Hadley Rewrites History to Rebut Iraq Civil War Claims
Hadley Rewrites History to Rebut Iraq Civil War Claims
Yesterday on CBS’s Face the Nation, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley tried to rebut the claim that Iraq is in a civil war. Watch it:
Transcript:
QUESTION: What we seem to be seeing in Iraq is a civil war. Do you define it that way?
HADLEY: I think what’s important is rather than talking about semantics, talk about what’s happened. … Iraqi leadership clearly does not want to descend into further violence. The institutions have held together and if you look at the Iraqi people, every time they’ve had a chance to vote they have voted for unity and they have voted for peace.
But the only evidence Hadley provided — “unity” results of the December elections — is false: Nine out of 10 Iraqis in the Shiite Muslim provinces of the south voted for religious Shiite parties; nine out of 10 Iraqis in central and western Iraq voted for Sunni parties; and nine out of 10 Iraqis in the Kurdish provinces of the north voted for Kurdish candidates. Nationwide, only about nine percent voted for “national unity” tickets.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Yes but that 9% are the REAL iraqis…the rest are all terrorists
March 27th, 2006 at 5:49 pmAnd “we the people” should be surprised by his comments; blah, lie, bla, misreprentation,lie….
March 27th, 2006 at 5:49 pmTake that nine percent, and one percent of the rest of the population and then ask them…
9 out of 10 specially selected Iraqis want Peace and Unity, and vote for it…
This seems to be the way the Gullible Oaf Party count votes… 90% of our sample voted for us and the other 10% are wrong,.. let’s just make our sample small enough and selective enough.
I bet that they would give immigrants the vote if it meant that they would stay in power.
Z.
March 27th, 2006 at 5:54 pmI think what’s important is rather than talking about semantics, talk about what’s happened
Civil war is reduced to mere semantics now?
Mr. Hadley should tell the relatives of the dead that their loved ones died over “semantics”.
March 27th, 2006 at 5:55 pmThis is the same Hadley that was tied to AIPAC israeli spy ring? Of course it is. Rewriting history is his only hope.
March 27th, 2006 at 5:55 pmAh, those Bush administration toadies. Mr. Hadley is on TV for one and only one reason – to lie to you about what’s really going on. It’’s what everybody from the administration feels is their job when they go on the Sunday talk shows. They feel that the truth is getting too much attention and it’s their job to go out and cast doubts on the validity of what we’re hearing is really going on. This administration does not want you to find out what the truth is, and they will do everything they can (legally, and too often, illegally) to keep the truth from coming to light.
Truth to conservatives is like sunlight to a vampire.
March 27th, 2006 at 6:03 pmI didn’t realize that “Civil War” was a separate option on the ballots.
March 27th, 2006 at 6:07 pmTruth to conservatives is like sunlight to a vampire.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — March 27, 2006 @ 6:03 pm
Would sprinkling them with holy water do too? How about beating them with a crucifix?
March 27th, 2006 at 6:08 pm4. Mr. Hadley should tell the relatives of the dead that their loved ones died over “semanticsâ€.
Or, Mr. Hadley should tell the relatives of the dead that their loved ones died for the sake of an extremist Islamic republic with an extremly close and mature bond with Iran which Boy George called an axis of evil.
9/11 + Iraq = Bush’s Extremist Islamic republic?
WTF!!?
March 27th, 2006 at 6:11 pm#8 Good one. I’m not sure what will work. We can try “truthing” them to death (as our good friend Stephen Colbert might do), but they have such thick skins and clogged ears that you would have to hit them with a lot of truth, and in front of a lot of people for it to have the desired effect (slow painful death? maybe not that far). What we need is more people like Keith Olbermann on TV pointing out the lies of the other network personalities, especially the ones on that channel with the animal-sounding name, oh, yeah, Fox.
March 27th, 2006 at 6:18 pmWell, Mr. Hadley needs to get out more often. He’s been holed up in his own little universe for too long. Or has spent too much time under Preznit Numbnut’s desk.
…Three years after the war, and we’ve managed to move backwards in a visible way, and in a not so visible way.
