Former Bush Speechwriter: UN Speech Represents ‘The Collapse of the President’s Iran Policy’
Former Bush Speechwriter: UN Speech Represents ‘The Collapse of the President’s Iran Policy’
President Bush gave a speech this morning to the general assembly of the United Nations. Moments afterward, former Bush speechwriter David Frum said the speech represented “the collapse of the President’s Iran policy.” “When Iran does succeed in going nuclear, this speech will seen as a turning point,” he said.
Frum noted that Bush has “subcontracted the job of negotiating with the Iranians” to the Europeans, and lamented that Bush’s speech said “nothing about the huge next item on the UN agenda, which is whether or not we will enforce the IAEA rulings on Iran.” Watch it:
“Almost from the beginning of Bush’s presidency,” two groups within the administration — realists seeking to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and ideologues more interested in regime change — have been “waging an intense struggle over Iran, while the U.S. government went month after month without an official policy.” The dearth of policy details in Bush’s speech today suggests that problem hasn’t changed.
Meanwhile, Iran is not sitting idly by.
Transcripts:
FRUM: This speech represents the collapse of the President’s Iran policy, and I think it will be seen — when Iran does succeed in going nuclear, this speech will be seen as a turning point in which the United States made the decision — the decision has been made — they formally announced to the world that it wasn’t going to do anything much to stop it. I think in conjunction with President Chirac’s remarks this morning, where he opposed any kind of sanction — and that’s important because Chirac is not just the leader of France. France is one of the three European countries — France, Germany and Britian — that the United States had subcontracted the job of negotiating with the Iranians. The Iranians have lied to the group, stiffed it, and up until now the French have been the most robust, the strongest, of the European 3. The French are saying, “no consequences,” and President Bush today said, “OK.” And he went to the UN and he had these words of respect for the Iranian people, but nothing about the huge next item on the UN agenda, which is whether or not we will enforce the IAEA rulings on Iran that say they are cheating, they are lying, they are making their way toward a nuclear weapon. We at the IAEA are bunkrupt. It must go to the Security Council. Obviously, it is not going to the Security Council. And I think we are heading toward a nuclear Iran.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I have no idea why people are so terrified of Iran.
Apparently this guy is afraid of Islamic fundementalists, too.
Nutcases.
September 19th, 2006 at 3:13 pmThe nuclear capability of Iran is basically a non-issue in that Iran would pose no threat to the US. Any nuclear attack by Iran on any Country would result in immediate retaliation in kind and the complete destruction of Iran.
To use a metaphor the rednecks can understand Iran may get a rib for lunch but the US and/or Israel (the only two feasible targets) would have a steak dinner.
The only use for Iranian nukes would be for bragging rights among tits peers.
The US will not unilaterally and unprovoked use nukes on Iran because it immediately defeats the purpose of the attack. Chevron/Mobil/BP/ ET AL if he contaminated all the oil.
The bullshit predicting war against Iran is just that. The whole thing is designed to maintain the status quo in Middle East oil. Bushco must prevent Iran and Iraq from trading in Petro-Euros instead of Petro-Dollars. They will huff and puff to impress the American Sheeple up to November and if they are elected the threat suddenly will go away and oil prices will go up to $100/barrel.
September 19th, 2006 at 3:18 pmohhhh…good idea, and we should IGNOR bush because he is a drinker and was?…a drug user..
September 19th, 2006 at 3:20 pmBush had an “Iran Policy”? Who knew …
September 19th, 2006 at 3:25 pmDid anyone here see Bush’s speech? Has he learned to say “nuclear” instead of “nucular?”
September 19th, 2006 at 3:28 pmAre we witnessing the Swift Boating of Bush?
September 19th, 2006 at 3:29 pmIsrael
September 19th, 2006 at 3:34 pm#2 Correction
Change”tits” to “its.” (I’m surprised that one got through the “T” filter.)
Add after ET AL ‘would be pissed at DUHbya”
September 19th, 2006 at 3:36 pmWhy shouldn’t Iran seek nuclear weapons given the facts:
1. the U.S. has used nuclear weapons against its enemies
September 19th, 2006 at 3:39 pm2. the U.S. labelled Iran part of the “axis of evil” and an enemy state
3. the U.S. attacked and destabilized another “axis of evil” country
4. the U.S. refuses to use diplomacy and simply makes demands
Correction: My comment was ment for the man on fox who said to ignor mc cain because he was tortured and can’t think right.
September 19th, 2006 at 3:46 pmI 100% agree. Bush’s speech wasn’t nearly strong enough. He should have damanded sanctions and military action if Iran doesn’t stop immediately. I can’t believe he is backing away from this very serious threat. We need to take action now!
September 19th, 2006 at 4:05 pm#11 – Just because the “missle defense shield” is good enough for North Korea doesn’t mean we stop invading Middle Eastern countries that we used to support!
Just because Pres. Reagan sold WMD’s to Iraq in the 80’s doesn’t mean we have to admit we were wrong, let’s just invade them!
Just because Kim Jung Il has nuclear weapons that can hit US soil doesn’t mean we have to invade North Korea!
The difference between sanctions and invasion depnds totally on the amount of oil available in your country!
By the way, Sen. McCain is a wus. When then-Gov. Bush questioned his mental state during the primaries, Sen. McCain should have fought back.
He didn’t, and rightly deserves the label “GOP pansy” now that he’s considering running for Pres. in 2008.
September 19th, 2006 at 4:16 pmWhy is Bush outsourcing again? Remember when Osama bin Laden was holed up in Tora Bora? Rather than send US special forces to do the job, Bush outsourced the job to the Afghani warlords. Bin Laden paid the warlords a bribe to look the other way when he fled across the border to Pakistan. What ever happened to the much vaunted “Dept of Lessons Learned” in the White House? Then again, if you staff such an outfit is Bush “Yes Men”, how effective can they be?
September 19th, 2006 at 4:19 pmThe reason people are saying Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons is because of Ahmenjad’s(sp?) rhetoric – you know, where he proclaims that Israel will be wiped off the map?
Now I’m no Bush fan but on this issue I can at least kind of see where he’s coming from. A country’s leader says they want to destroy all of Israel – a U.S. ally – so shouldn’t we keep them from developing any WMDs?
The problem is twofold for Bush:
1) He lost all credibility with Iraq. We allowed him to invade Iraq due to hyped up claims of WMDs and the prospect of ‘mushroom clouds’ over NYC. Those claims turned out to be completely, FABULOUSLY wrong. So why should we believe anything he has to say about WMDs?
