posted June 30, 2005 11:34 AM            

June 29, 2005, 9:12 a.m.
It’s All About 9/11
The president links Iraq and al Qaeda — and the usual suspects moan.

President George W. Bush forcefully explained last night — some of us would say finally forcefully explained last night after too long a lull — why our military operations in Iraq are crucial to success in the war on terror.

It was good to hear the commander-in-chief remind people that this is still the war against terror. Specifically, against Islamo-fascists who slaughtered 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001. Who spent the eight years before those atrocities murdering and promising to murder Americans — as their leader put it in 1998, all Americans, including civilians, anywhere in the world where they could be found.

It is not the war for democratization. It is not the war for stability. Democratization and stability are not unimportant. They are among a host of developments that could help defeat the enemy.

But they are not the primary goal of this war, which is to destroy the network of Islamic militants who declared war against the United States when they bombed the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, and finally jarred us into an appropriate response when they demolished that complex, struck the Pentagon, and killed 3000 of us on September 11, 2001.

That is why we are in Iraq.

On September 12, 2001, no one in America cared about whether there would be enough Sunni participation in a fledgling Iraqi democracy if Saddam were ever toppled. No one in lower Manhattan cared whether the electricity would work in Baghdad, or whether Muqtada al-Sadr’s Shiite militia could be coaxed into a political process. They cared about smashing terrorists and the states that supported them for the purpose of promoting American national security.

Saddam Hussein’s regime was a crucial part of that response because it was a safety net for al Qaeda. A place where terror attacks against the United States and the West were planned. A place where Saddam’s intelligence service aided and abetted al Qaeda terrorists planning operations. A place where terrorists could hide safely between attacks. A place where terrorists could lick their wounds. A place where committed terrorists could receive vital training in weapons construction and paramilitary tactics. In short, a platform of precisely the type without which an international terror network cannot succeed.

The president should know he hit the sweet spot during his Fort Bragg speech because all the right people are angry. The New York Times, with predictable disingenuousness, is railing this morning that the 9/11 references in the speech are out of bounds because Iraq had “nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and the tedious David Gergen, among others, are in Gergen’s words “offended” about use of the 9/11 “trump card.”

If the president is guilty of anything, it's not that he's dwelling on 9/11 enough. It's that the administration has not done a good enough job of probing and underscoring the nexus between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. It is absolutely appropriate, it is vital, for him to stress that connection. This is still the war on terror, and Iraq, where the terrorists are still arrayed against us, remains a big part of that equation.

And not just because every jihadist with an AK-47 and a prayer rug has made his way there since we invaded. No, it’s because Saddam made Iraq their cozy place to land long before that. They are fighting effectively there because they’ve been invited to dig in for years.

The president needs to be talking about Saddam and terror because that’s what will get their attention in Damascus and Teheran. It’s not about the great experiment in democratization — as helpful as it would be to establish a healthy political culture in that part of the world. It’s about making our enemies know we are coming for them if they abet and harbor and promote and plan with the people who are trying to kill us.

On that score, nobody should worry about anything the Times or David Gergen or Senator Reid has to say about all this until they have some straight answers on questions like these. What does the “nothing whatsoever” crowd have to say about:

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?

Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?

Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

There's more. Stephen Hayes’s book, The Connection, remains required reading. But these are just the questions; the answers — if someone will just investigate the questions rather than pretending there’s “nothing whatsoever” there — will provide more still.

So Gergen, Reid, the Times, and the rest are “offended” at the president's reminding us of 9/11? The rest of us should be offended, too. Offended at the “nothing whatsoever” crowd’s inexplicable lack of curiosity about these ties, and about the answers to these questions.

Just tell us one thing: Do you have any good answer to what Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was doing with the 9/11 hijackers in Kuala Lampur? Can you explain it?

If not, why aren't you moving heaven and earth to find out the answer?

posted June 30, 2005 04:41 PM              

left right

left right

left right

republican Democrat

black white

badguys goodguys

Is it the publick of unevolved mortals that enjoy this black and white simplicity to keep them out of reality ???

Or your media that keeps selling it too you ??????

Come on peaple-

Its pathetic when German Industrial bands are saying it best- ie Ramstien----

posted June 30, 2005 04:51 PM              

Hey, maybe it will be a jolly good show when the entire world turns there back to the good old usa, or even better if they al join in against us at once... After all, after this great empire is brought to its knees and we no longer exist as a world super power the rest of the bibles book of revolations will be ready to unfold.

Or do that many peaple in the american publick realy believe america doenst need anyones help in the world ? Do you realy think our nation could never ever fall to another ?

If so, no need to give me 20 paragraphs of so called facts and figures and cuts and paists- dont even bother replying if thats what you have intended [you know who I meen]

Just look back into world history, even before mortal humans had controll of the planet, and all its seed bearing plants and animals.

Every last time the top empire thought they were invisible, and didnt need any other nations help----

BBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

REALITY CHECK !!!

posted July 01, 2005 12:11 AM            

That rifle you thought you might like to bushwhack me with, that Mozen Megant is a rifle that doesn't exist. I've been shooting since I was 5; first with a pellet gun, then with a .22 caliber bolt action rifle and over the years, I've shot just about every American caliber, hand guns and rifles, including the M14 and M1 and some European manufactured arms as well.

