Rice: Iraq War Has Not Fueled Terrorism
Rice: Iraq War Has Not Fueled Terrorism
Condoleezza Rice was interviewed today by the BBC and she was asked a very good question:
BEALE: Do you think that Britain and America in Iraq are perhaps fighting the wrong war? They went to war to remove physical weapons of mass destruction but partly Saddam Hussein as well, but that hasn’t stopped the terrorist attacks in Western cities like Madrid, in London today. It seems to have fueled those attacks.
RICE: Oh, I don’t think that anything is being fueled here except the fact that the terrorists are finally being confronted. Again, they were — they’ve been doing this now for a couple of decades and for a while the world, going all the way back to Beirut and going back to the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 or the attacks on American Embassies in 1998, this has been going on for a while.
Rice’s response underscores the fundamental problem with the Bush’s attitude and approach to the war on terror. The president and his closest advisors refuse to acknowledge — no matter what happens — that the Iraq war has precipitated more terrorist attacks and more terrorists. This has been confirmed by the CIA and the State Department.
The decision to make the Iraq war the central component of the war on terror was a mistake. Rice should spend less time spinning past mistakes and more time creating a new strategy.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
No surprise here. The MO of the Bush Administration is to never, ever admit any kind of error of any sort, no matter how big or how small.
It works as long as the media goes along.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:17 pmWhat a crazy bitch. Where has she been living??? I am sure the neo-cons star wars plans would have stopped the London bombings! I don’t believe that for two decades there have beenb two to four car bombings DAILY! What are they smoking? Did they get into Rush’s stash???
July 7th, 2005 at 4:19 pmLaunch the missile defense system!
July 7th, 2005 at 4:27 pm“Oh, I don’t think that anything is being fueled here except the fact that the terrorists are finally being confronted.”
That’s exactly right. When you get rid of a hornet’s nest, the hornets are going to swarm short term. But that doesn’t mean the long term goal of eliminating the hornets isn’t working.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:32 pm“What a crazy bitch.”
Yet another classy, open-minded liberal. *L*
July 7th, 2005 at 4:33 pmWhether you on the Left want to admit it or not, Rice is correct. For three decades, since the advent of Palestinian terrorism in the 1970’s, terrorism, state-sponsored and otherwise, had not been confronted. Now it is being dealt with in its heartland.
You on the Left cannot admit that your purely defensive strategy of dealing with Al Qaeda using purely Law Enforcement/Whack-a-Mole methods left the strategic initiative where it always was: with al Qaeda. What Rice and Chimpy McBushitler understand is that the regimes that bore these little bastards need to be changed and the people in the region need to be given a different set of choices.
It is passing strange to watch people on the Left, people on the Left, be in favor of the maitenance of fascist regimes in the middle east such as that of Saddam al-Hussein. You on the Left don’t really want to fight Al Qaeda. You simply want to roll up into a little ball and pretend that mean old Mr. Terrorist will go away if you get rid of Bad Mr. Chimpy McBushitler!
Jesus, and to think that your party used to produce men like Harry Truman and George C. Marshall!
July 7th, 2005 at 4:41 pmSo When did we “get rid of a hornet’s nest”
Do you mean Iraq – Where terrorists are learning everything they needed to know about “urban warfare” and is becoming a terrorist training ground where it wasn’t before?
Perhaps you mean Afghanistan where the Taliban is resurgent?
I give. Which Hornet’s nest have we now got rid of?
Z.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:42 pmPre-war Iraq? Hornets’ nest? Show me the fact ED. Otherwise, see #1.
I can read the posts just as you can. You don’t need to point out swear words and insults just to make you feel better about yourself. You’re a big boy, you can handle it. So can Condi, I’m sure.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:44 pm“When you get rid of a hornet’s nest, the hornets are going to swarm short term.”
That is one inept comparison. We’re not dealing with hornets, notwithstanding the fact the this administration certainly poked into something (i.e, Iraq) that has stirred up more problems and made the world LESS SAFE, we’re dealing with a group of well organized, well trained, opponents of a POLICY that this government, and governments before it are pursuing in their homeland. They’re fighting back the only way they can, and our EXPENSIVE military can’t do a thing about it. Yet, this administation wants to develop Nuclear Weapons! and Space Missiles!……….both of which will not deter what happened in London, or what happened on 911. Let’s talk sane policy and economic justice. As the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, and the environment is despoiled, we will see more of the same.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:48 pmA quick question for AFJ – has this regime, I mean administration, ever made a mistake?
Further, glad to see a neocon reading some intelligent material. Thanks for logging on.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:55 pmSection9,
Show me how “Rice and Chimpy McBushitler” are correcting Saudi Arabia? Hell, even show me how Al’Queda’s being beaten when we gave them a new country to work out of in Iraq? London bombing? Boy, that’s progress. You see, if Al’Queda were weaker, how do they strike in a seemingly well protected country when they have been weakened?
Am I balling up in opposition to you? Hell no! So why would I try that with terrorists? Try again. Maybe if you get it wrong ehough times, eventually you could figure it out and get it right. WE hope so.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:55 pm“Whether you on the Left want to admit it or not, Rice is correct. For three decades, since the advent of Palestinian terrorism in the 1970’s, terrorism, state-sponsored and otherwise, had not been confronted. Now it is being dealt with in its heartland.”
I disagree. Rice is wrong. For three decades Terrorism has been confronted. Maybe not by the US who were busy with the Iran-Contra deals and the like.
Tell The Spanish that they have never confronted terrorim, and then ask them about ETA (1958-…).
Tell the West Germans that they have never confronted terrorism, and then ask them about the Red Army Faction (1970s-1998)
Tell the British that they have never confronted terrorism, and then ask them about the Provisional IRA (1969-…)
and so on…
Z.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:56 pmfunny Ed
you say they will swarm short term, however rummy recently said that we could be in Iraq for another 12 years. Is that short term?
July 7th, 2005 at 5:02 pmCondi doesn’t think that the terrorists are being fueled by the presence of the coalition of the willing idiots in Iraq. Does anyone really think that she would break away from the WH spin and possibly think for herself? HELL NO! She’s got to keep up with all the lies from this corrupt administration. I don’t think she could think for herself if Rove let her.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:02 pmWake up, Rice! Everybody this side of the beltline knows that the foreign troops…U.S., British, etc., etc….are the reason that the terrorist attacks have increased from 650 in 2002 to roughly 3000 in 2004.
It blows me away that she contradicts the reports that have been confirmed by her own department, the State Dept., and by the CIA. Of course Bush and his lackeys don’t believe anything coming from the CIA anymore after their big screw-up of “information” before the illegal invasion of Iraq.
None of these idiots will stop spinning the past mistakes to make new strategy. It’s to hard to come up with new ways to combat terrorism. It’s so much easier to keep rehashing what has happened in the past. Just keep bringing up 9/11 and Saddam and keep playing with “color code” when the ratings start to fall. Doing this also helps to keep the public scared…with help from the MSM like FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and so on.