2) Our government is one nasty war away from bankruptcy. We’re already in debt up to our necks. How would we afford a war with Iran? Moreover, how would we afford the gas price hike which would surely follow?
There are of course other problems with attacking Iran – such as giving the confirmation to Muslim extremists that the U.S. is indeed at war with Islam (even if not true, it would appear that way to all but the most sympathetic American appeaser in the Middle East)
September 19th, 2006 at 4:23 pmI have no idea why people are so terrified of Iran.
Then you haven’t been paying attention.
September 19th, 2006 at 4:26 pmDo any of you truly believe that Iran is building a nuclear program because of peaceful energy needs? Honestly, any country that is built on a lake of Oil isn’t fooling anyone. So, do we allow them to build WMD’s or do we stop this right now. Seems very black and white to me.
September 19th, 2006 at 4:28 pm#11
Roger,
He should have taken off his shoe and started to beat the podium with it and demanded action against Iran, more support for Iraq, a can of Cheez-wiz, secret prisons in every country, to be crowned emperor of “The Great Blue Ball”, a small island in the Caribbean…say Cuba, a free subscription to HBO and a tall glass of glacial water.
Then he would have gotten the respect he deserves from all that were there.
September 19th, 2006 at 4:28 pm#20
Roger_Roger…Just correct you on one thing: The U.S. government never helped Osama Bin Laden. That is a myth.
The 9/11 Commission and Peter Bergen’s definitive history of Al Qaeda, “Holy War, Inc.” both show that the U.S. never aided Osama Bin Laden.
September 19th, 2006 at 4:58 pmthe USA propped up the Shaw of Iran.
Comment by Roger_Roger — September 19, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
Really, does he need to say anything else at this point?
September 19th, 2006 at 5:01 pmIt’s always fun when they start going after each other.
September 19th, 2006 at 5:02 pmAmerica’s Least Wanted
#20
If you stab that guy to get the knife back, then everyone else is going to want to stab you because you’re acting like a goddamn lunatic – running around giving people knifes and then stabbing them. Therefore, it’s possible that everyone else with knives is going to eventually get together and decide they are all going to stab you at once.
THAT is why it matters what we did 25+ years ago. Stop being a ignorant fool and try to think in three dimensions for once.
September 19th, 2006 at 5:02 pmOne of my seriously redneck students said that he was going to register to vote so he could make sure we didn’t wind up with another “bad president”. I did nothing to prompt him, and have never insulted Bush in my classroom.
It’s getting really bad for Bush when 16 year old high schoolers in the Red South think he’s a bad president…
September 19th, 2006 at 5:04 pmClyde, I was just saying to someone last night what you said about bragging rights and the self-assured destruction that Iran would bring on itself if it used any nuke it managed to build. I was wondering about something else, so maybe you or someone else here could answer this.
It might be reasonably argued that Iran would not use a nuke directly, but rather would supply one to a rogue entity that would have no qualms about using it and no worries of retaliation – someone with a suicide bomber mentality. However, who in hell would expect them to go to all the trouble of creating a few of these things and then turning them loose?
Also, it seems to me that delivering a nuke may actually be as hard as building a nuke. Several countries have nukes, but only China and Russia have the capability to hit the US with one. The only way they could get it over here would be to ship it (a clear reason why we should upgrade port security), but even if that is successful, they have to get it out of the port and to a place where it will have a chance to do great damage. Even given that, we’re talking about a device in the kiloton range, and probably pretty low at that. According to the charts I’ve seen, it could certainly cause a fair amount of damage and kill several hundred people, but it wouldn’t be on the scale of some armageddon event that some people seem to be imagining.
If the claim is that we need to be worried because Iran might try to hit Israel, I think they have shown that they are capable of taking care of themselves (no to mention they have a nuclear deterrent). I don’t think many Americans would agree to launch a pre-emptive strike for Israel’s sake.
Am I assuming too much or missing some big points by thinking that Iran poses a minimal threat even if they do get a nuke?
September 19th, 2006 at 5:05 pmThe U.S. government never helped Osama Bin Laden. That is a myth.
Comment by Exley — September 19, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
Not so, dear. We did help the Muhajadeen and Osama fight the Russians. We channelled the money through Pakistan to hide where it was really going – you know, like the mob laundering its blood money…
September 19th, 2006 at 5:09 pmMaybe that is the difference. You guys are team players while I am not. I live in the real world and realize that countries like IRAN do not care about the USA or our Allies and wouldn’t blink if they had the opportunity to destroy us. To that end, we as a nation need to think about what is best for us and or allies.
Iran doesn’t need to fire a nuke. If they get a nuke, our ability to control them becomes limited. That sounds harsh and horrible, but I am just looking out for us and our allies (it’s the same thing Iran is doing). Iran is a bully and so are we. There is only true peace if there is a winner and a loser. We must secure our future and our allies future by making them the loser. If sanctions work, great. If they don’t, we should quickly destroy any nuke dream that country has. They lose we win and now we have a chance at peace.
September 19th, 2006 at 5:10 pmWe must secure our future and our allies future by making them the loser.
Comment by Roger_Roger — September 19, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
Actually, Roger, there are other, less barbaric and absolutistic options…
We could make friends with Iran. Yep. Just like Jesus would do…
September 19th, 2006 at 5:17 pm#28 – “Several countries have nukes, but only China and Russia have the capability to hit the US with one.”
Tim, you’re forgetting North Korea! They can currently hit the Western US with a nuclear missle if they so chose to commit national suicide in that fashion.
Of course, since they can only hit Hawaii & California, Pres. Bush isn’t all that concerned. If only they had oil, THEN we’d have to take care of them!
September 19th, 2006 at 5:17 pmOh, I hope we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past. Republicans gave Iran a nuke tech, Clinton didn’t take out Saddam or OBL (at least didn’t try with much vigor). We can’t repeat that, but we also need to look out for our interests today. A Nuclear Iran is certainly not in our best interest. Do you agree or disagree that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons? If you think they should not have them, what is your plan? Sanctions? What if they don’t work? Talks with Iran? What if they don’t work? Would you do a missle strike to slow them down? Would you invade?
Would you just sit on your ass and do nothing?
September 19th, 2006 at 5:18 pm*
September 19th, 2006 at 5:24 pm*
*
I thought David Frum was Canadian.
*
*
*
Democrat+Soldier,
I agree. We won’t attack North Korea because they don’t have anything important. Oil will always be a factor. Iran is ten million times the threat of North Korea even today without a Nuke simply because of there Oil. I know Oil is a dirty word for the far left, but everyone of us depends on it. You may cry about Oil, but you are doning anything to change it outside of bitching about it.
