you will never have everything you need to know. What you should know is after the Cole bombing if Clinton had any backbone at all we would have melted into the ground several Islamic terrorist stronghold cities. I will tell you right now that if the Pope is somehow assassinated then no person from the free world should rest until Mecca is removed from the face of the earth. Mark my words on that one. I will say once again, Islam should be outlawed from the USA. And I mean ALL mosques. There are NO peaceful Islamics.
The only reason the USS Cole had to go into Yemen to refuel, against standing Navy procedures, was that Clinton had decomissioned so many US Navy oilers, that our fleet was not carrying enough fuel along with it.
The last Pope was almost assassinated by a radical Muslim, who was trained by the KGB. A lot of our current crop of Muslim terrorists are the residue of communism’s long campaign to subvert Islam into a tool of revolution.
Some of those involved in the USS Cole bombing were captured….under the Bush administration.
“Actually it was on Jimmuh Carter’s watch that the whole terrorist mess really took off, with the Iranian hostage crisis.”
ALL the hostages were returned safely to American soil without resorting to deal-making. Iran gained NOTHING. When Americans were taken hostage during the Reagan years Lt. Col. Olly North was dispatched to trade weapons in exchange for the hostages. And a couple of those hostages were killed. It was Reagan and Bush, Sr. (who probably spearheaded the whole treasonous mess) who made it rewarding to kidnap Americans, not Jimmy Carter.
“There are NO peaceful Islamics.”
Is this the crap we have to deal with from the right-wing, no-brain, hate-filled, anti-American extremists? It’s no wonder the whole world is turning against us. You need to read about the First Crusade sometime and see how Christian extremism has worked over the years. It was 1095 that Christians invaded the middle-east, at the direction of the Pope, and upon capturing Jerusalem proceeded to slaughter most, if not all, of the people in the city. This included men, women, children, babies, muslims, jews and even a few Christians. Because of this disgusting episode would it be justified to say there are NO peaceful Christians? Get your facts right Dave, there are extremists of all religions. And there are those who want to live in peace.
Reagan actually tried to supply medicine and industrial goods to Iran through the moderate factions, in order to increase their political clout.
Partisan Democrats scuttled that effort with a campaign of lies, and helped the radicals secure a strangehold on Iran which they still have today.
Yo, Dave, again, the Cole bombing occurred in OCTOBER 2000. Bush became president in JANUARY 2001. The fact that you blame Clinton for the lack of response, and excuse Bush, proves that you don’t actually care about responding to or fighting terrorism. If you did, you would react the SAME WAY to the SAME THING. You blame Clinton for not responding to the Cole bombing, but he had only a couple of months after the bombing, and he used that time to figure out who was behind it and to present a plan to Bush for making war on al Qaeda. Bush had much more time after the bombing than Clinton had, and he did nothing.
But even if Clinton HAD done nothing, that would be the SAME Thing that Bush did. Yet you excuse Bush and blame Clinton, thereby conclusively identifying yourself as a hypocrite.
Yeah, Lee, stuff you find in chain emails doesn’t count.
The world in 2020 as fantacized by Lee:
Beginning with the Sainted President George W. Bush the world began to change. The embattled president started a world wide renassance to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world. This culminated in the complete eradication of all non-Christian religions throughout the world. The worlds 8 billion citizens now all worship Christ as their savior. The new world order is now 100% free from the tyranny of all false religions. Only the fundamentalist Church of the USA is recognized as a legal religion.
Domestically, pro-life groups were successful in fulfilling their long-sought ambition of eliminating all abortions. This was accomplished thanks to the repeal of Roe V. Wade and the passage of the Conception to Grave Life Rights Ammendment. Not a single abortion has been performed, legally or illegally, since 2009.
The 700 mile fence has succeeded in eliminating all immigration from Mexico. The result has been the complete elimination of all crime, eradication of all languages other than English and a total ban on eating tacos and the use of pinatas at children’s parties. When polled, 100% of Americans agreed that the pinata was a symbol of radicalism and should never be displayed in public again.