The rifle you suggest you have is not a Mozen Megant but a Mosin-Nagent, an obsolete Russian 7.62mm bolt action rifle, ballistically inferior to the 30-06. I find it fascinating you would think to threaten someone with a weapon you don't know anything about, someone with several highpower rifles in the case, any of which make the rifle you say you have look like a popgun.

I don't think you have anything to worry about Magus. There are upwards of 20,000,000 shooters in America, men and women, not to mention the millions of others with military or law enforcement experience. Most have scoped high powered rifles capable of reaching out long distance and touching something or someone...so I would say your @ss is pretty safe from an invasion. Just don't you make the fatal mistake of lining up on the wrong side.

posted July 01, 2005 01:00 AM            

Bush's Iraq Speech: Long On Assertion, Short On Facts
Bush says "progress is uneven" in Iraq, but accentuates positive evidence and mostly ignores the negative.
June 30, 2005

Summary
Standing before a crowd of uniformed soldiers, President Bush addressed the nation on June 27 to reaffirm America's commitment to the global war on terrorism. But throughout the speech Bush continually stated his opinions and conclusions as though they were facts, and he offered little specific evidence to support his assertions.

Here we provide some additional context, both facts that support Bush's case that "we have made significant progress" in Iraq, as well as some of the negative evidence he omitted.

Analysis

Bush's prime-time speech at Fort Bragg, NC coincided with the one-year anniversary of the handover of soverignty to Iraqi authorities. It was designed to lay out America's role in Iraq amid sinking public support for the war and calls by some lawmakers to withdraw troops.

The Bloodshed

Bush acknowledged the high level of violence in Iraq as he sought to reassure the public.

Bush: The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it?

What Bush did not mention is that by most measures the violence is getting worse. Both April and May were record months in Iraq for car bombings, for example, with more than 135 of them being set off each month. And the bombings are getting more deadly. May was a record month for deaths from bombings, with 381 persons killed in "multiple casualty" bombings that took two or more lives, according to figures collected by the Brookings Institution in its "Iraq Index." The Brookings index is compiled from a variety of sources including official government statistics, where those are available, and other public sources such as news accounts and statements of Iraqi government officials.

The number of Iraqi police and military who have been killed is also rising, reaching 296 so far in June, nearly triple the 109 recorded in January and 103 in Febrary, according to a tally of public information by the website Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, a private group that documents each fatality from public statements and news reports. Estimates of the total number of Iraqi civilians killed each month as a result of "acts of war" have been rising as well, according to the Brookings index.

The trend is also evident in year-to-year figures. In the past twelve months, there have been 25% more U.S. troop fatalities and nearly double the average number of insurgent attacks per day as there were in the preceeding 12 months.

Reconstruction Progress

In talking about Iraqi reconstruction, Bush highlighted the positive and omitted the negative:

Bush: We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. . . . Our progress has been uneven but progress is being made. We are improving roads and schools and health clinics and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.

Indeed, the State Department's most recent "Iraq Weekly Status Report" shows progress is uneven. Education is a positive; official figures show 3,056 schools have been rehabilitated and millions of "student kits" have been distributed to primary and secondary schools. School enrollments are increasing. And there are also 145 new primary healthcare centers currently under construction. The official figures show 78 water treatment projects underway, nearly half of them completed, and water utility operators are regularly trained in two-week courses.

On the negative side, however, State Department figures show overall electricity production is barely above pre-war levels. Iraqis still have power only 12 hours daily on average.

Iraqis are almost universally unhappy about that. Fully 96 percent of urban Iraqis said they were dissatisfied when asked about "the availability of electricity in your neighborhood." That poll was conducted in February for the U.S. military, and results are reported in Brookings' "Iraq Index." The same poll also showed that 20 percent of Iraqi city- dwellers still report being without water to their homes.

Conclusions or Facts?

The President repeatedly stated his upbeat conclusions as though they were facts. For example, he said of "the terrorists:"

Bush: They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war..

In fact, there have been withdrawals by allies. Spain pulled out its 1,300 soldiers in April, and Honduras brought home its 370 troops at the same time. The Philippines withdrew its 51 troops last summer to save the life of a Filipino hostage held captive for eight months in Iraq. Ukraine has already begun a phased pullout of its 1,650-person contingent, which the Defense Ministry intends to complete by the end of the year. Both the Netherlands and Italy have announced plans to withdraw their troops, and the Bulgarian parliament recently granted approval to bring home its 450 soldiers. Poland, supplying the third-largest contingent in the coalition after Italy's departure, has backed off a plan for full withdrawal of troops due to the success of Iraqi elections and talks with Condoleezza Rice, but the Polish Press Agency announced in June that the next troop rotation will have 200 fewer soldiers.

Bush is of course entitled to argue that these withdrawals don't constitute a "mass" withdrawal, but an argument isn't equivalent to a fact.

The same goes for Bush's statement there's no "civil war" going on. In fact, some believe that what's commonly called the "insurgency" already is a "civil war" or something very close to it. For example, in an April 30 piece, the Times of London quotes Colonel Salem Zajay, a police commander in Southern Baghdad, as saying, "The war is not between the Iraqis and the Americans. It is between the Shia and the Sunni." Again, Bush is entitled to state his opinion to the contrary, but stating a thing doesn't make it so.