In the last weeks alone, thousands have died in senseless violence and the American and Iraqi army bomb Samarra as I write this. The sad thing isn’t the air raid, which is one of hundreds of air raids we’ve seen in three years- it’s the resignation in the people. They sit in their homes in Samarra because there’s no where to go. Before, we’d get refugees in Baghdad and surrounding areas… Now, Baghdadis themselves are looking for ways out of the city… out of the country. The typical Iraqi dream has become to find some safe haven abroad.
Three years later and the nightmares of bombings and of shock and awe have evolved into another sort of nightmare. The difference between now and then was that three years ago, we were still worrying about material things- possessions, houses, cars, electricity, water, fuel… It’s difficult to define what worries us most now. Even the most cynical war critics couldn’t imagine the country being this bad three years after the war… Allah yistur min il rab3a (God protect us from the fourth year).
[from: http://www.riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ ]
March 27th, 2006 at 6:26 pmWayne, Gregor, how about a stake through the heart?
March 27th, 2006 at 6:37 pm#12 You know, that’s so crazy it just might work!
I still prefer to see them publicly ridiculed for their idiocy. Let them drive a stake through their own hearts. I don’t believe in killing people to solve problems, but in the case of people like these, I’m not entirely opposed to driving them to suicide.
March 27th, 2006 at 6:41 pmBoy, some of you guys here are way too quick to play to the Administration’s strengths (confuse the objective and the situation both), and too unfocused to stay on point to the Administration’s weaknesses (no objective and ‘anarchy’).
Have you guys seen the focus-group test results of the term ‘Civil War’?
That term has a far deeper meaning than some of you yankees can imagine; it’s a rather clever choice of words you know.
And if you think the Administration’s mule cited here evaded the term, he did nothing but bait you all into reacting to it.
Some of you guys sure are too quick to see what you want; I do believe the Administration’s mules know this too.
Played like a fiddle, again.
March 27th, 2006 at 6:43 pmThose semantics do seem to be leaving a trail of dead bodies…
That term has a far deeper meaning than some of you yankees can imagine
Yeah, but some of us don’t live where something that happened almost 150 years matters that much. Hell, some us live in places that weren’t even states.
March 27th, 2006 at 6:56 pmWayne, Gregor, how about a stake through the heart?
March 27th, 2006 at 6:57 pmNo, no, no … a stake through the heart, cut off the head, and stuff the mouth with garlic. Then, for good measure, screw the coffin lid on. That might do it.
My stepdad’s brother-in-law, from back in the day, my stepdad being almost 70. Anyway his b-i-l was from Alabama originally, and used to talk about how the sons of the south would rise again. In a more recent example, a colleague of mine grew up in the northern part of Lousiana, and said they learned about the “northern war of aggression” in school. Dem02020 has a point about the term civil war still carrying a lot of water in the south.
March 27th, 2006 at 7:04 pmHow come you can never get a straight answer out of these guys. They ‘refrase’ the question to channel the answer they want to give. He should have been asked NOT to define the statement,but just to give the best straight answer, and some backup figures to show it. Cheney always says…”What is important here is….the interviewer should DECIDE what is important to ASK, not cheney and all the others.
When I listen to Russ Feingold I’m never confused.
March 27th, 2006 at 7:19 pmSo it’s a matter of semantics to Mr. Hadley. He is desperately trying to put lipstick on the pig, as he is the one playing with semantics.
March 27th, 2006 at 7:24 pmApparently if he doesn’t label it a civil war, it isn’t a civil war. But isn’t that what Bush&Co have always done — declare something is so and proceed as if it really were so.
the neoconservative, extremist reality is not of this world. hadley is just another sicko…
these post-samara comments from a sunni leader:
can’t you all just feel the LOVE and yearning for UNION–with an assist by bush and israel???
oh, and just fuck bush
March 27th, 2006 at 7:29 pmThe Iraqi’s vote about like any other democracy today, but then again issues get hammered out in the legislature…but then again there was no voting in Iraq a few years ago let alone candidates.
March 27th, 2006 at 7:34 pm#21 Amazingly we used to have voting here and no longer do.