In the world of culture all movies rated PG-13 are higher are now banned. Women may not wear skirts shorter than 4 inches below the knee. All public sunbathing is banned. All smoking restrictions have been recinded and it is mandatory for restaraunts to allow smoking in all areas. Also, gun ownership is mandatory for all persons age 12 and above. Proficiency in the safe use of firearms is not required.
The military budget has been tripled from the levels of the early 21st century. Even though all other nations have eliminated thier own military it is believed that a strong military will prevent anyone from having an anti-Bush thought.
Everyone is now required to drive a Hummer. All pollution controls on vehicles are eliminated. They are not considered necessary since Bush declared the earth is capable of eliminating all pollutants on it’s own. Likewise safety belts, air bags and other safety features are no longer required and legislation is likely to pass that bans their use.
Funding for the Bush Memorial has been earmarked and completion is expected by 2025. Standing 800 feet high in the heart of the DC Mall, this gold likeness of the former 4 term president will prove an inspiration for all Americans for centuries to come.
And finally, the name Clinton is officially banned from all speech and writings. Failure to abide by this ordinance will result in penalties up to and including death by slow torture. When swift passage succeeded in the 100% Republican congress Americans from sea to sea were observed cheering in a uniform display of joy never before witnessed in the 6,000 year history of mankind.
Why is it, bud, that most post by people like you consist of your fantasies, instead of direct discussion of facts about real genuine issues?
Bud, how does it feel to think almost exactly like Chavez and Mahmoud? You talk just like them when you post. Chavez gave the Dem talking points in front of the UN. I.e., The US is a failure, its an empire, Bush is a devil and lies, etc. etc. etc. Right out of the DNC talking points. How much more disgusting can it get than to listen to these thug punk dictators lecture to the world’s superpower. They better be thankful Bush and his administration are running the nation. If it were up to me, both would be arrested as soon as they finisthed their speeches. And Mark Whittington, a big fan of Noam Chomsky, also has to be real proud.
“the Cole bombing occurred in OCTOBER 2000. Bush became president in JANUARY 2001. The fact that you blame Clinton for the lack of response, and excuse Bush, proves that you don’t actually care about responding to or fighting terrorism.”
Not at all. Clinton had 3 months to do something and, as usual, did nothing. Don’t forget that 3 months after 9/11 Bush had already taken care of Afghanistan! Why couldn’t Clinton have gotten off his butt so quickly? Not to mention all the other terrorist attacks to which Clinton failed to respond.
Lex, Lee and Dave, lighten up. Laugh a little. Have some fun. Do you neo-cons not have a sense of humor?
By the way Lex, read the latest on Afghanistan. It’s a disaster. And one that could have easily been averted had the Decider not squandered valuable resources against a non-enemy.
Democrats can spew out all this anti-Bush, anti-American drivel because they know they have little chance of regaining power and actually having the world see how they would again mess up Iraq, Iran, the entire Mideast, Red China and Korea.
Their lack of alternative courses of action on all fronts is a deafening silence.
“Not at all. Clinton had 3 months to do something and, as usual, did nothing. Don’t forget that 3 months after 9/11 Bush had already taken care of Afghanistan!”
Caught bin Laden, did he?
Yeah, Bush took care of Afghanistan all right. That’s why it’s deteriorating now to the point where the Taliban were able to force a truce with Pakistan so that Pakistan would agree to leave bin Laden in peace.
Why didn’t it become Bush’s responsibility to do anything about the Cole bombing?
Bud, I did like that Bush memorial idea but let’s do it in 2009. Can we find room for him and Reagan on Mt. Rushmore? That would be more like it. And the Christianization of the whole world, Herb would like that one. Keep those good ideas coming……
Dave, there’s already a memorial to Bush. It’s the empty hole where the World Trade Center towers used to be.
Mary here are some other monuments and awards:
The Bush International Quagmire Award. Given to the nation that has wasted more lives and created more turmoil in a failed effort to accomplish a mission of unspecified purpose.