If they don’t admit to the fact that terrorist activity has increased, they won’t have to put the funds into Homeland Security like they should. Actually, I’m more worried about what my own government would do to me and my family then what the terrorists might do to me. Government power is a scary thing, and this administration has WAY TOO MUCH power.
I want to hear what the democratic response to Iraq would have been. Let me guess, you wouldn’t have attacked it. So millions of people would still be living under Sadam’s brutal dictatorship. The real torture chambers and rape rooms would still be operating and so on. The senate and house had full visibility to all of the intelligence that Bush had the WMDs and voted for action. I’m sick and tired of liberals with the holier than thou attitude thinking that we can negotiate with Al Queda. We led them to Iraq so we could fight them there instead of here.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:03 pm“Truth”,
Exactly right. We wouldn’t have attacked an inept, defanged dictator, replacing his brutal regime with an occupation that 1) can’t keep the peace, encouraging terrorists to make Iraq their new homeland and training ground, and 2) kept those very same torture chambers open.
And since when has anyone on the left suggested negotiating with Al Qaeda? Find me an example, or admit you’re wrong.
Honestly, you sound like a rehash of every debunked talking point that’s come out over the last couple of years. I guess “Bush blindness” really is terminal…
July 7th, 2005 at 5:07 pmBrain death is rampant among the Bushcovites. There is no other possible explanation for such stupid comments.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:09 pmIf I were “in favor of the maitenance of fascist regimes in the middle east” I would have voted for the guy who walks hand-in-hand through the bluebonnets with Crown Prince Jihad of Burkastan. You know, the guy who has Uzbek leaders over for dinner?
Remember which party maintained the fascist regime of Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, and which left wing groups called for and end to that support. Today, Amnesty International is still crticizing Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld still dismisses their criticism.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:09 pmThat’s exactly right. When you get rid of a hornet’s nest, the hornets are going to swarm short term. But that doesn’t mean the long term goal of eliminating the hornets isn’t working.
Of course, actually building the hornets a new home isn’t a great idea, either. Which do you really think we’re doing in Iraq?
July 7th, 2005 at 5:11 pmFYI, the democratic response would have been to pursue al Qaeda in the ‘Stans, while using diplomacy and economic pressure to push the most moderate regimes into full democracy. Iraq would be the last dictatorship to fall, after the benefits of democracy were successfully demonstrated in countries like Jordan, Lebanaon, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Palestine etc.
Instead, we’ve got Arabs looking at the state of Iraq and thinking, hmmmm maybe our dictatorship isn’t so bad after all.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:15 pmIt is passing strange to watch people on the Left, people on the Left, be in favor of the maitenance of fascist regimes in the middle east such as that of Saddam al-Hussein. You on the Left don’t really want to fight Al Qaeda. You simply want to roll up into a little ball and pretend that mean old Mr. Terrorist will go away if you get rid of Bad Mr. Chimpy McBushitler!
Absolutely hillarious, coming from someone who obviously backs such a disastrous distraction (Iraq) from actually fighting al Qaeda. Remember Osama bin Laden? No? He’s the guy who actually attacked us on 9/11.
Honestly, you guys are too much. There’s literally no evidence that could be provided that would convince you that the Iraq War has become a disaster on every level. Fortunately, most of the American Public isn’t quite so brainwashed.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:16 pmYou bushies are over the top today.
You want to stop the current primary force of terrorism? Go after it’s source. That isn’t Iraq, it isn’t Iran. It isn’t even nations, but collections of individuals.
We need to address our issues and hands off policies with Pakistan. We should be going after Osama in Pakistan. Now I don’t want a war in Pakistan. Too many people. But at a certain point, we need to cross that border and do it ourselves because the Pakistanis are protecting him. The other is the financial resources in Saudi Arabia. Dubya’s family has inside goods with them. They are in as partners with The Carlyle Group. So, stop blaming liberals. It’s your cowardly leader (the one that refused to go to Vietnam, which btw I don’t blame him for, I wouldn’t have gone either if I had had to) who has made this whole thing worse.
That’s my opinion.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:23 pmThe Clinton Administration said Iraq was a threat, had WMD, and supported terrorists. I guess they were like Hitler too.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:28 pmBush served in the military, and his unit was not deployed to Vietnam. He did not refuse to go to Vietnam. That is a lie. Lots of units were deployed elsewhere in that period. Bill Clinton actually dodged the draft and lied about it. But liberals didn’t care about that, because they clearly have no principles.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:31 pmWould like to see proof to back up your assertion. preferably something not from the national review, and after 1992.
otherwise keep quite about things you don’t know.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:32 pmThe difference is that the Clinton Administration didn’t feel that it had to go charging in with guns blazing and no plan.
Z.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:33 pmWhat fuels Rice?
Wasn’t her speciality the Soviet Union? I’m sure she’ll become a Middle East expert. Some day.
Maybe she should call up Rummy and ask him about Iraq and “terrorism”. Afterall, didn’t Rummy tell the world he knew exactly where the WMD were?
July 7th, 2005 at 5:33 pmI agree, REAL truth, the Clinton Admin. did virtually nothing for 8 years. You consider saying there’s a threat but doing nothing a virtue, I do not.
In any case, the Clinton Admin. said Iraq was a threat, had WMD, and supported terrorists. What they did about it is a separate issue. Therefore, anyone who says (as liberals commonly do) that Bush lied and made up the threat, is a loon or a liar.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:40 pmBig difference. Clinton was (rightfully) against the Vietnam war. Bush supported the Vietnam war. So did Cheney. Cheney got deferrments. Everyone knew in 1968 that the National Guard wasn’t going to ‘Nam. Not with a draft. Not like today. But honestly, what does this have to do with anything?
July 7th, 2005 at 5:40 pmWhich assertion, Krazy?
July 7th, 2005 at 5:40 pmClinton contained Iraq while remaining vigilant at home. We learned later that he did a darn good job, as Iraq did not attack anyone. Iraq did not attack us. Operation Desert Fox neutralized his WMD capabilities. Clinton went after bin Laden, with as much authority as he had at the time.
Anyone who says Clinton did nothing about Iraq, or al Qaeda, is a fool or liar.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:42 pmCan I point out, 9/11 happened after the second longest presidential vacation in history, after Bush and Rice refused to discuss al Qaeda? After Bush put Clinton’s anti-terrorism operations on hold, pending “review?”
July 7th, 2005 at 5:44 pmcomparing clinton admin to hitler =P
July 7th, 2005 at 5:45 pmI second ex-hippie’s comment:
ANYONE who says Bill Clinton did nothing about Iraq or al Qaeda is a fool or a liar.
Sheeple who will believe anything their sainted leaders tell them endanger all of us. Globally.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:45 pmexcept ex-hippy forgot the part about the memo entitled “al quade determined to attack in U.S.”
July 7th, 2005 at 5:46 pmED,
Don’t bother reading responses to you comments, because then you would realize that your Clinton-WMD hangup has been addressed several times over. Comprende?