March 27th, 2006 at 7:43 pmRep. Curt Weldon gave Hadley a bunch of documents from “able danger” that showed that able danger had uncovered atta before the attacks on 9-11. Weldon said he gave Hadley his only copy…..yeah, I know, how smart is that…….whatever did Hadley do with those documents?
March 27th, 2006 at 8:00 pmMaybe its a war between factions or regions of the same country. (see definition civil war)
March 27th, 2006 at 9:46 pmThe amount of desperation being felt by BushCo must be extreme. The more panicked they are, the higher up the “food chain” their spokespeople go. Is the heat on?
March 27th, 2006 at 10:05 pmNice try mr hadley, but the American people are not buying your shit anymore.
March 27th, 2006 at 10:23 pmThere is nothing “civil” about what is going on in Iraq. Whether it’s civil war or sectarian violence or just a form of Muslim wilding,the nomenclature issue avoids the real position.
March 27th, 2006 at 10:38 pmThe administration has failed to achieve its plan. That is what needs to be harped on. It doesn’t matter who’s fighting who in Iraq,Cheney,Rumsfeld and Bush have failed to perform. This was supposed to be short and sweet and instead has been a poorly executed transformation from dictator to elected government.
Failure is the key word to describe these people.
Hmm…these guys really dont understand the difference between voting and democracy. Mob rule is also a result of voting. The majority bands together and muscles the minority. The Iraqis voted for their sectarian instincts in December. Rather than pulling the country together, the vote has actually pulled the country apart by letting people openly take sides in a country which does not have the rule of law or the checks and balances necessary to balance the tyranny of the majority. This is basic civics and you would think these idealogues would have understood this.
Anyway, we are where we are. My blog declares that Iraq is already in a civil war and we, the Americans, helped push them into it. Stop by and let me know what you think.
March 27th, 2006 at 10:51 pmThe only way that the Bush administration can end the civil wars in the East is to carpet bomb the entire Arabian and Indian peninsulas with 40 megaton nukes on 3 mile centers. It probably will. But what price will we have to pay?
March 27th, 2006 at 10:59 pmGOOD
March 28th, 2006 at 12:03 amBut the only evidence Hadley provided — “unity†results of the December elections — is false.
So TP provided “proof” by showing that votes were along coalition lines. What a surprise. Shiites voting for Shiites? That’s not unity! There is no unity in Iraq!
False logic, TP, by ignorance.
In fact there is unity, no matter how hard the leftist elite americans want to diminish the Iraqi’s persuit of a new government. They have experienced tyranny – you haven’t
There are more than 4 religious and secular coalitions in the new iraqi congress. One of those coalitions is Shiite/Sunni secular and have 25 members on the legislature, There are more than 20 parties represented in this legislature. And what they have accomplished is incredible.
Nice try TP. At least you fooled your gullible followers.
March 28th, 2006 at 12:07 amHadley is a Neocon, so who cares what he thinks about anything relating to Iraq! All Neocons should either be tried for war crimes or deported to Israel! As for Iraq: it does not matter if it is a Civil War, or not, because the place is in anarchy regardless!
March 28th, 2006 at 6:17 am[...] Hadley Rewrites History to Rebut Iraq Civil War Claims Think Progress, DC – 12 hours ago Yesterday on CBS s Face the Nation, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley tried to rebut the claim that Iraq is in a civil war. Watch it: [...]
March 28th, 2006 at 6:27 amThis weblog is pretty stupid in my opinion. What he meant was that by voting, they give confidence in the political system which holds them together as a country. If they truely wanted civil war, nobody would be voting. Why do they have record turnouts to vote for a better country if they wanted civil war? The author has twisted Hadley’s comments. Things are tough now, but the congress is amazingly almost ready for permanant service. To the disappoint of liberals, the sky has not fallen.
March 28th, 2006 at 8:36 amHadley is the guy they sent to Italy to investigate the Niger yellowcake intell……3 days after he met with Italian Intell……,the story was released to the media as fact, eh?
This guy should be wearing a swastika arm patch…..
