A Response to President Bush's Recent Speech on Iraq

I recently read an article pertaining to a BBC report on how President Bush's grandfather was part of group that was campaigning the over throwing of the American Government and placing a fascist, Hitler type of government in its place. Perhaps these fascist tendencies run in the family. This would explain Bush's lack of respect and apathy towards the feelings and wish of the people he is sworn to protect.

Interesting! Do you have a link to the story?

I tried to post the links but for some reason I couldn't. Here is the address to the BBC news articles.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/240707fascistcoup.htm

Mr. Bush seems to be under the impression that us being in Iraq nails all Al Queda operatives feet to the desert floor. Not hardly, we will be hit again, whether we are in Iraq or not, as long as we meddle in middle Eastern affairs, including Israel. The terrorist organizations have seen an effect not unlike applying miracle grow to tomatoes, from our presence in Iraq. Remember that Usama declared war on us because we had boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia, and all we had to do to avoid 911 was to leave. We have learned little in six years, it would seem.

You've posted an interesting article. I agree with everything.... Except for the end. Aren't we all against terrorism? Aren't we all against terrorist groups? World wide law enforcement efforts to capture and imprison terrorists?!?! How do you think Edwards and Kucinich are going to make that happen? ESPECIALLY today when half of the world laughs at America or hates us for all the crap Bush has done! I don't see Iraq saying, "Yeah, we'll go along with this world wide enforcement against terrorists!" when we can't even get them to stop their civil war. I'm not sure that this idea is the best way to go about ending terrorism or wars on terrorism for that matter. Fighting global poverty.... How do you plan to do that? We can't even fight poverty in our own country let alone GLOBAL poverty! We can teach skills so people can support themselves but how far will that get them in a country like Darfur? Their own government is displacing and killing the people! They can't rise out of poverty in those conditions. Oh wait! Why don't we just bring all of the World's poor to America?!?!?! Immigration is the answer! Yayy!

I think that we need to work on ideas for how to end these struggles.... There is a lot of talk and I'd rather see action.

By the way, good article. 10.

I apologize for the tone of my first comment. It wasn't meant to be argumentative.... : )

Lainie, Mr Bush is not making it happen. He is in fact avoiding making it happen by not putting the Pakistan Afghanistan Border region into priority status. Pakistan says that Pakistan is prepared to clear the border region of terrorists, and that US forces should stay out. Mr Bush has responded by saying that Pakistan will just have to put up with American tactics. Pakistan says they don't want the collateral damage that comes with American tactics. Pakistan is becoming an enemy instead of an ally. Time is the ally of the terrorist, but it is also the ally of the enemy of the terrorist, if it is constructively used.

Iraq exemplifies the Bush Strategy, and its inherent weakness. Bush is killing gnats with cruise missiles.

Maybe, even if by accident, Bush accomplished two things ...

1. Deposing Hussein
2. Drawing Al Quaida to fight us in Iraq rather than in the U.S.

The problem is that we know Al-Quada had operatives in Iraq before we went in.

"And we have the documents to prove it. The original documents can be found here. As Laura Mansfield reminded me today, Iraqi intelligence documents identify a cell of al Qaeda working in Iraq prior to the invasion, headed by Abu Musab al Zarqawi who is identified as member of "Tanzeem al Qaeda", or the "Al Qaeda Organization". The memo is dated August 17, 2002."

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/188829.php

Which is why Bush never debunk the claim that Al-Quada was in Iraq, because we already had information that that they were. The document in this, was found a few years ago and gave proof that they were already in there, and most of the Senate would know of this as well.

Here is the document, it is in the language from there (not sure if farse or what one).
http://www.theblackvault.com/documents/capturediraq/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf

I just pray to God the masses aren't falling for this Al Qaeda in Iraq malarky. REMEMBER, plans to attack Iraq were in the works long before 911. Just remember his real reason for wanting to stay there, and then you can see through all of his mickey mouse attempts to provide a rationale based on fear tactics.

Mike e, the reason for the "civil war" is because we invaded. We screwed up the social, economic balance and now we even hire death squads just to keep things churning, and to have something to blame on someone. All that conflict gee, more excuse to stay there, and accorning to Paul Bremner, an effective means of population control. You scare me you are so (naive) innocent. But it's sweet.