July 7th, 2005 at 5:47 pm9/11 happened after Clinton let bin Laden remain on the loose for eight years.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:50 pmIt has not been addressed Skidmark.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:51 pmMore reactions to London bombings at http://dearkitty.modblog.com/?show=blogview&blog_id=669907&
July 7th, 2005 at 5:52 pm9/11 happened after many administrations coddled the Islamofascist Saudis (and continue today). Clinton was probably the least coddling towards those bastards.
Ed probably sees today’s bombing as proof that Bush’s policies are working, in a “last throes” kind of way. We could have another 9/11 tomorrow and Ed would not change his mind.
I’ll start supporting Bush if he goes after bin Laden and brings A.Q. Khan to justice. No danger of that happening.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:58 pmBush is going after bin Ladin. We just lost 18 men in Afghanistan. Current-hippie spits on their graves.
July 7th, 2005 at 6:00 pmOK, Editors, explain something to me then. If Bush is REALLY going after his family’s former business partner, bin Laden, then WHY oh WHY did he call off the 10th Mountain Division when they had the bin Laden son cornered in Tora Bora?
Explain this one. Please. Be accurate. Be truthful. This is NOT the time to spout ideologies or your “beliefs” that can NOT be proven. Facts only. Thank you.
July 7th, 2005 at 6:08 pmJ.C.,
July 7th, 2005 at 6:17 pmI cannot explain why you believe those crackpot conspiracy theories. Perhaps your tinfoil hat is on too tight.
Just ignore it like the other facts you deny, ED. Reality has no place in your arguement. You don’t mind if I use skidmarks, do you? Clever, and original.
July 7th, 2005 at 6:23 pmWaiting on the next pitch, ED. Hey batta-batta…
July 7th, 2005 at 6:25 pmIf the wingers could read they would know that the Islamic group that claimed responsibility for the attack stated their reason very clearly.
They said until we and Britian, Denmark and Italy withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan expect more attacks.
They clearly warn that Denmark and Italy are next.
These are the nations whom with the U.S. illegally attacked Iraq and killed thousands of innocent people.
It’s not rocket science to folks with a brain.
We attacked their civilians and now they are attacking ours.
Duh.
P.S. do not expect the wingers to ever get a grip on reality. They are barbarians and love the destruction of humanity.
July 7th, 2005 at 6:29 pmEAFJ, I guess krackpot konservatives don’t read or listen to anything that is not Fox News endorsed. Educate yourselves. Please. And look up Seymour Hersh on the topic while you’re at it.
July 7th, 2005 at 6:29 pmOBL was not a business partner with the Bush family. Ever. Where did you hear that? Classic paranoid mentality JC. Put up your evidence so I can debunk it. Give it your best shot.
July 7th, 2005 at 6:29 pmHow ’bout something less biased and more credible than Seymor? The problems with his story telling have been revealed over and over again. But link us to something specific he wrote. I will gladly debunk it.
July 7th, 2005 at 6:36 pmSusan, terrorists have been killing innocent civilians for DECADES. American civilians included. When will you realize that? Duh?
July 7th, 2005 at 6:41 pmSteed,
I won’t bring you any data pertaining to the Bin Laden Bushie partnership because you wont believe it anyway.
Or, maybe if I sign this: Bill O’Reilly you’ll believe it.
Or, Anne Coulter
Or, Rush Limbaugh
Maybe you could partner up with these radicals, your name fits well with the fox freak show.
July 7th, 2005 at 6:43 pmSL, read. Read more than FOX feeds you. Please do a little research. Your sainted fool in the MonkeyPalace, formerly known as the WhiteHouse, was indeed doing business with the bin Ladens. They were co-investors in a group called Carlyle. Google it. Learn. Educate.
“Former President George Bush met with King Fahd, right, on a trip to Saudi Arabia last year as part of his work for the Carlyle Group.” (captioned photo, NYT, 3/5/01)
Who were amoungst the list of investors in Carlyle? Read ‘um and weep:
Number 41 – George Bush
Bush’s close buddy, James Baker
Frank Carlucci
the House of Fahd
the bin Laden family
There are others, of course. Its a long list. But some time after 9/11, the bin Laden family was asked to cash out of the group after Bush Sr. realized it might not look good for them to be seen together. Literally.
July 7th, 2005 at 6:45 pmSkid,
Buckshot/fake/ed cant stop thinking about the skidmark he wears across his nose.
Ya know, he flips a coin each morning when he wakes.
Heads it hairpie, tails it’s balls across the nose.
(sorry, Dice is funny sometimes)
July 7th, 2005 at 6:46 pmTelling me I spit on the graves of U.S. Servicemen? Another well-reasoned reply from the right. Typical hate-mongering.
We lost 18 lives going after the Taliban, the one that Bush said was defeated forever. OBL is in Pakistan, where Bush has ordered our troops not to go.
OBL was not a Bush family partner. The Saud family was and is, and they did and do support terrorism.
July 7th, 2005 at 6:47 pmEditor’s? Do you actually believe that Bush completed his air guard training? Do you actually believe that we are saver NOW than before this occupation of Iraq? Do you believe in the book ( how much did you make in the war daddy? ) Do you think that BUSH has served up the US goverment to the RICH? Do you believe in forced sex slave like Tom Delay? How do you like our republican controlled deficits? Get your head out of your ass.
July 7th, 2005 at 6:48 pmBush says he knows the solution to terrorism is to bring democracy and freedom to the mideast. Too bad his supporters didn’t listen. People like Ed are more interested in villifying the “left” than with actually winning the war on terror.
July 7th, 2005 at 6:49 pmHey JCGofW,
July 7th, 2005 at 6:50 pmI did some work for a big wig with Carlyle.
My guys had to go thru massive security measures to do the work.
The guy is extremely paranoid.
Does Mitch Rubin ring a bell?
Susan, Hum a few more bars. Its late in the day and my mind is filled with hatemongered comments thrown by the “loving”, “compassionate”, konservative ‘merikan Taliban.
I know what you mean about paranoid. I used to work in the industry. Did you get out of Carlyle in one piece?
July 7th, 2005 at 6:58 pmJC, I’m aware of that M. Moore conspiracy theory. The bin Laden family is not Osama bin Laden. The bin Laden family is not al Qaeda. The bin Laden family are not terrorists. Please explain how OBL is in business with the Bush family. Try again.
July 7th, 2005 at 7:00 pmSL, its not Moore’s conspiracy theory. Sorry to disappoint you.
You know about the bin Laden construction family? Good. You know about Carlyle Group? Good.
Remember the little wedding video that was shown around the world shortly after 9/11, and shortly after the bin Laden family said they had nothing to do with UBL? Who was there? Remember? They were hugging and laughing and carrying on? Don’t tell me you don’t remember.
Come on! Its right before your eyes and you won’t see it. It does not take a “liberal” to see reality clearly. BTW, there are plenty of well documented sites on the web. Look ‘um up.