March 28th, 2006 at 8:39 amThe attempts by the Bush administration to somehow spin Iraq as peaceful and serene are getting more and more pathetic as the days go by. This is besides the fact that they’re all lying. Throwing Hadley out there to give the media these talking points of “unity” and “everything’s ok” that are about a year old is just plain pathetic. And now Andy Card resigns. W = LAME-DUCK.
http://www.lcoliberal.blogspot.com
Most Ridiculous Story of the Day: Right Now on LCL
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
March 28th, 2006 at 8:51 amFull list of progressive news and events
#27
“This was supposed to be short and sweet and instead has been a poorly executed transformation from dictator to elected government.”
No matter who was in the White House the transition in Iraq was never going to be a smooth one and that all depends whether or not Sadamm was going to be removed in the first place. If Gore would have won the election in 2000, Saddam would probably still be in control of Iraq. Decades of political oppression cannot easily transition a society into peace especially one where a majority has been hammered by a minority for so many years.
March 28th, 2006 at 11:06 am#38 But Tracy, this was never supposed to be the plan – it was ‘go in, find the WMD, depose Saddam’ and then….? The American public was sold a war which was as easy as a lap around the freeway and a stop at the drive-through. The neo-cons in the Pentagon never planned for anything beyond that… So now what has been achieved that’s concrete in Iraq that clearly benefits the US national interest relative to price paid? Oh and Gore did win the election – Rehnquist voted twice – the second one counted more than the first.
March 28th, 2006 at 12:22 pmWhat if we created a democracy and nobody came? A very good question that deserves more answers than I have the time and energy to give. Thoughts, questions, comments?
March 28th, 2006 at 12:38 pm“Oh and Gore did win the election – Rehnquist voted twice – the second one counted more than the first.”
That funny, I don’t seem to remember him taking the oath of the presidency.
“So now what has been achieved that’s concrete in Iraq that clearly benefits the US national interest relative to price paid?”
Too early to tell. How long does it take for a country run by dictatorship for 30 years to change to a democracy? Germany didn’t have near the violence post Nazi regime that Iraq does and the Iraqi’s have achieved far more in the same time number of years.
March 28th, 2006 at 1:53 pm#40, me too – have to get on a plane to find out why the Alaskan North Slope is covered in the second largest spill in Alaskan history. The simple and pat answer is that people think that democracy is as simple as sticking your finger in a bowl of dye and unfortunately, government of the people, by the people, for the people is not quite that simple. I don’t think that anyone involved in starting this catastrophe understand that – certainly not the Two-pint Caligula running the United States.
March 28th, 2006 at 1:58 pm#41, neither do I and so died the American Republic.
And what exactly have the Iraqis achieved? I’d love to know by what measures we can use to compare the end of Naziism and Iraq…. – and before you answer voting – see post #42..
March 28th, 2006 at 2:03 pm#43
“The simple and pat answer is that people think that democracy is as simple as sticking your finger in a bowl of dye and unfortunately, government of the people, by the people, for the people is not quite that simple”
LOL! That is probably what those who are complaining about the situation in Iraq thought or think. Those who trumphted those who risked their lives to vote in Iraq were not under the dilusion that the next day Iraq would automatically become this oasis of democracy. They have said from the beginning that this was going to take time. Problem is American’s and Europeans are so insulated from political instability that their patience is as short as their attention spans…so goes those who think that Iraq is already lost.
“I don’t think that anyone involved in starting this catastrophe understand that – certainly not the Two-pint Caligula running the United States.”
I don’t think that anyone that ALREADY thinks that this “catastrophe” as such, has ever read a history book and probably haven’t actually researched into all of the historical milestones and facets in formation of democracies around the world. Voting is one of the the FIRST steps FYI. Just look at the U.S….a war to get out from under the British and then a CIVIL war to settle their differences.