Zarkawi? Isn't he the leader we keep killing all the time?

I know that Bush is not making it happen. He's not really making anything happen. He is stalling to fit his own agenda. My comment was not in defense of Bush by any means!

My comment was geared towards the two proposed ways to help stop it.

Karl, based on what you just outlined, there is yet ANOTHER country that is not going to be supporting us in a world wide enforcement. Other countries are SICK of Americans. They are sick of Bush and they are sick of us putting up with him. They are not going to support us in anything. That was the point. Iraq will not help us, Pakistan will not help us, France will not help us, England is questionable.... We're losing our allies and if Edwards and Kucinich want a world wide program to work, we need to keep our allies.

Bush gave the terrorists a huge group of recruits when he decided to disband the Iraqi army, sending tens of thousands of men off to an uncertain future of unemployment and humiliation. Most of them would have been easily converted to help us if we had given them a chance. The way to survive in Iraq was always to change alliances easily so as to not offend whoever was the most powerful at the time. Turning all those men into enemies created the insurgency, not Al Quaida or even the civil problems between the religious groups. I keep hearing how they need more time for the troop surge to work and I keep wondering, What about the past 4.5 years??? Doesn't that time count? What have we been doing there besides "Staying the course"? This war never should have happened and I can't believe how those who forced it upon us were so incompetent about running it! And we are supposed to just keep funding it (or funding the Haliburton subsidiaries, I mean!)

It's time for the American people to stand united against those who would lead our country down a path of corruption, deceit, greed, and fascism. Yes, 2008 is an opportunity to tell the world we will not tolerate our constitution being desecrated by those in power.
For the immediate future: There are numerous sites for impeachment throughout the internet. Let's start the ball rolling. This is a way to send a clear message to the current administration that we are not afraid to speak our mind and take our country back from the wealthy few in this nation.

Karl; "He is in fact avoiding making it happen by not putting the Pakistan Afghanistan Border region into priority status."

That is an insult to the Special Ops of this country, Australia, and UK who have died, been wounded, and more in this area. This area is being worked on by those best suited for the operation, and that is the Sp.ops guys. It is the Net work that is set up there that keeps anyone from getting in. There is only two ways I understand to get into this area, and that is through the water, or by air, and boith have a lot of problems getting in there.
The Pakastani's have had their own troops helping us, and lost more of their people than we have, so you insult their losses as well. Waziristan, which is a highly militant area, is also very friendly to the Al-Quada group. It has been known that they have been hiding Ben Lauden (sp), and they had a lot of experioence in doing so with their raids and reprisals when the UK ruled the area. The UK had a constant battle with these people that cost them more than they ever gained with them.

Dan, Isn't the issue there that we let these guys in after us when we invaded? The operatives from Pakistan got in while the barn door was open because they knew Sadaam didn't stand a snowball's chance. It was my understanding that Bush was advised to seal the border where possible behind him. He didn't choose to do it.

It seems to me to always come back to "overwhelming force". Ours wasn't, and it should have been. I agree that our troops are doing what they can with what they have. W. just isn't giving them what they need to do the job.

Lanie P - As you say, everyone is against terrorism. My point would be that wars like the one in Iraq only distract us from more practical ways of fighting terrorism, such as traditional law enforcement and intelligence gathering activities. You are correct in saying that the war in Iraq has greatly hindered such efforts. But the world is waiting to see what happens in this election - a new president will have the ability to regain the world's trust if he/she pursues the right policies. I would also say that a lot it being done to fight global poverty already, through various U.N. and U.S. led initiatives. But much more could be done to fight poverty in the U.S. and abroad. Just because we are not doing enough now does not make solving major problems like global poverty and hunger impossible. It is a question or priorities. We have no seen what happens when the use of force becomes our dominant mode of dealing with global problems. Perhaps we can now try a better, more productive route.

Mike E - There already is a civil war. I do not think that pulling our troops out of Iraq ends our obligation to help rebuild that country. We should continue to provide aid to rebuild the country. Otherwise it will likely continue to deteriorate.