Terrorism

Similarly, Bush equated Iraqi insurgents with terrorists who would attack the US if they could.

Bush: There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. . . . Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists.

Despite a few public claims to the contrary, however, no solid evidence has surfaced linking Iraq to attacks on the United States, and Bush offered none in his speech. The 9/11 Commission issued a staff report more than a year ago saying "so far we have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." It said Osama bin Laden made a request in 1994 to establish training camps in Iraq, but "but Iraq apparently never responded." That was before bin Laden was ejected from Sudan and moved his operation to Afghanistan.

Bush laid stress on the "foreign" or non-Iraqi elements in the insurgency as evidence that fighting in Iraq might prevent future attacks on the US:

Bush: I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country. And tonight I will explain the reasons why. Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations.

But Bush didn't mention that the large majority of insurgents are Iraqis, not foreigners. The overall strength of the insurgency has been estimated at about 16,000 persons. The number of foreign fighters in Iraq is only about 1,000, according to estimates reported by the Brookings Institution. The exact number is of course impossible to know. However, over the course of one week during the major battle for Fallujah in November of 2004, a Marine official said that only about 2% of those detained were foreigners. To be sure, Brookings notes that "U.S. military believe foreign fighters are responsible for the majority of suicide bombings in Iraq," with perhaps as many as 70 percent of bombers coming from Saudi Arabia alone. It is anyone's guess how many of those Saudi suicide bombers might have attempted attacks on US soil, but a look at the map shows that a Saudi jihadist can drive across the border to Baghdad much more easily than getting nearly halfway around the world to to the US.

Osama bin Laden

Bush quoted a recent tape-recorded message by bin Laden as evidence that the Iraq conflict is "a central front in the war on terror:"

Bush: Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq..."The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."

However, Bush passed over the fact that the relationship between bin Laden and the Iraqi insurgents - to the extent one existed at all before - grew much closer after the US invaded Iraq. Insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi did not announce his formal allegiance with bin Laden until October, 2004. It was only then that Zarqawi changed the name of his group from "Unification and Holy War Group" to "al Qaeda in Iraq."

In summary, we found nothing false in what Bush said, only that his facts were few and selective.

--by Brooks Jackson & Jennifer L. Ernst

Researched by Matthew Barge, Kevin Collins & Jordan Grossman

Sources

Paul Richter, "No 'Timetables' for Iraq Pullout, Bush Promises Visiting Premier," Los Angeles Times, 25 June 2005: A1.

Michael E. O'Hanlon, Adriana Lins de Albuquerque, "Iraq Index; Tracking Variables of Reconstruction & Security in Post-Saddam Iraq," Brookings Institution, 27 June 2005.

US Department of State, " Iraq Weekly Status Report," 22 June 2005.

National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States, " Overview of the Enemy ," staff statement No. 15 released at Twelfth Public Hearing, Wednesday, June 16, 2004.

BBC News, "US chides Spain for Iraq pull-out," 20 April 2005.

Robin Wright, "European Bitterness Over Iraq Dissipates," Washington Post 5 Feb. 2005: A21.

PAP Polish Press Agency, "Next Rotation of Polish Soldiers In Iraq Smaller," 25 May 2005.

"Ukraine 's Defence Minister Says His Troops Will Be Out Of Iraq By Year End," BBC Monitoring International Reports 17 June 2005.

Nick Childs, "Iraq 's Strained Coalition," BBC News World Edition 16 March 2005.

Sara Toms, "Manila 's Difficult Dilemna," BBC News World Edition 20 July 2004.

"Poll shows dissatisfaction with Iraq War," CNN.com, 21 June 2005. Donna Miles, "Military Tops Public Confidence List in New Gallup Poll," American Forces Press Service, 3 June 2005.

"Few foreigners among rebels captured in Fallujah," Associated Press/USA Today, 15 November 2004.

Susan B. Glasser, "'Martyrs' in Iraq Mostly Saudis," Washington Post, 15 May 2005.

"President Addresses Nation, Discusses Iraq , War on Terror," Transcript, The White House 28 June 2005.

posted July 01, 2005 01:26 AM            

Wherever those terrorists are coming from, they're being killed or captured in Iraq. And those freedom fighters you admire are fighting against the legitimate government of Iraq. I know you aren't intellectually capable of understanding that the Baathists..which are and were the minority in Iraq have lost the privileged positions they held under Saddam and some of them are those so called freedom fighters you champion who want their beloved Saddam back in power...to empower them..not for the good of Iraq.

You leftists need to face the facts. One more of your murderous leftist friends has bitten the dust and in spite of all your badmouthing Bush, badmouthing the war, badmouthing the military and badmouthing America, Saddam isn't coming back into power.

You need to pull your head out of your rear Acoustic and have a clear look around. Your radical leftist rhetoric and posting leftist drivel only makes you look foolish.

What I said to Magus applies to you as well Acoustic. I would think you one of the least likey to defend America, if the need ever arose.

posted July 01, 2005 01:37 AM              

quote:

---

I've been shooting since I was 5; first with a pellet gun, then with a .22 caliber bolt action rifle and over the years, I've shot just about every American caliber, hand guns and rifles, including the M14 and M1 and some European manufactured arms as well.