July 7th, 2005 at 7:08 pmPeople like cynical ex-hippie are more interested in villifying the “right” than with actually winning the war on terror.
July 7th, 2005 at 7:13 pmEAFJ, send your child into this “war”. I dare you. I unwillingly sent mine. He really wanted to go. And you know what? He learned more than you seem to know or understand about this “war on terrorism”.
Gads. Are all christofacist konservatives like you this dense? No wonder we’re in trouble.
July 7th, 2005 at 7:17 pm“Gads. Are all christofacist konservatives like you this dense? No wonder we’re in trouble.”
A bigoted comment from a liberal, how unsurprising.
July 7th, 2005 at 7:25 pmJCGofW,
Carlye is based in Florida but one of the big wigs name is Mitch Rubin.
He owns a home (mansion) in Longrove, Illinois
My guys got out in one peice because he was rarely there. (He was in Florida a lot)
When we did service to his home he first evacuated his wife and children and had his personal assistant and security guy lead the techs around.
A real pain in the butt. Never satisfied and too much hassle so we dumped him.
We do work at a Republican Congresswomans home also.
She’s alright. She leaves her front door wide open and just yells “come in” when we arrive.
July 7th, 2005 at 7:25 pmI think it bums her out when I don’t acknowledge her position. She only won her seat because she was not challenged.
I’m sure skid knows her (I think he’s in the Chicago area).
JC, appearing in a wedding video is a far cry from being in business with the Bush family. I’m open to hearing some real evidence. None if this innuendo, circumstantial…oh yes, irrational.
July 7th, 2005 at 7:31 pmOh yeah!
July 7th, 2005 at 7:31 pmOBL also worked for the CIA and had ties to his daddy(sr.), former CIA chief.
July 7th, 2005 at 7:33 pmSusan, interesting. Sounds just like the guys I worked with around the Beltway lo those many years ago. Amazing world views. COmpletely out of step with anything I’ve seen elsewhere on the planet.
Power does very strange things to people. Power also does very strange things to the un-empowered sheeple.
I have friends who lived through Nazi Germany. Some bear the ugly marks of that former empire. They fear the way things are headed in this new empire.
Gads! some of the nutjobs that are running the joint will send us all over the edge and blame us for their mess. :-(
July 7th, 2005 at 7:33 pmSteed,
Now you’re just trying to be funny. C’mon over Steed, the water’s warm!
July 7th, 2005 at 7:35 pmGuilt by association Steed? Perhaps they chipped in on a wedding gift to save some cash? What could they have talked about while pictures were taken between the wedding and the reception? Which one led the chickenhawk dance? Or was it the macarayna?
July 7th, 2005 at 7:46 pmBush served in the military, and his unit was not deployed to Vietnam. He did not refuse to go to Vietnam. That is a lie.
Actually, he specifically requested duty stateside when given the opportunity.
Bush is going after bin Ladin. We just lost 18 men in Afghanistan. Current-hippie spits on their graves.
And you spit on their sacrifice by implying they’ve been given what they need to do their jobs.
Bush is not the troops. The troops are doing their best with what they’re given. The same cannot be said of their incompetent Commander-in-Chief.
People like cynical ex-hippie are more interested in villifying the “right� than with actually winning the war on terror.
And people like “The Editors” are more interested in posting mendacious, hit-and-run talking points than in actually posting material of substance and responding to facts. Perhaps it’s an issue of courage?
July 7th, 2005 at 7:49 pmMembers of the bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia knowingly contributed to OBL the terrorist pre 9/11(as they did when he was fighting the Soviets in Afg.). Bush admin. knew it, and have been closed mouthed ever since 9/11.
July 7th, 2005 at 7:50 pmoff topic: havn’t the words “savage” and “evil” spoken today lost a little steam in light of our recent behavior.
And people like “Kythe� are more interested in posting mendacious, hit-and-run talking points than in actually posting material of substance and responding to facts. Perhaps it’s an issue of courage?
July 7th, 2005 at 8:02 pmThink Progress underscores the fundamental problem with the liberal’s attitude and approach to the war on terror. The liberals refuse to acknowledge – no matter what happens – that the global war on terror was declared long ago by our enemies, it just took 9/11 for the fight to be taken to the middle east, were the root of the problem is : )
July 7th, 2005 at 8:04 pm(Trying to fit in to liberalland) I hear Karl Rove and Osama bin Ladin are actually the same guy. Oh, and Bush and Hitler are the same guy too.
July 7th, 2005 at 8:04 pmEditors,
July 7th, 2005 at 8:06 pmThank you for illustrating my point so beautifully. You make a great “Exhibit A” for right wing thinking and maturity level: I’m sure “I know you are, but what am I” makes a great impression with our illustrious readers :)
George Soros invested in Carlyle, by your definition he is also connected to OBL. The put-downs are not persuasive. Your “facts” are very dubious and easily debunked. Why not provide a reliable source rather than spew baseless conspiracies?
July 7th, 2005 at 8:07 pmFake: liberals long acknowledged the danger of terrorism. The difference is we didn’t want to use it as an excuse to go off and engage in right wing wet-dream activity like starting wars with irrelevant nations that distract from actually fighting terrorism.
July 7th, 2005 at 8:08 pmFake: I would be interested in seeing anything, in context, that you could find on Think Progress that backs up your point that “liberals refuse to acknowledge…that the global war on terror was declared long ago by our enemies”.
July 7th, 2005 at 8:10 pmHere you go Kythe right before your steaming eyes ina an earlier post by Susan (above)
“We attacked their civilians and now they are attacking ours.
Duh”
A liberal who won’t acknowledge the history of terrorism over the past 3+ decades. Enough said.
July 7th, 2005 at 8:16 pmOK, Steed — I guess I should have asked you to clarify; when you said Think Progress, I thought you meant the blog itself, not the comments (for which Think Progress obviously can’t take responsibility). However, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to generalize from a couple people posting on the Internet to liberals in general, the vast majority of whom were very much in favor of overthrowing the Taliban. Don’t you?
July 7th, 2005 at 8:19 pm“that the global war on terror was declared long ago by our enemies,”
That makes sense if Bush is concidered the enemy in that statement. Shouldn’t that read as “of terror” rather than “on terror”? Grammatical parsing perhaps, but I wouldn’t want anyone to misunderstand your point of view, as skewed as it may be.
July 7th, 2005 at 8:21 pmOf course, unless he’s posting under different names, it’s a bit difficult for Steed to claim to know what Fake but Accurate meant by the original statement…
July 7th, 2005 at 8:21 pmI also think it’s a bit much to say that the “war on terror” was declared by our enemies. Best as I can determine, the term was coined by George Bush. Terrorists have been doing what they do for a long time, and we’ve been doing what we do for a long time, too (some of which is claimed by terrorists as the reason they do what they do).