Dan K - I truly hope that we have not sunk so low as to prefer that another country's people absorbs the brunt of the terrorist anger so that we can be safe at home. A "better them than us" approach is quite disturbing, although Mr. Bush seems to be fine with the situation.

Dan R - Perhaps so. But there was no alliance between Saddam and al Qaeda. In fact the group wanted Saddam to be eliminated. Nor did al Qaeda have any real power in Iraq at the time. Only after the invasion did al Qaeda become an influential force. Iraq was not the center of global terrorism then. Now it is.

Janice (What Would Buffy Do?)B.; "Isn't the issue there that we let these guys in after us when we invaded? The operatives from Pakistan got in while the barn door was open because they knew Sadaam didn't stand a snowball's chance. It was my understanding that Bush was advised to seal the border where possible behind him. He didn't choose to do it."

I think from what I have heard from returning troops there was more of a connection than we are lead to believe. And when you look at the images of the "Training camp" there is more than what the Media says they were used for. I mean since when did the Pals hijack planes, or want to use bio and chemical weapons? If what I am getting from the troops, which for some reason cannot say exactly what they know, there is more known than is being said.


David; "In fact the group wanted Saddam to be eliminated. Nor did al Qaeda have any real power in Iraq at the time. Only after the invasion did al Qaeda become an influential force. Iraq was not the center of global terrorism then. Now it is. "

If you remember we only knew what happened at that meeting after we got in there and found those papers. Until then we did not know how it turned out. But Al-Quada was in fact having meetings with Suddam on making deals with him under the UN's nose. So I don't think it was all that hostile a feeling between the two, at least not to the point they were not dealing with each other.

bush says "al quida" 95 times and you fools buy it ?
Easily brainwashed means "small" brains.
GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW !!!!
IMPEACH bush/cheney TODAY !!!!!

Dan R - I can't say I have ever heard of any such meeting between Saddam and al Qaeda members. Any reputable source on that one?

Dan R Iraq is a nation of 24 million. If Zarkawi had a active Al Queda presense in Iraq it was miniscule and effectively non-operational and certainly in no way competitive with Saddam in the future of Iraq. Today in Iraq, with combat daily and active Al Queda they comprise perhaps 10-15 percent of the violence. We've given militants of all stripes the chance to test weapons and tactics against us and have provided valuable training, recruitment and motivations to ever increasing legions of militants. Bush has done precicely what Bin Laden wished: Radicalize the Middle East and focus their attention upon the US. Many of those Iraqi battalions trained by us troops during the day plant bombs at night. This adventure, despite the insane rantings of Bush, is a complete disaster.

Today the Sunnis quit the cabinet and parliment. So much for Bush's "hyrocarbon law."

"world wide law enforcement efforts to capture and imprison terrorists."
Who brings the charges? Who serves the subpoena? Where do you hold the trial? Think about it, whose law are you enforcing? What about the countries that don't want to cooperate? Could you have walked into Afghanistan and served OBl with an arrest warrant and expected the Taliban to extradite him or try him there? Try that in Northwest Pakistan. This whole terrorism thing is a mess but one thing it isn't is a law enforcement issue.

"By fighting global poverty and ending our support for
oppressive regimes in the Middle East we can prevent new terrorists from being born."
Aren't we already spending billions around the world to combat poverty? We are called the Great Satan, Imperialists, capitalist rapists, and any number of things. Signs in the streets say "Death to America", "Yankee Go Home" and on and on. Messrs. Kucinich and Edwards are going to end terrorism by ending poverty and oppression by doing what? Spending more billions? Sounds to me like they are presenting nothing more than what's been presented for decades. What makes you think the recipients of this aid will see us any different than they have in the past? The flaw here is, no matter how or by whom, it will be seen as the US throwing it's money around to placate anyone who isn't in love with America. And as has always been the case, the money will flow into corrupt governments and have no real impact on the underlying problem. They will smile at us as we smile at them and when the check is signed they will laugh all the way to the bank.

G-d save the Union, for it's obvious many Americans have made themselves blind to the world around us.