---

posted July 01, 2005 02:30 AM            

quote:

---

And those freedom fighters you admire are fighting against the legitimate government of Iraq. I know you aren't intellectually capable of understanding that the Baathists..which are and were the minority in Iraq have lost the privileged positions they held under Saddam and some of them are those so called freedom fighters you champion who want their beloved Saddam back in power...to empower them..not for the good of Iraq.

---

Wow! You're really misconstruing what I've said if this is what you think my position is. When have I ever supported the terrorists? Never. I did have to explain to you how Osama was able to gain his middle eastern following, but that's not an endorsement, is it?

quote:

---

You leftists need to face the facts. One more of your murderous leftist friends has bitten the dust and in spite of all your badmouthing Bush, badmouthing the war, badmouthing the military and badmouthing America, Saddam isn't coming back into power.

---

Who, especially who in this forum, has ever stated that they are upset that Saddam is out of power? That's a major distortion, but then that's already been pointed out to you more times than anyone can count.

quote:

---

You need to pull your head out of your rear Acoustic and have a clear look around. Your radical leftist rhetoric and posting leftist drivel only makes you look foolish.

---

quote:

---

I'm perfectly willing to hear other people's opinions. I'm not much into hearing the opinions of leftist webmasters or leftist reporters. Now if you actually ever had any of your own thoughts to post on a topic, an opinion someone else didn't first have to give you, I would be happy..though astonished to hear that.

---

lol Yes sir, Mr. NewsMax! You need look no further than the mirror to see the person you're trying to find in me. See when I post a clearly marked opinion piece it says it right up front. I do it just for the fun of seeing you react to it. I challenge you to find one piece of information I've actually gone to a leftist site to read. Hell, I haven't even posted anything from the Washington Post, though they are still considered credible in virtually all news circles.

If it bugs you that I post articles from sites you somehow miscontrue to be leftist, maybe you should reconsider your own posting of articles from extraordinarily biased conservative media sources. What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

I have posted my opinion on quite a few things (my opinions are all over your Bill and Hill thread). Then, there have been times when you've been unwilling to listen to the truth I've provided links for you to find out for yourself that what I'm saying is correct.

This comes down to you not liking opinions or facts when they don't coincide with what you've been lead to believe through your own biased 'news' sources.

I think you secretly like that I'll stoop to your level to play your game. Petron and the others are probably smart for not bothering.

quote:

---

I would think you one of the least likey to defend America, if the need ever arose.

---

posted July 01, 2005 11:50 AM            

It depends on what the meaning of "throes" is http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/001355.html

Today, appearing before a Senate Armed Forces Committee hearing in a failed attempt to paint a positive view of the war, Army Gen. John Abizaid, the top commander for U.S. aggression in the Middle East, was forced to directly contradict Vice President Cheney's recent announcement that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes." Abizaid stated that the power of the Iraqi resistance was undiminished and added, "you'll forgive me from criticizing the vice president." Donald Rumsfeld again had to explain why he has "not resigned,"

Nothing will be more powerful than to have large numbers from every community marching shoulder to shoulder in opposition to the Bush administration's criminal war against Iraq and in opposition to Bush's global effort to crush all those struggling to exercise their legitimate right of self-determination free from empire and colonial domination.

The people of the United States must mobilize against the global War for Empire that masks itself as the so-called “war on terrorism” and falsely promotes itself as the “march for democracy.”

The war and occupation of Iraq cannot be seen in isolation. The U.S. is actively attempting to destroy every government that resists the Empire. The Iraq war is not an aberration nor is it a “mistake” of conservative politicians. The war in Iraq is a necessary component in the political program and the institutions of global conquest and exploitation.

Bush is compelled to justify the ongoing military conflict and occupation in Iraq. With the old pretexts - that is, the old lies - so completely exposed, Bush tonight resorted to the constant referencing of September 11. http://www.internationalanswer.org/

I find it curious you would cite your military service as proof you would defend America. Every nation expects attempts by enemies to penetrate their defenses, penetrate their intelligence services, destabilize their economy and propagandize their populations. Foreign enemy armies are not always the cause of the fall of powerful nations. Internal subversion was eloquently spoken about circa 60 BC:

"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague."--- Cicero

I have read most of what you've said, though what you've said personally is scant. I've also read the thoughts of others you have posted and find no defense of America in anything you've said or anything in the words of other leftists you choose to post.

When you post the anti-American thoughts of others, when you call the US a repressor, when you give credence to the notion the terrorists and criminal elements in Iraq are fighting for their country and when NO word off your keyboard is in defense of America but is in fact a rant against America, why would anyone get the idea you would defend America.

Let me remind you that military service is no indicator of philosophical identity with a country or patriotism. Let me further remind you of Benedict Arnold, the first American traitor.

Unlike Cicero, we don't fear those who chant the slogans and rants of America's enemies, those on the left but we do recognize you identify with our enemies, talk their talk, support their causes and post their rants. Why not go all the way and contribute your money as opposed to contributing your mouths? You could go to their website and put your money where your mouths are.

posted July 01, 2005 02:01 PM            

In the wake of President Bush's speech to the nation Tuesday night, Democrats are complaining that he talked too much about 9/11, falsely implying that Iraq was a terrorist threat.