July 7th, 2005 at 8:23 pm“According to the NCTC figures, only 19 per cent of the terrorism incidents in 2004 were attributable to Islamic extremists.”???? Sounds like an epidemic caused by chimpymchitlerburton. So accounding to the link provided “While President George W. Bush argues that the greatest threat facing the US is terrorism, the NCTC data revealed that North America and the Caribbean suffered only 10 terrorism incidents in 2004, which included attacks by the Animal Liberation Front in the US.”
July 7th, 2005 at 8:27 pmSounds like Mr. Bush is doing a fine job to me, killin em there sounds better to me. Now you leftist animal lovers are going to have to stop loving critters more than humans and we would be doing pretty good.
Hey, The bin Laden family and the Saud family are probably some of the most western oriented families in Saudi Arabia. They themselves are only trouble to the US because their “kingdom” is a pressure cooker about to go. They individually are OK wrt America. But individual members within the family are the financial linchpins that support Osama and Al Queda.
If we were to make Saudi Arabia become a democracy it would be come the Taliban redeaux by popular vote. Now I’m all for giving the people their rights. Are you bushies ready to invade the place when they vote for folks you don’t like (and don’t like us very much)?
Follow the money. Iraq is only a problem because bush43’s buddies got their heads up their butts and he went along with it (what do you expect from a C student).
July 7th, 2005 at 8:27 pmIraqis didn’t attack us before we attacked their citizens.
July 7th, 2005 at 8:28 pmNice try to confuse terrorists with Iraqis when it is convenient to do so in your arguement. Learned from the masters, huh?
Thanks Skid, I knew you were a pal ; ) You knew what I meant because it is true.
July 7th, 2005 at 8:30 pmfake,
Read the NCTC figures again. Slowly if you must…
July 7th, 2005 at 8:32 pmRead it again fake…
July 7th, 2005 at 8:33 pmReally, feeding the trolls can be
July 7th, 2005 at 8:33 pmhazardous, but if one choses to
do so it is best to stick to the
topic at hard as the “fox method”
of running off on tangents allows
them to ignore the obvious failure
of their policies.
The new theme from the boss (Rove)
of blaming liberals for his policy
failures is a case in point.
Slowly…
July 7th, 2005 at 8:34 pmLure’em in and WHACK’EM!!
July 7th, 2005 at 8:35 pmWould you be a terrorist(patriot,revolutionary) if another country and society was invading your country ? changing your way of life? stealing your natural resources? installing its puppet govts.? disregarding your history and culture? Any answer other than yes is a total lie and that is what makes your kind so diff. the inability to put yourself in anothers place.
July 7th, 2005 at 8:43 pmCapitalism is a shark and it needs to keep swimming to stay alive, and it needs an enemy for stimulation. Next enemy, terra.
Don’t feed ED.
He is the low rent version of these guys.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federalist_Society_for_Law_and_Public_Policy_Studies
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html
July 7th, 2005 at 8:44 pmFOX NEWS REPORTS THAT THE LONDON ATTACKS WERE A “GOOD THING”!
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070005
July 7th, 2005 at 8:48 pmSHE IS INDEED A CRAZY BITCH !!
July 7th, 2005 at 9:00 pmSHE SHOULD GET LAID –LAYED–ONCE IN A WHILE-
WE NEED AN ENTIRE NEW WHITEHOUSE STAFF–
I HOPE THAT IS POSSIBLE–
I GET SO DISCOURAGED—
BUSH WAS DRUNK AND ON HARD DRUGS DURING HIS 4 YEARS AT YALE-
HIS BRAIN IS FRIED–I MEAN THAT LITERALLY–DAMAGED–
MY HUSBAND GRADUATED THE SAME YEAR AS BUSH–FROM YALE–
EVERYONE SHOULD RENT THE DVD “THE TRIALS OS HENRY KISSINGER”
THAT’S SOME POLITITION!-
BETTY R5OTHENBERG
Editors-
I believe the right-wing group that pays “you” should bring back the guy posting as you the last couple of days.
Sure his arguments were just as fallacious as yours, but at least his posts were more cogent.
Tag out, man, tag out.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:00 pmOkay, back to the main topic then. The Gulf War of 1991 is what fueled the killing of innocent U.S. citizens by radical islamic terrorists (al qaeda) and Saddam (U.S. sworn enemy of Iraq, applauded al qaeda’s terrorists attacks on Americans like you and me) in the past decade. Who disagrees? Who thinks there were no terrorists attacks on the U.S. in the 90s?
July 7th, 2005 at 9:01 pmSteed-
Let’s have a quickie “fact check”, shall we?
The Gulf War of 1991 is what fueled the killing of innocent U.S. citizens by radical islamic terrorists (al qaeda)
Can you cite any source that points to this single instance as the primary motivation for Al Quaeda?
Saddam (U.S. sworn enemy of Iraq, applauded al qaeda’s terrorists attacks on Americans like you and me) in the past decade
Can you please cite some sources of Saddam applauding Al Quaeda’s efforts in the last decade, particularly those reaching back as far as 1995.
On your last point, I am not sure what you are driving at when you ask “Who thinks there were no terrorists attacks on the U.S. in the 90s?”, because obviously there were.
Would you cite any attacks in the 90s that were known to have been perpetrated by Al Quaeda specifically?
I am anxious to drink from the fountain from which you draw your notions from.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:16 pmRead it again Steed.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:18 pmOkay, back to the main topic then. The Gulf War of 1991 is what fueled the killing of innocent U.S. citizens by radical islamic terrorists (al qaeda) and Saddam (U.S. sworn enemy of Iraq, applauded al qaeda’s terrorists attacks on Americans like you and me) in the past decade. Who disagrees? Who thinks there were no terrorists attacks on the U.S. in the 90s?
Be more specific, Stewed. It was the stationing of infidel troops on Islamic soil to be exact. Please use the term “civilians” or “non-combatants”. Even my youngest son wasn’t “innocent” at the age of two all those years ago.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:49 pmAnd yes, I’d want to rip the heart out of the Mothereffer that harmed his devilish ass, but that is a personal thing and has no place in the debate, or the real world. Let’s do away with courts while we are at it. Vigilantism is the way to go. Let’s load up on guns and ammo and get OBL ourselves, like that idiot bounty hunter with the bleached blond mullet, Dog. It will make for great TV on A&E.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:55 pmSaddam attacked Kuwait started it Ma. Then he laughed ha ha ha.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:04 pmStop feeding the trolls.
These people actually wear shirts that say
“KICK THEIR ASS AND TAKE THEIR GAS”
its like trying to reason with a doorknob.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:26 pm“JC, appearing in a wedding video is a far cry from being in business with the Bush family.”
Oh yeah, I’m sure you attend terrorists’ weddings all the time. No big deal. Right? You don’t see anything wrong with hob-nobbing around with OBL, as long as it’s social.
Can you say treason?