March 28th, 2006 at 2:48 pmtracy, you are making my point for me:
1. that democracies take generations to make – I pose to you that the rule of law, the basics of life: food health utilities must be delivered before any purple painted fingers make a difference
2. dubya is the one who is denying that democracies take time – not me or you – your government has led you to believe that voting is the only thing that makes a democrcy. why don’t you ask adbul rahman what he thinks about the tolerant democratic state of afghanistan.?
would love to debate more but I have to get on a plane…
March 28th, 2006 at 4:55 pm45:
Where did you get the idea that Bush denies that democracies take time? He is the one saying we should stay until the job is done – the job being security is in place, the congress is in place, and basic repairs to the infrastructure are done. Liberals advocate “cut and run”. Murtha is their hero for this stupid idea. We need to do as Bush plans and stay long enough to give them a chance. Once security is strengthened and the Iraqi people can work on their democracy, we should leave. This has been the plan all along. It is the Iraqi’s responsibility to debate the issues and work to political solutions. In addition, they should handle most of the reconstruction. But they can’t do that with the current security threats. Voting (in large numbers) is significant, but not the largest part of being a democracy. What does make a democracy is desire. Iraqis have proved that they want a democracy by 30,000 brave deaths.
March 28th, 2006 at 5:23 pm#45
“I pose to you that the rule of law, the basics of life: food health utilities must be delivered before any purple painted fingers make a difference”
So are you suggesting that those basics of life MUST be delivered before elections should take place? Are you nuts? You are basically saying that the Iraqi’s should not have been allowed to choose who should be responsible for making those laws or how the food, health, and utilities should to be delivered. AGAIN voting always took place FIRST in infant democracies before all of those “services” we delivered. You are putting the cart before the horse.
“dubya is the one who is denying that democracies take time – not me or you – your government has led you to believe that voting is the only thing that makes a democrcy”
You been selectively listening then and ignoring the the entire message. Bush has been the one saying all along that rebuilding Iraq, is EVERY sense, will take time.
March 28th, 2006 at 5:56 pm#47 and you have still not answered the question – is this what you voted ‘George W Bush’ for? Its common sense, unless voting delviers something, stability, food, utilities, then there is no point voting – you think it is the same in America? Get real Tracy – people vote because they think it means something – if it doesnt, they know that voting is meaningless – the Iraqis have had nothing but death, disease, corruption and failure from the US occupation. They vote because they think their people can do something for them – why is it 90% of the votes cast are for extreme religious or partisan tribal parties? And only 10% for so called ‘unity’ governments. The votes are part of a ‘ballot box and bomb’ strategy by all of the sects: kurds, sunnis and shias. Read some Juan Cole and apply your intelligence to the evidence before your eyes. The fabulous democracy you tout is nothing but part of the civil war for control of the oil fields – now well under way.
#46 ‘plan all along’ no it hasn’t – read your recent history sonny. Rumsfeld said the fighting was all over in 5 days, or 5 weeks or 5 months – he was flat out wrong. Cheney said ‘welcomed as liberators’. Other wiser people said the US had 3 months to put the lights back on and make the place safe for people to go out in the street – well they failed miserably. 3 months before the excitement of deposing Saddam was replaced with ’so this is American democracy?’ Sorry you don’t get your several years in Germany and Japan. The real world does not resemble Disneyland gentlemen.
There was no plan for winning the peace, no plan for stabilization, no plan for rebuilding and now the rebuilding funds have been cut off.
“Security is strengthened” – when? when the one (maybe one – I heard it is back to none) Iraqi battalion capable of operating alone takes over a piece of desert border?
And who killed the 30,000? 1. you have an underestimate accodring to the Lancet medical journal and 2. you think all of these people died ‘bravely’ under fire by insurgents – or by trigger-happy American soldiers and gunships? Stop renting Chuck Norris films, you’ll find it helps.
Morally and realpolitically, both the right wing and the left agree that Bush’s Iraqi Disneyland is a huge strategic mistake. get out now, before America goes financially bankrupt – it is already morally bankrupt.