September 19th, 2006 at 5:24 pm#29 Unbelievable…You are only half-right. We certainly did provide aid to the indigenous Afghan mujahadeen in their fight against Soviet agression in the 1980s.
However, as the 9/11 Commission and “Holy War, Inc.” clearly document, the U.S. did not provide aid to outside “Afghan Arab” fighters, such as OBL, who came into Afghanistan in the 1980s to join the fight against the Soviets. The “Arab Afghans” had their own independent sources of funding from the Middle East and received little or none from the U.S.
There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other. … the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The ‘let’s blame everything bad that happens on the CIA’ school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency’s powers, both for good and ill.” [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.]
September 19th, 2006 at 5:25 pmRogerRoger
September 19th, 2006 at 5:33 pmThe flaws I see in your argument are that not everyone in Iran is currently an enemy of the U.S. In fact, it was not too long ago that there was a large Westernizing movement in Iran, with American-copying culture taking hold. Second, while I agree that both the current leaders of Iran and the U.S. are bullies, I disagree that we as the citizens should follow those leaders and should not do what we can to force them to back off bullying. Bush should be offering to talk to the Iranian leaders. Talking does not mean appeasing, capitulating, or giving in. It just means expressing viewpoints, concerns, and even demands. It delays the violent bullying and may actually give an safe means for both sides to come away as winners. You can take back words. Bullets and bombs are forever.
The “Arab Afghans†had their own independent sources of funding from the Middle East and received little or none from the U.S.
Comment by Exley — September 19, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
To me, “little” implies that they gave some, and some does not clear them of a relationship. If they gave ‘any’, in my opinion, it’s enough to say that they funded Osama… Perhaps not fully in this context, but, as I mentioned above, giving indirectly does not count as giving in the case of this report. These folks are great at finding loopholes… And so, in light of history being what it is… I would not doubt we gave him money. We’ve given it to plenty of others like him.
But I’ll take that you called me half-right as a plus : )
September 19th, 2006 at 5:37 pmThe childish ness of both roger and exley is amazing.
“We never helped OBL” – Ah, you flood a region with loose weapons galore, you destabilize the entire region, you flood the area with black-ops money BUT NONE of it is going to the bad guys, OH NO. And “There’s only peace if there’s a winner and a loser”. Absolutely Hollywoodesque juvenality. Peace by definition occurs between opponents, not in the absence of opponents.
September 19th, 2006 at 5:40 pmThey screw around and never truly make there enemies complete losers, thus peace cannot occur.
Comment by Roger_Roger — September 19, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
You eliminate your enemies by making them your friends.
No violence and no losers. Well, except for your line of rationalization…
September 19th, 2006 at 5:45 pm#42 – Roger the Dodger- you have the Soviet Union on your side – that’s how they defined ‘peace’
September 19th, 2006 at 5:53 pm#44 – those 2000 or so Blowpipe missiles OBL and the rest of the mujahedin were using on the Soviet Hinds must have fallen off the back of a camel, I suppose…
September 19th, 2006 at 6:06 pm#37 Exley
Unbelievable…You are only half-right. We certainly did provide aid to the indigenous Afghan mujahadeen in their fight against Soviet agression in the 1980s.
However, as the 9/11 Commission and “Holy War, Inc.†clearly document, the U.S. did not provide aid to outside “Afghan Arab†fighters, such as OBL, who came into Afghanistan in the 1980s to join the fight against the Soviets. The “Arab Afghans†had their own independent sources of funding from the Middle East and received little or none from the U.S.
Osama bin Laden recruited terrorists for training by the CIA and brought them to the US. According to Michael Springman, head of the visa bureau in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, under Bush I:
“What I was protesting was, in reality, an effort to bring recruits, rounded up by Osama Bin Laden, to the US for terrorist training by the CIA. They would then be returned to Afghanistan to fight against the then-Soviets.”
We trained bin Laden’s terrorists for him. I would call that “providing aid”.
September 19th, 2006 at 6:12 pm#48
“The reason Israel’s (you should learn to spell it before discussing it) problems are there, is because they refuse compromise.”
Kinda like Hamas or Hezbolla does…they also refuse to compromise.
September 19th, 2006 at 6:15 pm#48 – seems to me that the Palestinians were utterly defeated in 1967 – ‘a clear loser’ by anyone’s reckoning…..soooo why isn’t there peace in Palestine? (sound of crickets chirping)
September 19th, 2006 at 6:19 pmOr kinda like Patrick Henry refused compromise… or Nelson Mandela….or…
September 19th, 2006 at 6:30 pm“enforce the IAEA rulings on Iran??”
September 19th, 2006 at 6:38 pmThe only IAEA rulings on Iran were that Iran has been in full compliance with the Nonproliferation Treaty and its safeguards.
Ah yes, David Frum. The man who gave us “axis of evil.” What a maroon.
September 19th, 2006 at 6:49 pm“There is only true peace if there is a winner and a loser. Comment by Roger_Rogerâ€
DeKlerk and Mandela.
September 19th, 2006 at 7:24 pmCongratulations,
September 19th, 2006 at 7:31 pmyou have what you wanted on the Iran policy. Hopefully, you are right and nothing happens but peaceful Iranian nuclear power for the next 5-15yrs. If something else happens, however, its on you. Good Luck.
Poor Frum, he feels betrayed. No war against Iran. Humph…
I guess even Georgie realizes the utter disaster military operation against Iran would cause (yes, the neo-conjobbers were and are insane and naive).
September 19th, 2006 at 7:40 pm#54
“While there’s some truth in this, the last time I checked neither of those groups where in control of Israel/Palestine.”
Hamas is the controlling political party of the Palestinians. They won a sweeping a election in January 2006 in case you missed it.
“It’s Israel that Bombed Iraq, and threatened to Bomb Iran.”
To Osirak reactor was being used for peaceful purposes. LOL!
“It’s Israel that has attacked every neighbor it has.”
Right before they were about to be attacked by armies massed on their border! Please!
“Yet you guys act like Israel is just an innocent country.”
They aren’t innocent. You guys act as if the Palestinians and the Lebanese are innocent.
“Sorry, but Israel has to own most of the responsibility for the current situation.”
I don’t think so. Even if the Palestinians were to obtain a state of their own, Hamas would not stop their terror attacks.
“They used terrorism and took a country from the population that lived there.”
What country? Palestine had never been a county.
“They refuse to share the land, resources and facilities with the people they stole the land from.”