The Bush Mission Not Accomplished Warship. Perhaps a Chinese Junk would be a fitting vessel. In rememberance to the utter failure to finish the job in Afghanistan.
The Bush Poverty Trophy (given annually to the person or state who has done the most to increase poverty rates)
The Bush Poppy Seed Award (given to the nation who has accomplished the most in increasing the production of dangerous drugs, as accomplished in Afghanastan).
Clinton had Bin Laden in his sights 8 times and chose to let him go.
Now that Bush has annihilated over 30,000 terrorists, and almost all of Bin Laden’s next tier of leaders, Bin Laden is more of a figurehead. We can defeat the Islamic terror even if Bin Laden dies of old age in a cave.
Mary, nice try but it doesnt work. I would guarantee you that if you could ask Americans to say that if Bush had been president for 8 years prior to 9-11, would 9-11 have occurred, the vast majority would say NO. 9-11 happened because weaklings running the US government sat around with their thumbs up in a dark place while Bin Laden strengthened and planned. But, nice try to pass blame.
Try as they might the neo-con appologists just cannot get around the fact that 9-11 occurred on their guy’s watch. But it’s fun watching them try. At the very least you must admit it is an incredible omission to exclude Bin-Laden from Bush’s ongoing speeches about terrorism. Even if he’s not capable of pulling off another major attack (a point not proven) he is still the mastermind of 9-11. Why do neo-cons forget that and give Bush a pass? It can only be some form of hero worship.
Dave, what would happen in the world of your imagination doesn’t count. In the world of reality, whatever effects resulted from Clinton’s supposed failure to respond to the Cole bombing also resulted from Bush’s failure to respond to the Cole bombing.
If Clinton’s lack of response led to a failure to uncover the September 11 plot, so did Bush’s lack of response.
If Clinton’s lack of response made the U.S. appear weak and strengthened al Qaeda, so did Bush’s lack of response.
Your failure to treat the SAME THING in the SAME WAY umistakably brands you as a hypocrite who doesn’t really care about fighting terrorism.
The Sept 11 attacks were hatched in the 1990s, under the nose of Janet Reno. All Clinton had to do to stop them was kill Bin Laden when our troops gave him 8 chances.
Sept 11 is like the recession of March 2001 – a result of Clinton’s mistakes.
Lee, information you got out of a bottle, or in an Oxycontin or crystal meth delirium, or out of chain emails, doesn’t count. No matter how many times you repeat your false claim that Clinton had 8 chances to kill bin Laden, your repetition doesn’t become true.
No matter how many times you repeat that Bush pulled the U.S. out of a Clinton recession, which started while Bush was president, your repetition doesn’t make it true.
No matter how many times you repeat that your failure in life and your dependence on handouts is the result of liberal policies, rather than your own ignorance and shiftlessness, your repetition doesn’t make it true.
No matter how many times you blame South Carolina’s status as a miserable, ignorant, shiftless, dependent backwater on liberal policies such as those followed in wealthy, well educated, productive states, rather than the conservative policies followed in South Carolina, your repetition doesn’t make it true.
You can repeat the same thing one hundred times, or one thousand times. But the fact that something is repeated one hundred or one thousand times by an ignorant, lazy, shiftless, worthless, dishonest, freeloading loser doesn’t make it true.
Bush and Clinton failed to respond to the Cole bombing in a way satisfactory to you. The difference is that when the Cole bombing occurred, Clinton was going to leave office in a few months. But leave aside the reason that Clinton didn’t respond immediately, and leave aside the issue of whether or not he provided Bush with a fully developed war plan which Bush ignored.
Let’s just concentrate on the issue of, was there a response to the Cole bombing.
Clinton did not mount a military response to the Cole bombing.
Bush did not mount a military response to the Cole bombing.
They reacted, or failed to react, to the SAME EVENT in the SAME WAY. They did the SAME THING.
The fact that you blame Clinton and not Bush for doing the SAME THING proves that you don’t care about what was done. You don’t care about terrorism, and you don’t care about protecting America. You only care about blaming Clinton, making excuses for Bush, and waiting by the mailbox for your next handout check financed by Bill and Hillary Clinton’s taxes.