July 8th, 2005 at 12:13 amIf I wanted to defeat a superior enemy, I would try to provoke them into a reactive, mindless attack. I would make them lose their cool. Their attack would lack appropriate planning and fail to identify the wrong targets. I would want them to strike out in unthinking rage. I would want them to rely upon their military strength to the exclusion of subtler and more effective strategies. I would want them to divide their forces by blindly striking out at multiple enemies instead of defeating each in detail. I would want them so angry that they would ignore underlying social, economic and political issues that I would then use to mobilize the masses.
The Pentagon conducted a study of the probable outcomes of an invasion of Iraq during the first Gulf War period. It is 12 volumes long. It predicted exactly the kind of situation that we now see in Iraq. Our own generals predicted that a far greater force would be required than committed by the administration.
The administration constantly misunderestimated the problems that would be encountered after the invasion. What was that testimony: (1) We would be greeted as liberators, (2) The war would takes weeks, may be months, and certainly not more than 6 months, (3) The cost of the war and reconstruction would be 30-40 billion mostly to be paid for by oil revenues. Even after the invasion when anarchy and violence encompassed the country, the administration failed to use the Iraqi army to restore order (and provide a living for the former soldiers) and treated the violence as simply the normal bad choices by those experiencing freedom.
Yes, the administration acted exactly the way I would want if I were the inferior force attacking the giant. Concerted action against OBL and a trully successful reconstruction of Afganistan would have provided the U. S. with a far better position to have taken down Saddam. A little finesse may have provided a way of taking him out of power without the botched invasion that was undertaken. At least, the military could have concentrated its power against one objective at a time.
BTW – If I wanted to take on that super power, I would want them to screw up the basis of the war against Iraq. I would want their leaders and cheerleaders to proclaim loudly that we have a great new tactic: fight the war in some other country by creating a magnet for terrorists. I am sure the Iraqi people really want to know that our tactic is now to turn their country into a killing ground for the next 3 to 12 years for our enemies. I would want them to know that we want to get out by training their army and noncombatants to shoulder the burdern of keeping those terrorists off our shores.
In short, we will lose the war if we can not see the limits of military power, go off on a rage, fail to understand the motivations and tactics of our enemy, fail to recognize and learn from our mistakes and keep seeing only two stark choices for handling each situation in front of us.
July 8th, 2005 at 12:48 amWeak minds are so easily distracted…
…from the one thing that would end it for Bush & co.
DSM
All but forgotten now.
July 8th, 2005 at 6:21 am:(
Not forgotten. Just wait til Rove’s indictment next week…
Rove to be indicted “this week or early next”
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/7/6/125319/6928
“The ball is rolling, and it will not be stopped.”
July 8th, 2005 at 7:29 am#6 Section 9 – “You on the Left cannot admit that your purely defensive strategy of dealing with Al Qaeda using purely Law Enforcement/Whack-a-Mole methods left the strategic initiative where it always was: with al Qaeda. ”
BTW, where’s Osama? Why did Rice ignore Clarke’s Jan. 2001 plan to deal with Al-Queda? Got armor?
July 8th, 2005 at 11:07 am#15 Truth for America – “So millions of people would still be living under Sadam’s brutal dictatorship. ”
Paul Wolfowitz’s interview w/ Vanity Fair: Link http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html
“The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason. There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there’s a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it’s not a reason to put American kids’ lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there’s the most disagreement within the bureaucracy.”
July 8th, 2005 at 11:10 am#24 The Editors – “He did not refuse to go to Vietnam. ”
Yes he did –> BUSH MAY 28,1968 – I WILL NOT GO OVERSEAS
July 8th, 2005 at 11:13 amhttp://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1676124
#24 The Editors – “they clearly have no principles.”
A WHITE HOUSE AIDE who had told me one thing on the record a few weeks ago tried to persuade me over the weekend, not for attribution, that the opposite was true. I protested. His reply: “Why would I lie? Because that’s what I’m supposed to do. Lying to the press doesn’t prick anyone’s conscience.”
Capital: The Downsides of Loyalty and Discipline
July 8th, 2005 at 11:14 amBy David Wessel. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Dec 12, 2002. pg. A.2
#28 The Editors – “the Clinton Admin. did virtually nothing for 8 years.”
Wrong again. Here’s a small sample:
1996
Clinton administration brokers an agreement with the government of Sudan to arrest bin Laden and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. For 10 weeks, Clinton tried to persuade the Saudis to accept the offer. They refused. With no cooperation from the Saudis, the deal fell apart. No media operation bothers to look into what influence the Saudis’ old friends in the Bush family may have had in convincing the Saudis to refuse to cooperate.
1998
– Clinton gives the CIA a green light to use whatever covert means are necessary to gather information on Osama bin Laden and his followers, and to disrupt and preempt any planned terrorist activities against the United States.
– The CIA, under Clinton, trains and equips five dozen commandos from Pakistan to enter Afghanistan and capture bin Laden. The efforts collapse when a military coup overthrows the Pakistani government and installs a new one.
– Clinton signs a secret agreement with Uzbekistan to begin joint covert operations against bin Laden and Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. U.S. Special Forces have been training there ever since.
– Clinton’s unleashes cruise missile attacks on bin Laden in Afghanistan and the Sudan, following the terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Operating on limited intelligence — at that time, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Tazikistan refused to share information on the terrorists whereabouts inside Afghanistan — American forces miss killing bin Laden by only a couple of hours.
– Republicans (led by Trent Lott) and Naderites (led by Ralph Nader) accuse Clinton of only firing missiles in order to divert media attention from the Lewinsky hearings. A longer campaign against bin Laden would have stirred up even more criticism.
July 8th, 2005 at 11:16 am#28 The Editors – “Therefore, anyone who says (as liberals commonly do) that Bush lied and made up the threat, is a loon or a liar.”
Uh huh–>
POWELL, 2/24/2001: “He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass
destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors”
“The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn’t have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago.
It has been contained.” Powell, 5/15/01
“He [Saddam] does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His
military forces have not been rebuilt.” Rice, 7/29/01
VICE PRES. CHENEY:Saddam Hussein’s bottled up. http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-
speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html
“In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence, and never — not once — did it say, ‘He has WMD.’ ” GEN.
July 8th, 2005 at 11:18 amZINNI, Wash. Post, 12/23/03
#41 The Editors – “Bush is going after bin Ladin.”
So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. G.W. Bush March 13, 2002 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. G.W. Bush March 13, 2002 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
July 8th, 2005 at 11:20 am#74 fake but accurate – “for the fight to be taken to the middle east, were the root of the problem is : ) ”
Saddam’s Iraq was secular and how is handing out 363 tons of cash, mostly 100s, a “plan”?
July 8th, 2005 at 11:27 amWhy did The Federalist Journal tards list the same P.O. Box address as one used by Ventura County Superior Court Collections Unit in Simi Valley when registering their domain name?
http://www.whois.net/whois.cgi2?d=www.federalistjournal.com/
http://www.ventura.courts.ca.gov/collections.htm
I’m not sure that’s legal. In fact, I’m pretty sure it’s not, even if, especially if they work there in any capacity, which I doubt.