The resources and facilities were not there prior to the state of Isreal being formed. Israel is a modern industrialized nation today because they built it, not because the confiscated it from the Palestinians.
“Sorry, but Israel is not innocent – they are the aggressors…”
And Hamas and Hezbollah are the terrorists.
September 19th, 2006 at 7:57 pmDoes anybody else remember a time when the United States didn’t threaten to go to war with a new bad guy every week?
How can anybody take us seriously when we botch the only job that the entire world expected us to do…take out Osama bin Laden who murdered 3,000 American citizens. Instead, we went on this fool’s errand in Iraq, having wasted almost as many soldiers’ lives on a guy who had nothing to do with 9/11 but just happens to be floating on a sea of oil. That job has been botched, too, BTW. Three years since we declared victory and we are still dying. We are stretched so thin in Iraq and Afghanistan we can’t even fight the weather back home. Now, before anybody has had a chance to clean up this Charlie Foxtrot, they’ve got a hard-on for a third war??
You cannot be serious. And the worst part is, the whole world including Ahmedinejad knows it. We’ve already sworn off talking with anybody we don’t like, leaving ourselves with only military options to save face. But we don’t have the people power to fight without a draft, and a draft would cause too many people to pay attention. So we just rattle sabers and Ahmedinejad just eats it all up.
There was a time when the US talked to its enemies. Remember the USSR? Some of the bitterest, most powerful rivals in world history, yet they managed to talk once in a while and even (gasp!) sign accords to limit the weapons that they would build. Did we “appease” the USSR? How’d that work out for them?
This president has bankrupted our world authority.
September 19th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
#59 Paul, that’s a strawman, where is the argument that anyone of substance wants Iran to possess a nuclear weapon? Play fair Paul. Now the Times article says, I think correct me if I am wrong, that the plan on the table would set back the Iranian programme by 2-3 years. Do you think that alienating an entire nation, region and killing thousands of ‘collateral damage’ and igniting a regional war is worth that?
September 19th, 2006 at 8:14 pmWhos said Bush pronounced nuclear correctly?? Sorry-not once!!!!!!!!!!!!!
September 19th, 2006 at 8:37 pm#43, Unbelievable, Roger_Roger,
The “little to none” is language borrowed from the 9/11 Commission Report. However, if one reads the paragraph from which it is taken, it is clear the 9/11 Commission did not have any evidence nor did it believe that OBL received any aid from the U.S. directly or indirectly in the 1980s. They simply added the qualifier of “little” to the “little or no” language because there is no way that in the confusion and shifting tribal alliances that marked the Afghan resistance to the Soviets that anyone could be certain that perhaps OBL’s band may have wound up with some U.S. supplies or aid.
However, the 9/11 Commission, as well as Peter Bergen’s seminal look at Al Qaeda, “Holy War, Inc.,” prove there was absolutely no large-scale, direct aid or assistance to OBL’s group or any other “Arab Afghan” bands in the 1980s.
September 19th, 2006 at 9:28 pmThis fellow is misinformed (lying) when he implies that the IAEA has stated that Iran is producing weapons-grade materials. They have said the just the reverse, that the only enriched uranium produced has been a grade consistent with electric power production.
September 19th, 2006 at 9:29 pmdamn, yachts & lattes….that’s some of the smartest words i’ve seen strung together in a long time…thanks for the words of wisdom….
September 19th, 2006 at 9:41 pmSome Republican guy in my family told me the draft would be back, and it ain’t beer.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:18 pm#1 – James Ronson,
This is probably WAY too late, but that link you put up is a parody site.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:30 pmPure genius, but parody.
I saw a very brief clip of Bush talking at the UN on CNN. They cut away to the audience where Bolton leaned over towards Condi and said something approving, like “well said”. And there is Condi nodding her head approvingly the way presidential candidates wifes do when they are on the stump. It was hilarious. So later I watched the NBC evening news in the hopes of seeing the Bolton Condi clip again. The camera panned the the audience you could see a sea of non-approving faces. The bleak disinterest that one expresses when they know they are being lied to. Then in the crowd I saw one head nodding aprovingly, with the intent expression of one hearing wise words from a great statesman. I looked down from the nodding head to the countrys little sign in front of him… Afghanistan! Quickly I looked up from the sign, past the nodding head, sure enough – a goofy green cap. Yep, it was Karzai.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:40 pm#43, Unbelievable, Roger_Roger,
Here is the passage that puts to rest the myth that the U.S. provided training or directly gave aid to the “Afghan Arab” foreign fighters in the 1980s.
“Saudi Arabia and the United States supplied billions of dollars worth of secret assistance to rebel groups in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupation. This assistance was funneled through Pakistan: the Pakistani military intelligence service (Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISID), helped train the rebels and distribute the arms. But Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States.”Chapter 2.3-”The Rise of Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda (1988-1992)”
This determination by the 9/11 Commission, taken in cojunction with Peter Bergen’s authoritative history of Al Qaeda, both through access to U.S. intelligence files and interviews with CIA operatives stationed in Afghanistan in the 1980s, puts to bed the myth that OBL was ever a U.S. asset. There is quite frankly absolutely no evidence to support the now-discredited canard that OBL received any large-scale direct assistance or training from the United States.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:10 pmThe thing I find amusing is people quoting the fictional 9-11 Report as FACT
September 20th, 2006 at 1:29 amLet’s all be paranoid for George Bush. Be afraid of everything and everyone.
Be stark raving mad against everything. Be afraid of the coming train at the crossing. Be afraid of the gasoline truck next to you on the interstate. Be afraid of your child’s friend’s paper airplane because you think it is filled with anthrax-o-polio-smallpox-o-e coli typhoid. Be afraid of blacks. Be afraid of whites. Be afraid of everything and everyone.
BULLSHIT!!!
Not me! EVER!
September 20th, 2006 at 3:14 amFrum is the same guy who created the infamous “Axis of Evil” speech, and look where that’s taken us. A speech writer is no foreign policy expert. And his speeches left alot to be desired, and the new guy is even worse. And what in the hell is he babbling about, “…enforce the IAEA rulings on Iran, that says that they are cheating, they are lying…”? Aside from being a flat out LIE, it’s utter nonsense! And of course, it is allowed to pass without a challenge, implying that it’s true. And BushCo’s ‘conditions’ for engaging with Iran, diplomatically, that being that they stop enriching uranium, before talks can begin, is what the talks are about in the first place! COME ON!!! Making the subject of the negotiations a condition of the negotiations is as assinine of an approach to ‘diplomacy’ as I have ever heard. BushCo is making a joke out of it. They want a war, all else is them playing games with other people’s lives.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:57 amAhmad and the Kid…
It was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vs. George W. Bush in a verbal showdown at the United Nations yesterday. You can sort out the winners for yourself….