Too bad Mr. Bush didn't cite the mountain of evidence proving that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a veritable Motel 6 for the world's worst terrorists - a gang of mass murderers who had killed hundreds of Americans - well before the U.S. invaded.

According to a report last year by the Hudson Institute, the short list of terrorists laying low in Iraq would include:
• Abu Nidal. Before Osama bin Laden arrived on the scene, Nidal was the world's most notorious terrorist. His terror gang is credited with dozens of attacks that killed over 400 people, including 10 Americans. He also threatened to kill Lt. Col. Oliver North.

Abu Nidal moved to Baghdad in 1999, where he was found shot to death in Aug 2002. Rumors swirled at the time that Nidal was rubbed out by Iraqi intelligence because he knew too much about Saddam's terrorist activities.

• Abu Abbas. Abbas masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, where wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer was pushed over the side to his death. U.S. troops captured Abbas in Baghdad on April 14, 2003. He died in U.S. custody last year.

• Abdul Rahman Yasin. Yasin was Ramzi Yousef's partner in the 1993 World Trade Center bomb plot, aiding the al Qaeda explosives mastermind in prepariing the bomb that killed six New Yorkers and wounded 1,000.

In 1996, an ABC News reporter spotted Yasin outside his government owned house in Baghdad. The key WTC 1993 co-conspirator remains at large.

• Khala Khadar al-Salahat. Al-Salahat, a top Palestinian deputy to Abu Nidal, reportedly furnished Libyan agents with the Semtex explosive used to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988. The attack killed all 259 passengers, including 189 Americans. Al-Salahat was in Baghdad April 2003 when he was taken into custody by U.S. Marines.

• Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Zarqawi was training terrorists in Afghanistan for an attack on the U.S. embassy in Jordan when the U.S. defeated the Taliban, forcing him to flee. He relocated to Iraq, where he set up terrorist cells in the Northern part of the country.

In an indication that he enjoyed the status of guest of the state, Zarqawi was reportedly treated for a leg wound at one of Saddam's exclusive private hospitals.

posted July 01, 2005 02:25 PM            

Welcome to the I Hate America Club..Brian Williams.

MEDIA MATTERS
NBC anchor compares Founders to terrorists
Brian Williams equates 1st U.S. leaders to Iran president-elect
June 30, 2005
8:52 p.m. Eastern
WorldNetDaily.com

In his newscast tonight, "NBC Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams compared America's first presidents to the president-elect of Iran, alleged hostage-taker Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying they were "certainly revolutionaries and might have been called terrorists by the British crown."

At least six of the Americans held at the U.S. embassy in Tehran as hostages for 444 days claim Ahmadinejad was one of the leaders of the captors, having recognized him on television reports.

Williams' comment came in a question to reporter Andrea Mitchell.

At the end of Mitchell's report, Williams asked, "What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called 'terrorists' by the British crown, after all."

The former students who carried out the seizure and held the Americans in Tehran said Ahmadinejad had no role in taking the embassy or guarding the hostages, but that he preferred to target the Soviet Embassy, the Associated Press reported.

"He was not part of us. He played no role in the seizure,'' Abbas Abdi, one of six leaders of the group, told AP.

posted July 01, 2005 03:40 PM            

June 30, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
WorldNetDaily.com
Hal Lindsey

President Bush appealed to the nation to stay the course in Iraq on Tuesday in a nationally televised speech that was nationally televised only when the Big Three Networks made a last minute decision to carry his comments live. Reaction was fascinating in both its scope and its idiocy.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi immediately accused the president of "exploiting 9-11" which, she informed the nation, had nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

According to Rep. Pelosi (who is actually allowed to participate in making important homeland security decisions)

The president's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 show the weakness of his arguments. He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9-11, knowing that there is no connection between 9-11 and the war in Iraq. Iraq is now what it was not when the war began – a magnet for terrorism – because the president invaded Iraq with no idea of what it would take to secure the country after Baghdad fell. The insurgency took root in the unstable conditions that have now existed in substantial parts of Iraq for far too long.

No connection with the war in Iraq? Somebody should nudge her and inform her that the war in Iraq isn't a war against Iraq – it is a war against the terrorists who planned and executed 9-11.

It just happens that the war is being fought in Iraq, but I suppose that is much too deep a distinction for her to grasp. Our forces aren't fighting against Iraq. Al-Qaida is fighting against Iraq. Our forces are fighting against al-Qaida in Iraq.

Her second complaint is that Iraq is now what it wasn't when the war to remove Saddam Hussein began. This is just too rich! Of course it isn't. Before that, it was a dictatorship where the government dropped people into tree shredders feet-first for failing to amuse Uday Hussein or forgetting to kiss Saddam's armpit when greeting him.

Now it has a representative government, an independent judiciary and is no longer a threat to anybody except terrorists. Which brings us to part two of Rep. Pelosi's second complaint. Now it is a "magnet for terrorism because the president invaded Iraq ..."