July 8th, 2005 at 12:03 pm“Therefore, anyone who says (as liberals commonly do) that Bush lied and made up the threat, is a loon or a liar.”
Priceless. Reality must come crashing into your delusional world at some point, not that it will do much good. Where are the WMD’s? Where are they? Where are the mobile labs? the tons and tons and tons bio/chem weapns? And since when do you listen to Bill Clinton?
July 8th, 2005 at 3:18 pmI guess we could follow Spain’s lead, elect a leftist govenment and withdraw our troops from Iraq. That should appease the terrorists and leave us alone. Oh, but here is a story you won’t see in the MSM, Spain uncovered a plot by Al Queda after these actions, that would have caused even greater destruction and loss of life. When are liberals going to get it? (answer: Never)
July 8th, 2005 at 4:47 pm#119 Stewed Cankersore is a poor reader. Public schools? *L*
July 8th, 2005 at 5:04 pm#120 David –
July 8th, 2005 at 5:06 pmI don’t know where the WMD are. Do you? The fact stockpiles weren’t found does nothing to establish that Bush lied. So which are you? A loon or a liar?
#119 Stewed Cankersore is a poor reader. Public schools? *L*
It’s a good thing you amended it. Dropped a zero. We will keep digging. Could get ugly.
July 8th, 2005 at 5:19 pmThat explains why you weren’t at your post all morning, and MIA. :) I Hope they pay you enough.
July 8th, 2005 at 5:21 pmSounds like Hillbilly Liberal is issuing threats. Could be a felony.
July 8th, 2005 at 5:35 pmSounds like Hillbilly Liberal is issuing threats. Could be a felony.
Your terror alert level has been raised hasn’t it? Leftists are out to get you, we are going to destroy this country. Please, call the FBI with the alleged threats. They are right there in B&W. I’m sure they will be as amused as we all are. I’d like it if you drew some more official attention to yourself. Using the Superior Courts mailing address and all. I bet there’s lots more to look into. It will get ugly. Make a call.
July 8th, 2005 at 7:01 pmI dare you to make a call, because I know you won’t, even you aren’t that stupid, and I think you have more to hide than any of us here. Please, alert the authorities to the alleged threat to find out who you are, who pays you, what your motives are and expose you for what you are. Please, make our job easier. In fact, do it for us. I dare you.
July 8th, 2005 at 7:06 pmhttp://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm
Need a dime? A stamp?
July 8th, 2005 at 7:09 pmFlip on a light switch and the roaches scuttle sideways…
July 8th, 2005 at 7:13 pmIn any case, the Clinton Admin. said Iraq was a threat, had WMD, and supported terrorists. What they did about it is a separate issue. Therefore, anyone who says (as liberals commonly do) that Bush lied and made up the threat, is a loon or a liar.
Comment by The Editors, American Federalist Journal
If Gore had been President, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened.
Richard Clarke says Clinton ordered the CIA to kill Osama and
they didn’t get around to it. Clinton wanted attacks on the
al Qaeda camps and the brass said “bad idea.”
Richard Clarke developed a plan to go after al Qaeda financially
and militarily. Clinton would have implemented it, but he didn’t
want to pass off to Bush a half-done war.
When Clarke visited Condi, Sandy Berger went along to
underscore the seriouslness of the al Qaeda threat. Condi
rejected Clarke’s plan, and Bush shut down FBI investigations
of suspected terrorist financiers, including those of bin Laden
relatives.
Under Gore, with Clarke’s plan in effect, our nation would
have been on alert, expecting al Qaeda reprisals.
Under Bush, we ignored warnings from 11 countries and from
FBI agents in Phoenix, Minneapolis, and Chicago. Under
Bush, Osama met with the CIA in the Amrerican Hospital in
Dubai in 7/01 when he was supposedly the most wanted man
on earth. That same month at the G8 in Genoa the Italians
installed SAMs to protect against an expected aerial attack
from… Osama bin Laden! Richard Clarke knew the “Atlanta
Rules” that closed the airspace above the 1996 Atlanta
Olympics.
And then Condi has the nerve to say nobody ever thought of
using aircraft as weapons! Well why did Bush have 24 hour
fighter cover in Crawford in 8/01?
9/11 would not have happened under Gore, and why the Dems
let Bush paint himself as strong on terror completely baffles me.
But let’s talk about something important, like Michael Jackson
July 8th, 2005 at 7:18 pmor that missing white girl.
“9/11 would not have happened under Gore, and why the Dems
let Bush paint himself as strong on terror completely baffles me.”
Right, like the
- 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center
- 1995 OKC bombing
- 1996 Khobar Towers
- 1998 African embassy bombings
- 2000 attack on the USS Cole
did not happen while the Clinton/Gore Admin. was in office for eight years. Because Clinton captured Osama bin Ladin. And President Bush killed Elvis and JFK too. You people are really kooks.
July 8th, 2005 at 8:53 pmHillBilly,
July 8th, 2005 at 8:54 pmI’m the Director of the FBI, as far as you know. *L*
Editors conveniently leaves out that FAR more terrorist attacks have occurred under his lord and savior, George Bush.
I guess that is why he calls himself Editors…he likes to selectively edit reality so that it better suits his GOP model of Nirvana.
July 8th, 2005 at 9:00 pmBecause Clinton captured Osama bin Ladin.
Talk about kooks…this putz wants to throw this in our face?
Hey chumpy, has BUSH captured Bin Laden? Has BUSH captured Zarqawi? Has BUSH slowed the onslaught of terrorism we have seen since he took the helm 5 years ago?
Oh that’s right…Bush doesn’t really think about Bin Laden all that much because he’s too busy thinking about how he has bungled Iraq everyday.
July 8th, 2005 at 9:03 pmEd laughs out loud more than a mental patient abandonded in the dayroom.
July 8th, 2005 at 9:27 pmabandoned
July 8th, 2005 at 9:32 pmJohn S. –
“Editors conveniently leaves out that FAR more terrorist attacks have occurred under his lord and savior, George Bush.”
How many attacks have occurred in the US since Bush took office? How many occurred while Clinton was in office?
“Hey chumpy, has BUSH captured Bin Laden? Has BUSH captured Zarqawi? Has BUSH slowed the onslaught of terrorism we have seen since he took the helm 5 years ago?”
Chumpy? Very mature. Bush has not had as much time in office as Clinton had. He isn’t finished yet. US troops are trying very hard every day to catch bin Ladin. You shouldn’t denigrate them.
Asking whether we’ve slowed the enemy in the middle of the war is foolish. Any rational person would expect a war to heat up in the middle. What you’re implying is that we should appease the terorists so as not to anger them, lest they attack us more. Utter nonsense.
July 8th, 2005 at 9:57 pmHow many attacks have occurred in the US since Bush took office? How many occurred while Clinton was in office?
Even better question, how many people died as a result of a terrorist attack under Clinton? How about under Bush?