September 20th, 2006 at 9:07 amI fully agree that we need to try to take down the Iranian president and his thugs diplomatically if possible. I also agree that Bush should get involved in Direct talks. I lose you at this point however. If Bush did all that and none of it worked, then what?
I know I would at a minimum target all nuke sites with missle strikes. I would also strongly contemplate a full scale attack to remove the terrorists and extremists that run that country. You want to make friends with the people? Give them freedom. It’s the best gift in the world.
As far as becoming “friends” with the extremists, well it isn’t possible. OBL has constently said that his mission is to completely wipe of the West and convert or kill any non muslim. I don’t see how we could ever talk our way into a friendship with anyone like that. Anyone who is against freedom, democracy, and the free market is wrong and I find it impossible for us to “work it out and become freinds”. All the peoples of the world want freedom. Sadly, many don’t have the opportunity. When those extremists threaten us or our allies, we should take the opportunity to get rid of them and give the peoples of that country there freedom back.
As Americans, we all know that Democracy, Freedom, and a free market are the best and only choice for this world. If a leader doesn’t agree with those 3 items, I don’t see how we can talk and become friends. At least we shouldn’t as we would then be helping the dictators and extremists keep freedom away from the people.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:15 am#36 – “You may cry about Oil, but you are doning anything to change it outside of bitching about it.”
Yeah, I am. I traded in for a more fuel effecient vehicle, I started a car pool at work, I’ve reduced my travelling, and I’ve got a biodiesel vehicle that I’ll be purchasing at the end of the year. My fuel expenses have decreased 70% in the past two years.
What have you done to reduce our dependance on oil other than bitch about the Democrats working to reduce our dependance on oil?
September 20th, 2006 at 9:24 am#87,
I am taking a different route on Oil. I drive a V8 SUV and fish with my 150hp motor. My logic is that the faster we get the world Oil supply to be less then the world Demand, the faster the free market will come up with a alternative. Currently, Oil is still a commodity. We need to use up enough of it to get it into the Luxery range.
Alternative Fuels will only work if they are profitable and equal or better then gas to the consumer. Currently, Oil is simply to cheap for Alternatives to work.
OPEC’s meeting suggested that we are still a long way away from demand outstripping Supply. Most economists suggest it will be at least another 40 years and potenially up to 100 years. So, the faster we burn up the Oil supply, the faster we get an alternative.
Of course in the sort term, I am guessing the Democrat+Soldier is begging his congressmen to vote FOR drilling in ANWAR and Florida. If we can drill our own Oil, we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I really didn’t need to say that because it is obvious. I am also hoping your whole “reduce our depenence on foreign oil” is legit and you are one for drilling our own Oil.
Lastly, I believe in Global warming and I believe we are causing it. I also know that Humans, like any animal, will consume a resource till it is gone or it becomes to hard to get (in this case that would be a price to high to pay). THis all means that we are basically screwed. We can argue all we want, but people will contiue to burn Oil until something that is equal comes out. I haven’t seen anything close to Gas. An alternative needs to be equal in Power, range, and ease of refill to replace gas. It is the main reason electric won’t work for most people. How do you recharge a battery in 5 minutes? You can’t, thus Oil is better.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:53 amAfter the Iran/Iraq war, Bush finishes what Iran could not.
After years of buffering by its enemies Afghanistan and Iraq, both like Iran, have become Shiite dominated, neither are stable democracies, increasing Iran’s influence.
After financing Iran’s nuclear program, support of Hamas and Hezbollah, with ever-increasing oil revenues and his energy policies, Bush wants war against that which his policies created.
Hamas, democratically elected, Hezbollah could be too. Both have more influence than ever.
These are the results of Bush’s plan to stabilize the region by spreading democracy.
What does this mean?
September 20th, 2006 at 10:11 am#88 – “Of course in the sort term, I am guessing the Democrat+Soldier is begging his congressmen to vote FOR drilling in ANWAR and Florida. If we can drill our own Oil, we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I really didn’t need to say that because it is obvious.”
And yet, you do say it, because the most obvious solution is to find an alternative source that works.
Brazil has the infrastructure to provide ethanol, methanol and gasoline at the same stations and they have cheap oil! Why can’t we at least be as up-to-date as Brazil? We had the chance in the 70-80’s, but we decided that we could just coast, and now we’re paying the price of our own short-sightedness.
“I am also hoping your whole “reduce our depenence on foreign oil†is legit and you are one for drilling our own Oil.”
No, I’m for a long-term solution rather than a wasteful short-term solution. Find an alternative so we can increase the free market and not increase “single-supplier hydraulic despotism.†If you want to increase your contribution to global warming, you go right ahead. (I won’t even go into the fallacies of your GW theories.)
September 20th, 2006 at 10:13 am#43, Unbelievable, Roger_Roger,
Here is some additional documentation disproving the myth that the U.S. ever aided Bin Ladin in Afghanistan in the 1980s:
“Abdullah Anas, an Algerian who was one of the foremost Afghan Arab organizers and the son-in-law of Abdullah Azzam, has also confirmed that the CIA had no relationship with the Afghan Arabs. Speaking on the French television program Zone Interdit on September 12, 2004, Anas stated:
“If you say there was a relationship in the sense that the CIA used to meet with Arabs, discuss with them, prepare plans with them, and to fight with them — it never happened.”‘
Then there is also:
Miltin Bearden makes it clear that the CIA covert action program did not fund any Arabs or other Muslims to come to the jihad:
“Contrary to what people have come to imagine, the CIA never recruited, trained, or otherwise used Arab volunteers. The Afghans were more than happy to do their own fighting — we saw no reason not to satisfy them on this point.” (The Main Enemy, p. 243)
Marc Sageman worked closely with the Afghan mujahideen as one of Milt Bearden’s case officers, from 1987 to 1989. In his book, Understanding Terror Networks, he writes:
“No U.S. official ever came in contact with the foreign volunteers. They simply traveled in different circles and never crossed U.S. radar screens. They had their own sources of money and their own contacts with the Pakistanis, official Saudis, and other Muslim supporters, and they made their own deals with the various Afghan resistance leaders. Their presence in Afghanistan was very small and they did not participate in any significant fighting.” (Understanding Terror Networks, pp. 57-58.)