Mary, you are cut and pasting those boilerplate lines again. Bush did do something about the Cole. Many of those responsible were apprehended and imprisoned. At least one was caught in Iraq fighting us. Another good point about how Iraq has given us the forum to kill the worthless subhuman scum who come there to terrorize. Just keep on sorting that mail.
It’s not my claim that Clinton failed 8 times to get Bin Laden. I merely counted the failures described in the 9/11 Commission Report, by Clinton’s advisors, and again last week by news analysts on the 5th anniversary of Sept 11.
Eyewitnesses to the events recounted in detail exactly what information Clinton, Albright and Reno had, and the orders they gave to let Bin Laden alone.
Wow. The lovefest for the Decider is something to behold. Mary points out that Clinton and Bush both failed to deal with the Cole incident in a way that would have prevented 9-11 yet one is vilified, demonized, ostricized, minimized and slammed relentlessly. Meanwhile the other, Mr. Bush, is regarded as a hero, a savior, a great and powerful protector of the American way.
The truth is the world is not some stark contrast of black and white as painted by the neo-con. No, there are an infinite number of shades of gray. Yet the hero worshippers continue to spin every situation to make Bush a hero and Clinton a villian. It really is hillarious and it makes those of you on the right look like a bunch of idiots.
The stark contrast is the cowardice of the Clinton administration and the aggressive cleanup job by the present Bush administration.
Sure, Dave, sure. According to you, the fact that Clinton didn’t respond to the Cole attack during the 3 months that remained before Bush took office empowered bin Laden and made the U.S. appear weak. Then Bush took office, and similarly didn’t respond to the Cole attack. Then, after bin Laden successfully attacked the United States, more time passed. Then, finally, in 2002, one guy involved with the Cole bombing was killed. Then, some more guys involved in the Cole bombing were arrested and imprisoned by Yemen.
Then they busted out.
Then they were caught again.
Then, in February of 2006, they busted out again.
So that’s the sum total of Bush’s “response”. For more than a year after the Cole bombing, he did nothing, and in the meantime, terrorists with the same organization attacked the United States and killed 3000 people. Then, after being stirred to action by the attack, but not before al Qaeda had taken advantage of his delayed response to attack a French vessel, he finally got one of the conspirators. The rest are all free.
If you consider that a satisfactory response, you must also consider Clinton’s response satisfactory. Clinton’s “delay” included the first 3 months of a delay that totaled 16 or more months. If Bush’s 12 months of delay is acceptable to you, Clinton’s 3 months of delay must also be acceptable. If it were unacceptable to delay responding to the Cole bombing for 3 months, it must also be unacceptable to delay responding for the additional 13 or more additional months that Bush delayed.
Again, Bush and Clinton did the SAME THING. Your railure to evaluate the SAME THING in the SAME WAY brands you indelibly as a hypocrite who doesn’t care about terrorism or about protecting America, but only about making excuses for Bush.
Bottom line: Bush has cleaned up 90% of Clinton’s mess, and Democrats are still crying that to clean up the rest is impossible.
Lee, you say that over and over, but your repetition doesn’t alter its falsity. We can see with our own eyes that what you say isn’t true. The September 11 attacks took place while Bush was president. Bush started a war in Iraq, which he is losing. He started a war in Afghanistan, which he failed to follow through on, and is now losing.
You can’t expect to be believed unless you present some kind of evidence for your position, evidence that is connected somehow to the world of reality, not to the drug and alcohol created Bizarro world you inhabit.
Presenting what amounts to an argument from authority, with yourself is the authority, won’t be effective unless you can show some indication that you have are both knowledgeable and honest about your subject. The fact that you are a lazy, shiftless, ignorant, dishonest, freeloading loser doesn’t help.
And it’s sad that you keep insulting Bill Clinton, when the taxes and the taxes of people like him are what keep you from having to depend on your own initiative and industry (such as it is) for survival.
Iraq started the war with America, while Clinton was asleep in office.