Evidently, Rep. Pelosi thinks that is a bad thing for America. Where would she prefer to locate the "terrorist magnet"? New York? Washington? Los Angeles? I thought that was the strategy – fight them in the Middle East instead of fighting them in the Midwest? Maybe I am missing something about the nuances of politics.

The insurgency "took root" in the unstable conditions of post-war Iraq? How could that have been avoided? Well, we could have nuked Baghdad. Then there wouldn't be any "insurgents" – which is a catch-all phrase that includes remnants of the Bathist regime and thousands of foreign al-Qaida fighters (who, if they were not attacking American military forces in Iraq, would have resumed attacking American civilians in the homeland).

American forces are protected with Kevlar vests and helmets, armed with great, big guns, are supported by radar, unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, heavy weapons, helicopters and fighters, and are trained for exactly this eventuality.

American civilians at home have been disarmed by the government, fly in unprotected commercial aircraft and are protected by business suits and briefcases, and aren't even supported by the liberals in Congress. This is a rebuttal?

Maybe I am missing something. If al-Qaida has concentrated its forces in Iraq, doesn't that limit its ability to concentrate its forces elsewhere? Like Philadelphia? And if al-Qaida is bound and determined to bring war to Americans, isn't it a good idea for them to run into the U.S. Marines instead of a civilian office building?

posted July 01, 2005 04:41 PM            

quote:

---

Nothing will be more powerful than to have large numbers from every community marching shoulder to shoulder in opposition to the Bush administration's criminal war against Iraq and in opposition to Bush's global effort to crush all those struggling to exercise their legitimate right of self-determination free from empire and colonial domination.

---

I've not said anything even close to this, as this is not something I've observed whether with my own two eyes, or through the eyes of a reporter.

quote:

---

The people of the United States must mobilize against the global War for Empire that masks itself as the so-called “war on terrorism” and falsely promotes itself as the “march for democracy.”

---

I've never called Bushes actions empire- building, though I've heard that assessment. With regard to terrorists, I've explained how they were able to draw a following, and recently I posted a new article from Factcheck.org that said this:

Despite a few public claims to the contrary, however, no solid evidence has surfaced linking Iraq to attacks on the United States, and Bush offered none in his speech. The 9/11 Commission issued a staff report more than a year ago saying "so far we have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." It said Osama bin Laden made a request in 1994 to establish training camps in Iraq, but "but Iraq apparently never responded." That was before bin Laden was ejected from Sudan and moved his operation to Afghanistan.

quote:

---

The war and occupation of Iraq cannot be seen in isolation. The U.S. is actively attempting to destroy every government that resists the Empire. The Iraq war is not an aberration nor is it a “mistake” of conservative politicians. The war in Iraq is a necessary component in the political program and the institutions of global conquest and exploitation.

---

I certainly haven't said anything even remotely close to this! In fact, what I have asserted is that the war in Iraq was necessary in order to undo the trouble that the US contributed to there (which was a source for Osama's power). I don't see the US going after all the dissenting countries of the world.

quote:

---

Bush is compelled to justify the ongoing military conflict and occupation in Iraq. With the old pretexts - that is, the old lies - so completely exposed, Bush tonight resorted to the constant referencing of September 11.

---

I've already provided a link about that. I honestly don't care about his speech. I thought correctly that it would mostly be more of the same things we've been hearing. It might have been good for shoring up swing Republicans views on the issue, but that's about it.

quote:

---

I find it curious you would cite your military service as proof you would defend America. Every nation expects attempts by enemies to penetrate their defenses, penetrate their intelligence services, destabilize their economy and propagandize their populations. Foreign enemy armies are not always the cause of the fall of powerful nations. Internal subversion was eloquently spoken about circa 60 BC:

---

I find it curious that you would once again stoop so low as to call someone a traitor, especially someone such as myself. I suppose that the millions of Democrats working in this country and for this country are all traitors in your book. That's a really sad and unfortunate position to take, and one that continuously undercuts any credibility that you hope to have. There's a reason for Proxieme's thread, and you've just illustrated it brilliantly once again.

quote:

---

When you post the anti-American thoughts of others, when you call the US a repressor, when you give credence to the notion the terrorists and criminal elements in Iraq are fighting for their country and when NO word off your keyboard is in defense of America but is in fact a rant against America, why would anyone get the idea you would defend America.

---

Wow! Some more utter ridiculousness. I haven't posted any anti-American thoughts of others. I've posted the truth as faithfully as possible, and you choose to incorrectly believe it's anti-American.

I'm sorry that you don't like that America's policy through the Oil for Food program did indeed repress the people of Iraq. That policy was determined to keep America safe by keeping supplies that had potential for weapons construction out of the hands of Saddam was it not? As a result the citizens of Iraq suffered. This IS the truth of the matter. It's not anti-American. It's the set of facts with which you ought to be judging the situation if you want to look objectively at your own assertions that we never did anything to harm Iraqis while Saddam was in power. Instead of proving me wrong, you're claiming anti-Americanism. It's BS, and you still know it.

quote:

---

you give credence to the notion the terrorists and criminal elements in Iraq are fighting for their country

---

Yes I did, and let me put it in context Mr. Rove. Osama bin Laden was able to recruit Middle Eastern people to his terrorist network by pointing to the results of US actions through the Oil for Food program (whereby certain requisitions by Iraq for necessary items were indefinitely held up by the US due to possible double use as a means of making WMDs). He was, in essence, able to say, "Look what the US has done to the people of Iraq. Join me in fighting them."