So, there you go…Whatever foreign policy and intelligence mistakes the U.S. has made in the past, providing any aid or training to Bin Ladin’s early “Afghan Arab” bands in the 1980s are not among them…There is simply no evidence to contradict this (as confirmed by the 9/11 Commission). Anyone who claims otherwise is perpetuating a myth, either through ignorance or deliberately spreading falsehoods.
September 20th, 2006 at 10:28 amDon’t get me wrong Democrat Soldier. I am 100% for an alternative fuel. The problem is still creating one. This fuel has to meet these requirement or we simply won’t buy it.
1) It needs to be profitable without any government subs. (Yes big Oil gets subs. but they are proftiable without them) (And we should pressure congress to get rid of subs for Oil as they are still profitable without them)
2) It needs to be equal or better in power
3) It needs to be as easy as gas to use. When my “tank” or “battery” or whatever gets low, this new alternative needs to be something I can “refuel” within minutes just like Gas.
4) It needs to be as cheap as gas or cheaper. This is obvious as 80%+ of consumers would never pay more for a solution that already has a cheaper fix.
Currently, we do not have anything close to meeting those 4 demands. If this new fuel doesn’t hit all 4, the free market will chew it up and spit it out.
September 20th, 2006 at 10:35 amTerrytheturtle #67. I see your point. Obviously, this situation could be very different, but how far did Hitler get in 2-3 years? How much closer connected and faster is the world today than 1935? I get all my information 2nd, 3rd hand or worse, however the information I get about Ahmedinejad is that he is preparing for the Islamic messiah, which he believes is a few years out, and he doesn’t see it as a peaceful event. He also says things like wiping Israel of the map and what would a world would look like without America. Are we going to be safe with him in control of nukes? I know it sounds crazy, but does anybody have any information that would make me feel better about a wait and see strategy? Thanks.
September 20th, 2006 at 10:48 amExley
September 20th, 2006 at 10:53 amIt’s too bad you are not as vigilant and determined to debunk BushCo’s continued attempts to say or imply that Hussein had ties with Al Quaeda.
#92 – Roger_Roger,
Three products currently meet (or exceed) three of your criteria: propane, Compressed Natural Gas, and Hydrogen.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/fueltable.pdf
Your fourth criteria is based on infrastructure, and that’s never going to exist until and unless people start weaning themselves off gasoline. Your third criteria is somewhat based on infranstructure, but should it be in place, refueling would be just as easy as filling up with gasoline.
In other words, you can’t get to your destination until you start taking steps in that direction. The infrastructure isn’t going to pop up over night. There has to be some kind of demand for it to be considered.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:08 amCompressed Natural Gas is a byproduct when you drill for Oil so that type of a product really can’t work as we would need to drill for Oil to get it. Propane is a nice idea, but it still leads back to Global warming. I like the idea of Hydrogen but what would it cost per mile compaired to gas?
September 20th, 2006 at 11:20 am#94
PLC,
Fortunately, I do not need to be…The 9/11 Commission has already confirmed Saddam’s links with Al Qaeda. I would also refer you to Stephen Hayes’ excellent and carefully researched article in this week’s Weekly Standard.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:22 amSeriously Folks,
What kind of foreign (or any other) policy success can any criminally incompetent and mendacious regime (like the Bushite’s) expect…
…that is predicated on HYPOCRISY?
…ONLY when America begins to lead by example that exhibits the kind of rhetoric Americans are so fond of spouting off…
…”freedom”, “peace”, democracy, humanity, mutual respect, blah blah blah…
…can we expect to see positive results…
September 20th, 2006 at 1:52 pmI think this is all drivel and mis-direction. already a retired Army officer is reporting that “the evidence is overwhelming” that the army already has special forces operating in Iran, and that contingency plans for bombing Iran and closing the Straights of Hormuz to Iranian oil have been forwarded to the President.
I’m guessing that Bush will attack Iran sometime after the November elections but before Congress convenes in January. The current “diplomatic” effort is just a smoke-screen to mollify the Europeans.
Of course, all this will be an unmitigated disaster, but when has that stopped Bush before?
September 20th, 2006 at 3:28 pm#62
“Yet they are prisoners in what used to be their OWN LAND!!!”
Thanks to Hamas and the militants who refuse to compromise and get the process started in creating a Palestinian state. What land in that are are you referring to? Are you suggesting that all of Isreali land actually belongs to the Palestinians? If you are going to throw down who was actually there first then we need to go thru all the history of EVERY country in the world and see which ones were established by the “natives”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan
“You’re such a parody of hate, ignorance and bigotry!!”
You a parody of history.
“So Israel brought the soil, the water and physical resources?”
Israel developed the soil, the water, and physical resources in order to modernized the state. Before that, what LITTLE natural resources were there, wern’t developed at all.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:57 pmExley,
Thanks for the quotes. Personally, I am not one to take words over actions. And the actions logically make sense that we were funding the Muhajadeen – because they are consistent with the actions of our government in regard to funding the Iranian Contras, the coup on Manuel Noriega, as well as our actions in Columbia, Nicaragua, Panama – and a lengthy list of other such transgressions that make it hard to believe they weren’t funding Osama as well.
As Dr. Phil says – the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior, and our government’s past behavior is pretty incriminating. It’s why I’d like a new government. It’s why I voted for John Kerry. Because I did and still do believe that he wouldn’t have ruled with an Iron Fist like Bush is trying to do – and which is failing miserably.
I’ve worked for tyrants. They never stay in business for very long. Something Bush knows very well. And if we allow his neocon mentality to persist, something the United States itself will soon know as well.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:01 pmTracy,
Why are you only going into old threads (on the second page or even further archived) to attack people behind their backs?
Why are you rarely in any of the threads on the front page where people are actively commenting?
Sorta makes you seem like an even bigger coward than we already consider you to be…
September 20th, 2006 at 6:07 pm#63
“Innocent? Certainly not.”
According to you they are just fighting to get invaders off their land.
“But how much would you fight to defend YOUR HOMELAND?”
I wouldn’t blow up unsuspecting civilians. Hamas and Hezbollah aren’t freedom fighters…in the least.
“Even if it was from native americans who wanted to re-establish their homeland in your yard?”
If they could prove it was their land. BTW if you think this is worth discussing why don’t you find the native American tribe who lived where you live now and offer them the land in which you house now sits?…assuming you are an American and own land.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:10 pm#64
“Tell me, do you think people getting bombed, shot at, and beat up don’t feel terror as a means of coercion?”