March 29th, 2006 at 2:36 am48:
Bush had a plan and goals, and our country ran up against unforseeable challenges. We try to play by military rules, and the terrorist are just evil. They blow up an ancient mosque just to make a chess move and attempt to start a civil war. They behead innocent people just to grab a headline and affect the will of Iraqis. They murder contractors and truck drivers trying to work and lead most of them to quit. They use roadside bombs to shut down travel. With these challenges, the original goals could not be met. If Gore or Kerry would have been in charge, they would have FOLDED at the first negative poll. They would have blamed everybody in the world while Iraq disintegrates. If Gore or Kerry would have been in charge back during WWII, we would probably be speaking German today. Bush is not like that. He doesn’t quit when people need him; he is responsible, and even in the face of challenge, he gets the job done. The sky has not fallen yet, to the disappointment of liberals, and we can still get there.
The liberal media paints a one-sided picture for you. You need to read other stuff and educate yourself in an honest way. Try Laura Ingraham’s website. She spent weeks imbedded with the troops and told the real feelings of the military and the Iraqis. I’m here because I am honest about how I want to educate myself.
You shouldn’t make light of my comments on the brave Iraqis who sacraficed their lives for their country. The Chuck Norris comment was uncalled for. Most of the Iraqis who have died recently are policemen and innocent civilians. The policemen go to work everyday for little pay in the face of huge threats. They care about Iraq and want this democracy for their families. We shouldn’t abandon them now when they need our help the most. It would insult and scrap all the sacrifices made by Iraqis and Americans so far.
March 29th, 2006 at 9:08 am“#47 and you have still not answered the question – is this what you voted ‘George W Bush’ for? ”
I voted for Bush so in the in the LONG term the Middle East might shift away from the radical Islamic mind set and evolve into a more moderate democratic place. Again you are judging the situation on way too short of a time frame. Please do some research on how long modern democracies took to form and become stable. Here is Turkey as an example of Islamic democracy….it took decades to form.
http://www.meforum.org/article/216
“Its common sense, unless voting delviers something, stability, food, utilities, then there is no point voting”
And just how long do you think it should take that to happen?
“The fabulous democracy you tout is nothing but part of the civil war for control of the oil fields – now well under way.”
I am not touting a fabulous democracy in Iraq; however, the political situation in the Middle East cannot remain the way they are. Islamic fundementalism cannot be allowed to take over this region or global economic ruin WILL follow…we all know this. BTW I do know that this war in Iraq is ALSO about oil, but not just oil, because as I just said the global economy is dependent (like it or not) on the happenings in this part of the world.
“Sorry you don’t get your several years in Germany and Japan.”
Why the hell not?
“get out now, before America goes financially bankrupt – it is already morally bankrupt.”
You don’t really know anything about global economics or the Islamic fundmentalists…do you?
“And who killed the 30,000?”
Sadamm…and that is just a FRACTION of the number killed by his regime. Please don’t attempt to compare what has happened to the Iraqi peole since 2003 to what Sadamm did for 30 years.
March 29th, 2006 at 11:29 amRob,
“Unforseeable challenges”!!! Given the number of comments about “not having a plan for victory” before the war I suspect that a lot of the challenges that they are facing were forseeable.
So when is torture playing by military rules? You don’t think that any anti-american sentiments have been boosted by…. say… the actions of the american military in Iraq?
Prove it… Perhaps if Gore or Kerry had been in charge we wouldn’t have gone into Iraq in the first place. Do you want to explain to me why we did that? No WMD, No links to Al Qaeda, No links to 9/11,… And where is Osama Bin Laden right now? I can name one country that I can pretty much guarantee he is not in… Iraq.
Well thank you for belittling the British, Russian, French, Polish… contributions to the Second World War. No, really. One of my Grandfathers died in action during the Second World War. He was lifted off of the beach at Dunkirk as part of the British Expeditionary Force and volunteered to go back over manning a different boat to help get more people off. The boat hit a mine and he died. I know people who were in Concentration camps. I understand that the US was involved as well, but you can’t take full credit.
There was a description of american soldiers in Britain during WWII… “Overpaid, over sexed, and over ‘ere”. I’m sure it didn’t apply to all american service men, but…
Well, at least we agree in part. Bush is Responsible for the mess that is Iraq. He went in there half-cocked, half-assed and with little more than half a plan.