Jwhop, people would look to me for defending America perhaps because I'm open-minded enough to look at the facts and not jump to judgement based on bias. When people are just blindly biased and patriotic, events like Abu Graib happen.

quote:

---

Let me remind you that military service is no indicator of philosophical identity with a country or patriotism. Let me further remind you of Benedict Arnold, the first American traitor.

---

I'll be sure to let my Navy buddies in the area that their service was for not since they too voted Democrat, and have trouble with this administration.

quote:

---

those on the left but we do recognize you identify with our enemies, talk their talk, support their causes and post their rants. Why not go all the way and contribute your money as opposed to contributing your mouths? You could go to their website and put your money where your mouths are.

---

posted July 01, 2005 05:41 PM            

quote:

---

Can you explain Acoustic, how your positions materially differ from those of the enemies of America?

---

The quotes were to show the kinds of things said on leftist websites...members of which are the enemies of America.

So, you don't see America as an imperialist power?

You don't see America as a repressor of others?

You don't think the War in Iraq and the sanctions leading up to the war were about oil?

You don't think the war in Iraq is about giving Haliburton huge government contracts?

You don't think the terrorists in Iraq are fighting for their country...in the face of an elected government?

You don't think the war on terrorism is really about advancing American imperialism and the globalization by American corporations?

You don't think the war in Iraq is an illegal war?

You don't think Bush lied about Saddam's WMD?

Now, I've asked you what you think..without regard to what leftist reporters and bloggers think.

Unless you're John Kerry or the reincarnation of Benedict Arnold, I didn't call you a traitor.

posted July 01, 2005 06:24 PM            

quote:

---

So, you don't see America as an imperialist power?

---

I think that argument could be made, but ultimately people showing up to vote in Iraq implies that the Iraqis are indeed interested in democracy of their own volition with the US havign to dictate that this is their best course of action.

quote:

---

You don't see America as a repressor of others?

---

I see the US as generally trying to do the right thing. Sometimes there are bad consequences from doing the right thing. With regard for Iraq, it was the lives of Iraqi citizens or Saddam possibly making WMDs. We decided to sacrifice the health of Iraq for the health of Saddam's enemies. I don't think that's a bad choice.

quote:

---

You don't think the War in Iraq and the sanctions leading up to the war were about oil?

---

I don't see the sanctions as linked to a US desire for oil. The War itself can be interpretted as a war for oil, or the financial gain of getting oil production going again.

quote:

---

You don't think the war in Iraq is about giving Haliburton huge government contracts?

---

Well, yeah, it's clear that US contractors are making lots of money on this.

quote:

---

You don't think the terrorists in Iraq are fighting for their country...in the face of an elected government?

---

Well, this isn't an all-or-nothing type of situation. There are multiple groups of people involved in the insurgnecy. There is al Qaeda in Iraq as one group. As at least one of my articles posted here stated, the US and Iraq are talking about negotiating amnesty for certain groups of insurgents as a way to, "split the insurgency between Iraqi and non-Iraqi lines and further alienate foreign fighters like al-Zarqawi." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159477,00.html So I would say that some may believe themselves to be fighting for their homeland, some think they are fighting for some loyalty to the peoples of Iraq, and some are fighting, "the third world war" against the US in Iraq.

quote:

---

You don't think the war on terrorism is really about advancing American imperialism and the globalization by American corporations?

---

Nope. In fact, I think that most of the contractors over there belong to organizations that are already global.

quote:

---

You don't think the war in Iraq is an illegal war?

---

Illegal in what sense?

quote:

---

You don't think Bush lied about Saddam's WMD?

---

I do think he lied about them, with perhaps just reason, though. Even Clinton agreed with that assessment, so it was a failure of intelligence.

quote:

---

Now, I've asked you what you think..without regard to what leftist reporters and bloggers think.

---

I may have posted articles from leftist journalists, but I have no way of verifying that. I don't go for bloggers. Bloggers can literally say anything they want without regard for the facts. I've also posted stuff from foxnews and the office of a Republican.

quote:

---

Unless you're John Kerry or the reincarnation of Benedict Arnold, I didn't call you a traitor.

---

Well forgive me for that interpretation when you've called me anti-American, and posted::

quote:

---

For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.

---

posted July 02, 2005 01:32 AM              

hehehahahahahhehehehahahahehehehahahahehehehahahaheheehaha

All you have on me is my admitedly **** poor spelling ?

hehehahahahehehehahaha

Yes, the old Russian standard WW2 issue is indeed outdated..

But I still have a profound Love for it. As with any other "old styled" bolt action that doesnt jam up like an M-16. Dont get me started on american ignorance that keeps that POS and its equaly useless protegue the standard issue for american army.

You can have all the armed americans you watn [not for long, big brother wont allow that too much longer], and there high tech military,,,,

NOT ENOUGH

NOT ENOUGH

NOT ENOUGH

What did Rome have compared, what did the Greeks once have compared, what did the Egyptians have compared, what did Babylon have compared,, and too many others too mention before and since these.