Chumpy? Very mature. Bush has not had as much time in office as Clinton had. He isn’t finished yet. US troops are trying very hard every day to catch bin Ladin. You shouldn’t denigrate them.
About as mature as “You people are really kooks.” Way to be a Bush apologist, though I doubt another 2 1/2 years in office will bring about better results, but keep on dreaming. And when did I denigrate the troops? Care to offer up any proof of that? Oh that’s right…the typical conservative line: Attacking Bush’s awful policies = attacking the troops. Get a new line.
What you’re implying is that we should appease the terorists so as not to anger them, lest they attack us more.
Where you gleen this little gem from, I have no idea. Care to indicate where you got this “implication” from? I suspect not. Talking out of your ass is utter nonsense, and you do a damn good job of it.
Keep up the good work!
July 8th, 2005 at 11:30 pmThere’s an even more uncomfortable truth that the President Jr lackeys can’t handle or abide
That’s pointing out how President Jr allowed his desire to indulge a personal grudge with Saddam Hussein pushed aside the issues of both keeping this country safe from another Al-Qaeda satrike AND achieving justice for the family and friends of those killed and maimed on September 11.
Oh Yeah,
W used Affirmative Action to leapfrog aheed of over 500 MORE qualified applicants for that Air National Guard spot Daddy’s influence got him
July 9th, 2005 at 3:20 amThe Editors -
Care to respond to my posts?
July 9th, 2005 at 11:45 am“Even better question, how many people died as a result of a terrorist attack[s] under Clinton? How about under Bush?”
No, that’s an idiotic question. That may be one of the dumbest points ever posted on the Internet in fact. Clinton had nothing to do with the body counts of all the terrorist attacks in the 1990s. Bush had nothing to do with the body count on 9/11.
July 9th, 2005 at 12:00 pmSteve J.
Which posts? The ones where you posted some worthless out of context quotes? They were of no value, so there’s nothing to respond to.
“Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.” John Kerry, December 16, 2001
“Anybody who says there is no working relationship between al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence going back to the early ’90s–they can only say that if they’re illiterate. This is a slam dunk.” — James Woolsey, CIA director under President Bill Clinton, November 2003
“in the post-Sept. 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow in inspectors is in blatant violation of the United Nations 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power.” — John Kerry, Sept. 6, 2002
“There is also no question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and his success can threaten both our interests in the region and our security at home.” — John Kerry, Sept. 6, 2002
“If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community’s already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act.” — John Kerry, Sept. 6, 2002
“In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man [Saddam Hussein] should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.”
“I believe the record of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” — Al Gore, September 2002
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime poses a threat to his people, his neighbours and the world at large because of his biological and chemical weapons and his nuclear programme. They admitted to vast stores of biological and chemical stocks in 1995. In 1998, as the Prime Minister’s speech a few days ago made clear, even more were documented.” — Bill Clinton, October 2002
The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton
July 9th, 2005 at 12:03 pmHillary Clinton, lying right-wing neo-con:
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons” — Hillary Clinton, 2002
“Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt,” Hillary Clinton told the Senate the day she announced her support for the war.
“There’s a very clear history and intention of not only building stockpiles and adding to what they already have of biological and chemical weaponry, but attempting to obtain nuclear capacity” — Hillary Clinton
July 9th, 2005 at 12:06 pmThe Editors – “Which posts? The ones where you posted some worthless out of context quotes?”
Please supply the context for us.
July 9th, 2005 at 5:03 pmThe Editors – “Clinton had nothing to do with the body counts of all the terrorist attacks in the 1990s.”
LMFAO! You guys can’t even keep track of your own lies.
July 9th, 2005 at 5:04 pmSo, Steve, you think Clinton determined how many people actually died in the 1993 WTC attack? Are your really that stupid? Or are you just play-acting?
July 9th, 2005 at 5:08 pmSteve-
Save your effort…Editors just makes this sh1t up as he goes along, which is evident here.
July 9th, 2005 at 8:26 pmHillBilly,
I’m the Director of the FBI, as far as you know. *L*
Comment by The Editors, American Federalist Journal  July 8, 2005 @ 8:54 pm
That would explain 9/11.
July 9th, 2005 at 8:32 pmJohn S. – Yes, The (special) Ed is full of it but I worry about the casual reader who might think those posts were anything more than lies from a Bushevik.
July 9th, 2005 at 11:13 pmSteve-
Anyone who reads Editors posts and think he is telling the truth is beyond help.
There is nothing we can do to save them from themselves.
July 9th, 2005 at 11:56 pmThe senators SAW the intelligence reports. Bush DIRECTED the intelligence reports. Understand the difference?
July 10th, 2005 at 1:43 pmban the right wing asswipe…
July 10th, 2005 at 3:40 pm“The senators SAW the intelligence reports. Bush DIRECTED the intelligence reports. Understand the difference?”
I understand you just made that up. *L*
July 10th, 2005 at 3:41 pm“ban the right wing asswipe…”
And another example of liberal tolerance and open-mindedness. *L*
July 10th, 2005 at 3:50 pmI understand you just made that up.
Why should that bother you, Ed?
You like to make it up as you go along, too.
July 10th, 2005 at 7:24 pmEditor, I think you have just as hard of a time being open to other ideas but your own. But then again so does John. And I do agree that President Bush has a hard time admitting that he was wrong, the way he swaggers shows that. But then again, what president in recent history would admit to a mistake? Certainly not President Clinton when he was in office, until forced to.
July 10th, 2005 at 7:37 pmDemosthenes-
But then again so does John.
What ideas, specifically, do you think I reject that are “not my own”, as you put it? Also, I am confused by the dichotomy of your closing statement:
…what president in recent history would admit to a mistake?
Though you further note that Clinton did in fact admit to a mistake. Whether he was forced to or not is irrelevant when responding to the question you pose above. In additon:
- Ulysses S. Grant did it (albeit not while President).
- Dwight D. Eisenhower did it (while in office).
- Ronald Reagan did it, too (publicly).
So clearly, we have had Presidents in recent history that do admit to making mistakes. Just not Bush.
July 10th, 2005 at 8:18 pmi think that wars are stupid people ure riskiig peoples life… i dont like any of this mess….im goin to be in the national gaurd and i dont think that we should go to war…but i love to defend for my country…..i love usa but i hate bush
November 28th, 2006 at 12:57 pmNovember 28th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Sex Free Sex Pictures Office Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
May 1st, 2008 at 9:27 pmFree Granny Porn Milf Camps Friend’s Hot Mom
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
May 5th, 2008 at 4:28 pmSex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
May 12th, 2008 at 8:16 amYoung Girls Young Girl Models Young Puffy Nipple
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
May 12th, 2008 at 6:25 pmCracks House
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
May 13th, 2008 at 10:22 amJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
May 17th, 2008 at 1:14 amJoan
It has since been implemented in most other blogging tools. The TrackBack specification was created by Six Apart, who first implemented it
May 19th, 2008 at 9:10 pmAss Tight Ass Ass Worship
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:58 am