Yes the Isrealis are very familiar with this. The fact that many, not all, Palestinian people are complicit in supporting Hamas suicide planning and attacks as are many Lebanaese who support Hezbollah, makes them culpable in the terrorist attacks on Isreali civilians. Maybe if the militants wouldn’t hide among the innocent civilians (like the mob did back in the 1970s and 1980s in the U.S.) and the civilians wouldn’t support the terrorists, there wouldn’t be so many innocent people killed who don’t support the terrorists.
“You should look up the bombings of Ben Gurion Menachem Begin’s Irgun sometime…”
The intent of the bombing was to humiliate the British military, not to kill them which is why Gurion was against the attack and told Menachem Begin to call it off…he refused. BTW Begin was marginalized by the mainstream Zionist leadership in the years prior to the establishment of Israel in 1947 precisely for his support for terrorist tatics. The problem with the Palestinians is that Hamas and Hezbollah, who support terrorist tatics, ARE mainstream.
“Tell me, in the 1960s, who attacked first, Israel or its neighbors?”
Is this a serious question in order to make people here believe that Isreal was unprovoked in it’s pre-emptive strike on Jordan, Syria, and Egypt? Tell me were there armies massed on Israel’s borders prior to the start of the Six Day War? Why were they massed there?
September 20th, 2006 at 6:50 pm#65
“Ask a cop sometime.”
I know a few cops and they said that if they say a perp with a gun pointed at them they would return fire and not first ask some questions or make some demands. Lame try with that one.
“The guy that strikes first, is the aggressor…”
Is this a serious comparions you are trying to make? LOL! Tell me what should Isreal have done knowing full well that they were about to be invaded? Sit and wait to get hit first? Are you that clueless or just insane?
“Your defense was tried at Nuremburg, and we told Hitler’s men it wasn’t a reasonable defense…”
They didn’t have any evidence to back up their claim! LOL! The French and the British weren’t about to invade Germany. The Israelis, however, WERE about to be invaded by Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:10 pm#68
He should be laughing at himself.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:11 pm#101
“As Dr. Phil says – the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior, and our government’s past behavior is pretty incriminating.”
Which was irrelevant as far as Iraq was concerned prior to March 2003…right?
“It’s why I voted for John Kerry.”
That explains alot. He would have lasted ONE term BTW. The terrorists groups would have almost certainly succeeded in another 9/11 type attack if he were to have been elected.
“They never stay in business for very long.”
Not to praise him, but Saddam was in power for 30+ years.
“And if we allow his neocon mentality to persist, something the United States itself will soon know as well.”
The liberals have done more that their fair share to scew up this country.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:32 pm#102
“Why are you only going into old threads (on the second page or even further archived) to attack people behind their backs?”
Examples?
“Why are you rarely in any of the threads on the front page where people are actively commenting?”
Because, I don’t constantly visit TP every minute of every day like you do and post a comment the second it’s posted.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:37 pm#102 BTW your comment proves what a short attention span many people have in this blog.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:40 pm#110
“Guess why Saddam stayed in power for 30+ years – THE US!!!”
Provide some evidence that the U.S. was responsible for keeping Saddam in power for all that time.
“It takes an outside force supplying arms and even financial support to sustain that kind of lock.”
Supplying arms? I seem to remember during the Gulf War not seeing a single U.S. tank or armored vehicle along that “Highway of Death”. The T72 is a Soviet made tank. The BULK of the Iraqi armed forces were composed of Soviet military hardware.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990
“Or because you’re so INSECURE you need the LAST WORD!!!”
Is that why you are posting now because you need to laugh at yourself some more?
September 20th, 2006 at 8:04 pmThe US provided intelligence to Saddam and France armed him. The Iranis were sitting ducks to massive firepower. The equation was that simple. Saddam hit a US navy frigate /strong>during the Reagan administration and no action was taken against Iraq, which placed us in the same boat as Iran.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:09 pmRE: Why shouldn’t Iran get Nuclear Weapons?
1. the U.S. has used nuclear weapons against its enemies
2. the U.S. labelled Iran part of the “axis of evil†and an enemy state
3. the U.S. attacked and destabilized another “axis of evil†country
4. the U.S. refuses to use diplomacy and simply makes demands
1A: Japan attacked first, remember? The atomic bombs ended the war and we are free and Japan is free from its dictators.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:27 pm2A: Yes we did, rightly so. Hizbollah is backed by Iran and blew up the barracks in Beirut and the Khobar Towers – killing hundreds of American soldiers. Also, Iran is giving aid to the terrorists in Iraq. Ahmadenijad has called for the elimination of Israel and to “push the Jews into the sea”. Liberals want to give him a hug.
3A: Yep, Iraq was stable. Invaded two countries, murdered, tortured and gassed hundreds of thousands of its own people. That’s stability baby!
4A: Screw diplomacy with people who start the negotiation with “The West must die.”
Who cares that we propped Saddam? We looked at Iran and Iraq and choose what we thought was the lesser of two evils.
If this the paradigm, how about FDR’s coddling of good ol’ Uncle Joe. As in Joseph Stalin, as in 40 million of his own murdered, as in handing Europe to Stalin after WWII because he thought Stalin was a good guy.
Get over it. We are where we are and have to deal with the problem in front of us.
Instead of hating Bush, why not look at the Islamic Fascists who’ve been promising for 20 years to kill us all? Bin Laden’s Jihad was declared well before W took office.
Also, as for not catching Bin Laden, we have caught those who planned 9/11 such as Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and dismantled 80% of Al Qaeda. 5 years, no attacks. He’s doing something right. Get over your anger.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:34 pmOh, and the end of the USSR was enabled by the insistence from people such as the Pope, Ronald Reagan and courageous dissidents to free their people. Once people have freedom, dictatorships/Communists lose power. It wasn’t done by “negotiations”. Reagan looked them in the eye and told them what he thought – which was right – “Free your people.”
This is what Bush is doing, telling them to free their people.
Yet, he is condemned by the liberals for this. Amazing.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:38 pmB Truthful, wow, you just praised Gorbachev….
I suggest you read about the Jewish Soviet dissidents such as Natan Sharansky who were jailed by the Soviets for speaking out. See, they weren’t allowed to leave the country…freedom…get the picture???
Yes, a crappy economy helped crumble the USSR — due to COMMUNISM! It doesn’t work!
Occupying Palestine? It is considered both of their holy lands and over thousands of years both have fought to control it. Palestine to me seems willing to share it as do the Jews – whom you obviously despise. Its the Islamic Fascists who are looking for a perceived grievance to rally against. Tell me, how come every time Israel agrees to give up territory, your beloved suicied bombers still murder innocent Jews in marketplaces with bombs laden with nails, ball bearing and rat feces? What next, the holocaust didn’t happen?