Nice attempt at an ad-hominem attack. “The liberal media” could you please tell me where in America I can find the “liberal media” because every newspaper that I have read has displayed a distinct conservative bias. Laura Ingraham spent EIGHT days in Iraq. Yes, one week, one day. Eight whole days. CNN Transcript
Well, I hope I’ve helped with your Education…
Z.
March 29th, 2006 at 2:14 pmZwack,
You haven’t educated anybody. The US lost 400,000 in WWII and without us (and the atomic bomb), I can assure you that borders would be entirely different today. And a flip flopper like Kerry would have FOLDED. It takes resolve to be a leader like FDR to bring a nation through a history-changing hard war. Kerry doesn’t have that. The liberal mentality is to be ruled by polls, not lead. Liberals want success overnight or they will cut and run. Nothing of value is won without sacrifice. Bush understands this and has resolve.
The newspapers today are 90% liberal. Look at the Boston Globe, the La Times, the NY times, and San Francisco. They paint a one-sided picture in the daily headlines. I will say that talk radio and TV news are stronger for conservatives. O’Reilly has about 6 times more viewers than Olbermann on a nightly basis. Rush is very successful while Al Franken is going out of business That is because liberals cry and complain all day and people get sick of listening to them.
Laura Ingraham was there, in the middle of danger with the troops. Regardless of how long, she had the guts to be there and not speak about it until she had the experience to back it up. Liberals should read what she saw and heard while there. It is very different from the one-sided story repeated over and over on the printed headlines.
I am here because I am brave enough to learn and speak in a place that I am basically alone as a conservative. You should be brave enough to at least hear what Laura has to say:
http://www.lauraingraham.com/pg/jsp/general/iraqjournal.jsp
March 29th, 2006 at 2:47 pmZwack:
here is some more reading material From ABC News and others:
Iraqi contacts with Osama:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1759699&page=1
Russia was involved in moving WMDs (close to the time Russia gave Iraq our military plans):
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/18/233023.shtml?s=lh
Iraq shipping WMDs to Syria:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/970152/posts
Iraq hiding WMDs and lying to the world up to the very end:
March 29th, 2006 at 3:27 pmhttp://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1616996
#51
“So when is torture playing by military rules?”
99% of the time the U.S. plays by established rules of war. You are correct and right to point out the torture cases, although it’s EASILY debatable on what exactly constitutes torture and what doesn’t. Can you give a percentage of the time that the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan follow the “rules of war”?
“Perhaps if Gore or Kerry had been in charge we wouldn’t have gone into Iraq in the first place.”
Exactly! Sadamm would still be running Iraq today and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I highly doubt that if Gore would have won the election in 2000 or Kerry in 2004, we probably wouldn’t have even gone into Afghanistan, let alone Iraq.
“I understand that the US was involved as well, but you can’t take full credit.”
You are right, let’s give credit where credit is due, although we all know that if the U.S. wouldn’t have entered WW2 Britian would have eventually fell and the Japanese would control the entire western pacific region.
“The liberal media†could you please tell me where in America I can find the “liberal media†because every newspaper that I have read has displayed a distinct conservative bias.”
The news papers Rob just listed is absolute proof of a liberal media…but then again maybe that explains why their circulation numbers are way down.
March 29th, 2006 at 4:55 pmDang,…
I wrote a long reply showing that the US involvement in WWII was not as significant as was claimed.
Casualty figures are debatable (I’ve found fingures ranging from less than 300,000 to just over 400,000 for the US) but most people believe that the USSR deserves a lot of credit for defeating the Germans. By the way, the high figure of 407,000 US Military deaths explicitly includes all military deaths in “non-combat situations” So the actual number of service related deaths is lower.
The Germans surrendered months before the Atomic bombs were used in Japan, so you can rule that out.
Britain was not fighting WWII alone. In fact some of the figures I found talked about “Britain and the Commonwealth”… This means (at that time) large parts of the World. Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand, large parts of Africa. The D-Day invasion was a joint effort between Britain, Canada and the US… I could go on.
If you think that the British would have been easily defeated by the Japanese then you should check out “The Forgotten Army”. The British Fourteenth Army (combined commonwealth troops) defeated the main Japanese force in Southern Burma and was pushing into Malaya when the Japanese surrendered.