???

Go farther back in history budy,, pay real close atention,,,

the most and the best tech means about this much when the big empires time runs out and theres no freinds left--------

didley shite and sqaut.

How long do you relay think Creation is gona shed its lite and graces on any empire that abuses its gifts of power ???

I dont care how long you think or recognise.

Your opinions and sill little so called facts and figures wont meen much when the wheel of Karma swings back "full cirlce"

Such a "perfect circle'"

My mortal freinds

nap time is soonly over...hope you enjoed your blinding slumber.

And jst incase any fool thinks Im coming off as some sorta dip stick terrorist--

posted July 02, 2005 03:25 PM            

quote:

---

I think that argument could be made,( the US as an imperial power) but ultimately people showing up to vote in Iraq implies that the Iraqis are indeed interested in democracy of their own volition with the US havign to dictate that this is their best course of action.

---

Not in the wildest ravings of a lunatic could the US be seen as an imperial power. We hold no extra-continental US territory which has not been given the choice of remaining a US possession, state or separating to form their own country. We hold less territory now and by agreement, than immediately after WWII.

quote:

---

I see the US as generally trying to do the right thing. Sometimes there are bad consequences from doing the right thing. With regard for Iraq, it was the lives of Iraqi citizens or Saddam possibly making WMDs. We decided to sacrifice the health of Iraq for the health of Saddam's enemies. I don't think that's a bad choice.

---

I disagree with your premise the US decided to sacrifice the health of Iraq's citizens in an effort to protect Saddam's enemies. The oil for food program was set up specifically to alleviate hunger and provide medicines and other necessities for Iraqi citizens. Saddam Hussein made the decision to reject the program for 5 years and then, after acceptance, subverted the program by bribing UN officials, government officials and business interests to skim proceeds off the top of sales of oil. He also used the money to build palaces and his bank accounts. Further, the UN took 1.5% of the proceeds of Iraq's oil sales to administer the program...proceeds, the remainder of which still have not been returned to Iraq's new government. Just for the record, where else in the world is the US repressing the citizens of other nations?

quote:

---

I don't see the sanctions as linked to a US desire for oil. The War itself can be interpretted as a war for oil, or the financial gain of getting oil production going again.

---

A rose bush could be interpreted as a porcupine but the facts are that oil companies and futures traders are making much more money with Iraq's oil production at a low level than they would with the lower prices oil would bring on the world market with Iraqi oil at full production.

quote:

---

Well, yeah, it's clear that US contractors are making lots of money on this.

---

I fail to see how US corporations and/or their subsidiaries should be required to work for free in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure which Saddam neglected for a decade..or more. It would take either someone totally disingenuous or totally cynical to put forth the suggestion the war in Iraq IS about providing bottom line profits for US corporations.

quote:

---

There are multiple groups of people involved in the insurgnecy.

---

Agreed...there are multiple groups. Disagree with the word insurgency.
There are foreign terrorists, not insurgents. There are native born Iraqis fighting against the government elected by a 70% vote of Iraqi citizens. They are killing civilians deliberately, they are terrorists as well. There are elements of Saddam's old security forces and former criminals released from Saddam's prisons fighting against the elected government and also killing civilians deliberately. They are terrorists as well.

All these groups are terrorists fighting against the formation of a duly elected permanent government for Iraq. They are and should be referred to as terrorists because:

Insurgents fight against the military and police forces of countries and/or foreign military forces within their country. Terrorists deliberately attack civilians to achieve a political aim.

The US has spent US money to rebuild Iraq, not Iraqi money. The US has announced the conditions upon which we will withdraw...when a permanent government is formed and when sufficient Iraqi military and police forces are trained to protect and defend Iraq. The US has done exactly what was stated so far and elections went off on schedule...in spite of the UN plan to put them off. No Iraqi has any reason to believe, based on US actions so far, that we don't intend to keep to the schedule/stated for withdrawal of US forces. The excuses made for terrorists...that they're fighting for their country is false. They are fighting directly against the will of a large majority of Iraqi citizens.

Further, the US and Britain have met with holders of Saddam's billions in foreign debt and gotten it forgiven..which takes the pressure off the new government for repayment. There is not one legitimate excuse for any Iraqi to be fighting against either the Iraqi government or coalition forces who are rebuilding Iraq. They are terrorists, pure and simple.

quote:

---

do think he lied about them, with perhaps just reason, though. Even Clinton agreed with that assessment, so it was a failure of intelligence.

---

I would suggest to you that the word lie carries the connotation of a statement being deliberately/intentionally false, the intent being to deceive those hearing the statement. Even Clinton acknowledged recently that Bush...along with every other leader in the world and their intelligence services, believed Saddam had WMD. There has been speculation that Saddam wanted to project the idea he had WMD...to forestal any notions Iran might have of attacking him...or to keep his image of the leader who would not bend to the will of Western nations. The question of Saddam's WMD is still an open question...given the size of Iraq, the reports of Russian forces removing them to Syria and the fact all the missing WMD....not accounted for in UN reports would fit into a bunker with the physical dimensions of one MiG 29...one or more of which was found buried in Iraq.