Condemned for killing and occupying whom? Oh, that’s right, we are killing the Baathists who were murdering and raping the Muslims…yet we are the bad guys?
Its so easy to get under a liberals skin. Just bring up the USSR and you get mad because in your mind, Communism is the Utopia. Next, all I had to do was point out American exceptionalism and pride in what we stand for – freedom – and you get infuriated. Again, because you don’t like America, you feel guilty and want to see America “get what’s coming to them” because we are the world’s only super power and and are finally doing the right thing and telling the thugs and dictators of the world to free their people and stop indoctrinating them into hate.
You must have a miserable life being a liberal. No morals (hey, if it feels good do it), no values, just contempt for America.
September 20th, 2006 at 10:49 pmOh, I meant to add, why is Poland erecting a statue of Reagan and not Gorbachev? Oh, that’s right, your beloved Gorby was oppressing people and Reagan was freeing them from FDR’s screw up when he handed them over to Stalin’s butchers.
Gorby led them to a better place….that’s pathetic to even claim. His country crumbled because Reagan ran them into the ground. The Soviet’s own nuclear scientists were asking for more “capitalism” and freedom to create because they knew that a closed society can’t keep up with a free society.
Sorry your favorite country and ideal failed – again. Keep your chin up. North Korea and Cuba are still running your ideology and starving their people.
September 20th, 2006 at 10:54 pm#113
These are YOUR words….
“Guess why Saddam stayed in power for 30+ years – THE US!!!”
“You said why did he stay in power for 30+ years, I pointed out that it was a product of US policies.”
Read you own words again, because you said what he stayed in power and blamed the U.S.. YOU should read or write more carefully. Also you didn’t say that he was a product of U.S. policies untill now. Nide try.
“I didn’t say that every step of the way we’re SOLELY responsible…”
You said that the U.S. was responsible for Saddam staying in power for 30+ years and never mentioned ANY other entities. BTW he was president of Iraq from 1979-2003. We were both wrong on this detail.
“Then there’s the matter of those advanced helicopters used to suppress the post gulf war rebellion.”
They weren’t U.S. made helicopters. You need to brush up on your military knowledge.
“The US chose to support trade with a dictator, and that propped him up financially.
I agree we helped. At the time we saw the spread of communism as a greater threat than the Baath party taking over Iraq.
“That was my POINT all along.”
Then why did you say that from the beginning instead of saying that the U.S. was responsible for Saddam staying in power for 30+ years? You sounded like it that if it weren’t for the U.S. alone Saddam WOULDN’T have remained in power so long. You need to mention the main culprits that helped him build up his military machine that suppressed his own people and it wasn’t the U.S., it was the Soviets and the French.
“It takes that kind of external propping up (usually financially) for a dictator to survive.”
So now you are saying that the U.S. infused Saddam with cash?
“If a dictator can’t divert money around his people (say with oil), he can’t oppress them…”
Kinda like he did under the nose of the U.N….right?
September 21st, 2006 at 11:38 am#117
“You mean since we sided with Israel in Lebanon?”
So we should have sided with the PLO?
“Yep, that’ll happen when you invade another country and oppress its people.”
I thought you said that the those who attack first are the aggressors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War
“The Government of Israel gave a green light for the invasion as a response to the assassination attempt against Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, Shlomo Argov by Fatah – Revolutionary Council and to artillery attacks launched by the Palestine Liberation Organization against populated areas in northern Israel.”
“Actually a crappy economy, corruption and mismanagement enabled the end of the USSR.”
And the fact the communism doesn’t work as a system of government or a economic one.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:57 amAhh, you’ve been reading Pravda haven’t you?
Regarding your hero Gorby, why not ask the dissidents who rotted in his jails about who freed them? Read Natan Sharansky’s “Case for Democracy” (no it isn’t Noam Chomsky approved) about Gorby…Gorby was forced to relent because his people were rising against him due to external pressure from Reagan and the Pope.
What “wacko claims” are you afraid to address? This is what liberals do. They don’t have facts so they just say they don’t want to address the point.
Is it FDR siding with Stalin….? Or Saddam butchering his own people…? Which one is a wacko claim?
Are you denying Saddam drained the marshes in the south, thus displacing hundreds of thousands of Shiia? Then, while they fled he straffed them with gunships? (again though, we are “evil” for throwing him out). Are you denying Saddam gassed his people and the Iranian soldiers? Or are you denying he shot at our planes thousands of times in the 90’s while we patrolled the north and southern ends of Iraq to protect the Shiia and the Kurds from slaughter?
Again, the US is the evil one though for kicking him out.
Or are you denying that FDR used to refer to Stalin as “Uncle Joe” and thought he was a decent fella and refused to address Churchill’s concern that as soon as the Nazi’s were defeated, then Stalin would simply fill the vacuum?
September 21st, 2006 at 12:28 pmHow telling the photos of Frum and D’Amoto (on their respective topics) are…
…BOTH have their eyes…
…CLOSED!
September 21st, 2006 at 2:26 pmBecause, I don’t constantly visit TP every minute of every day like you do and post a comment the second it’s posted.
Comment by Tracy — September 20, 2006 @ 7:37 pm
Proof right there that you have a warped sense of reality. I don’t post until close to 6:00 most evenings, and I do it while grading papers.
The real answer is because you are a coward. Your actions keep validating it.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:00 pm#125
But you visit TP everyday just about. I don’t because I don’t have the time.
Where is your evidence that I only go into old threads to attack people behind their backs?
September 21st, 2006 at 10:12 pm#125
“The real answer is because you are a coward. Your actions keep validating it.”
The is your asinine opinion. My opinion about why you visit this site frequently is that you are too much of a coward to post on a conservative blogs….or do you? If so, which ones?
September 21st, 2006 at 10:17 pmMy proof, Tracy is your posts. You really aren’t very bright.
I live in a red stste. I have conversations with real live conservatives nearly everyday. Would be much easier to go into blogs to talk with the opposite side of the fence – like you.
Besides, you aren’t here for discourse. It’s obvious to everyone except you.
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:58 pm#129
“My proof, Tracy is your posts.”
Which posts? How about just one. Is that easy enought for you?
“Besides, you aren’t here for discourse. It’s obvious to everyone except you.”
I try to have discourse with other people and have read your posts in other threads. Rarely do your comments EVER do anything to promote the dabate.
“Would be much easier to go into blogs to talk with the opposite side of the fence”
I doubt it…wouldn’t want to leave your comfort zone. Which sites have you posted in besides TP BTW?
September 25th, 2006 at 1:52 pm