I am not saying that the American army did not contribute, just that the contribution wasn’t as great as you are claiming it to be.
Rob, you should read the full transcript of that CNN interview with Lara Logan (in Iraq) to put Laura Ingraham’s comments into perspective.
I don’t think that Gore would have folded… He probably wouldn’t have invaded Iraq though. And 9/11 might never have happened because I’m sure Gore would have read the PDB “Bin Laden determined to Strike within the US”…
Z.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:09 pmunfinished thought…
I wrote a long reply.. and my browser crashed…
If you want sources for my claims then google for them…
Z.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:11 pm#55
“I am not saying that the American army did not contribute, just that the contribution wasn’t as great as you are claiming it to be.”
You need to go back and do some research on WW2 then. Of course the U.S. didn’t have as many casualties as the Russians did or the Brits for that matter; however it was the industrial might of the U.S. that supplied the allies with the war equipment that they needed to defeat the Germans and the Japanese. The fact the so much of the European allies factories and infrastructure was destroyed made it almost essential the the U.S. step up and supply them with weapons and equipment. The U.S. had, by the grace of God, the luxury of not having their cities and factories fire bombed day and night. No matter how good allied troops could fight or how skilled the generals were, if the U.S. had not put it’s industrial strength behind the allied effort in WW2, Western Europe would have almost certainly fallen.
BTW, if the Germans wouldn’t have surrendered when they did, the types of advanced weapons that they were just about to bring on line would have spelled disaster for the allies…even with the backing of the U.S. Always count your blessings.
“I don’t think that Gore would have folded…”
You actually think that he would have invaded Afghanistan? What ever!
March 29th, 2006 at 6:46 pmRe: Reliance on US equipment…
The US did provide manufacturing power, but they didn’t provide “all of the equipment” All European manufacturing on both sides was reduced but the British still managed to produce enough Spitfires to win the Battle of Britain. Some of the other innovative designs that came out of the allied side were as good as some of the German ones. The bouncing bomb is a good example.
Thank you for your help, but I don’t think that the US could have done it on their own.
No, I believe that unlike Bush, Gore is capable of reading a Presidential Daily Briefing… Say, one entitled “Bin Laden determined to strike within the US”… Given that Clinton (and I assume his VP) had been working on counter terrorism efforts and Bush didn’t give a crap about them I think Gore would have continued those efforts after the election. Perhaps in that case the administration wouldn’t have sat around reading children’s books, but would instead have stopped a second attempt on the World Trade Centre…
We’ll never know for sure, but I have as much right to speculate about what might have happened as you do. We’ll never know.
Z.
March 30th, 2006 at 11:17 am#58
“The US did provide manufacturing power, but they didn’t provide “all of the equipment—
I didn’t say that but historians will tell you, like I said, that if the U.S. had not put it’s industrial might behind the allied war effort, Western Europe would have eventually fallen.
“Thank you for your help, but I don’t think that the US could have done it on their own.”
I never said that they could, but then again without the U.S. help, Britian would have eventually fallen to the Nazis.
“Given that Clinton (and I assume his VP) had been working on counter terrorism efforts”
Oh, like when the Sudanese government were going to hand over Bin Laden to the U.S. government and Clinton said specifically that he thought that he couldn’t legally arrest him? Clinton’s counter terrorism efforts through out the 1990s were pathetic, especially when the WTC towers had already been hit. His lawyer mentality vs. actually acting like the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military allowed 9/11 to be planned and carried out.
“Bush didn’t give a crap about them I think Gore would have continued those efforts after the election.”
Even after 9/11 was carried out? I can’t believe that you are suggesting that if Gore would have won the election in 2000 that somehow he would have prevented 9/11. Yeah right! Kinda like Clinton not being able to prevent any of the MULTIPLE terrorist attacks on U.S. interests thru out the 1990s.
March 30th, 2006 at 12:08 pmVery well said, Tracy.
March 30th, 2006 at 1:45 pmI would like to see the source for the vote tally comment that Amanda quotes:
March 30th, 2006 at 7:36 pm“Nationwide, only about nine percent voted for “national unity†tickets.”