David, The UK and Russian intel reports. They knew of the meeting, and who was involved, but neiother knew how it turned out. This left Bush with a major question of "what if" and as you can gather with the possible sale of Bio and Chemical weapons at risk, that was one hell of a "What if". Yes after the findings when we went in, the Anti-war member so the Parliment got the intel to say it was false, but Russia has never waivered on this subject. So my view here is that it was a political badgering that forced the admission after they found out the meeting did not go through to justify their views against the war. Putan has repetedly stated that even though he disagreed with Bush's move into Iraq, he could understand why he did so.
Then the findings at the "training Camps" seemed to point that they either were training some groups to be using bio and chemical weapons, and hijacking planes, or planning to be doing so. Combine this with the returning troops saying that there was more found than the media is saying, and you have a very big question on what was going on. 1998 Al-quada has operitives working in Iraq, and from 1989 Suddam is known to have been talking to them, if not before.

In view of recent terrorist activity in Britain, it is evident that nowadays we have home grown 'Al Queda' operatives functioning here. I wonder - does that put the UK in Bush's line of fire?

In these times the two greatest threats to world peace and stability have been George and Tony.

Iraq is history repeating itself; hasn't anyone read the history of our adventures in Latin America? Regime change; Clinton said we weren't going to do that anymore, though he had his own version of it. Bush Co are there for the "long war" and it has absolutely nothing top do with 'helping' anyone OVER THERE, or helping any of us OVER HERE. Fighting them over there so they won't come here is pure propaganda.

I will vote for the candidate who will admit that we have a monkey on a back [war as an industry] and will take a sane, rational approach to getting if off. Clinton lost me with her answer about staying the same ol, same ol, for the same ol same ol reasons: War profits for them and same ol status quo for everyone else.

we are on the same page just very different candidates but we will this time next yr. Mine are at this time clinton biden or dodd

"I find particularly galling the idea that the war in Iraq has made us safer, proof of which is that there have been no attacks on us since 9/11." I share Daniel Bell's letter here. He makes a clear and cogent case that not having terrorist events in the U.S. the past almost 6 years is proof of nothing in particular. Read the rest:

http://tinyurl.com/3cvzsu

I am in a military family and we haven't heard such rumors at all. In fact, my husband was not for the war before he went. He leans more in favor (though not all the way) from having befriended some Iraqis and heard how they had to live before the invasion if they disagreed. I still don't think he'd say that was sufficient. He's not big on the US being a police force in the world.

The original intelligence about the al queda/ Hussein connection originated in France or rather french documents. They were determined to be forged and most likely from Iran. That connection makes more sense. Iran wants to get us. Iran wants to get Sadaam who isn't one of Allah's favorites. Perfect solution frame Iraq and embroil us in the wrong fight.

Every soldier I've spoken to (I'm sure they all differ too from branch to branch and unit to unit) says we don't and didn't have enough force on the ground to do what need to be done.

Dan R - I surely hope that you are not refering to the same British reports that have been refuted repeatedly, first by the media and then by Blair's own government. The president and his administration made a case for war, and that case was that they were certain that Saddam had WMD's and was collaborating with al Qaeda. The administration has steadily backed away from these claims over the years.

W is spouting nonsense on Iraq and continuing to propose an unproductive course of action? Yes, agreed. Not so sure about Edwards and Kucinich, but willing to look at all that the candidates have to say.

If we had treated 911 as the criminal act it was, and gotten together Interpol and other international crime fighting organizations to return the real criminals to a court of law and incarceration as for any criminal. We would not be at war now.

Instead our current administration in a burst of ignorant zeal, started a world wide endless war that has spread hatred and mistrust around the globe. GW is the single most successful al Qaeda recruiter in the world.

Against terrorists? Yes, but who decides who is a terrorist? US and Britain and Israel have declared the winning party in a legal election in another country are terrorists. Where will it end.

All the fears everyone has about Iraq after US pulls out are already on the ground and operating in Iraq with us right there. Iraqi people are killing each other and killing us. To me, it would be better if they just killed each other and left us out of it.
But we have a terrible toll of guilt to assuage for our collective actions in Iraq. That will not be cleared by the taking of their oil by our US corporations.

As for Clinton for the next "fearless leader": Do we really need more NAFTA, CAFTA etc? Can we afford to outsource more jobs? Globalization exploits people in poor nations. Sending our jobs there for them to do for wages so low they must live in barracks, be fed by their corporate slave-holders etc. and work in sweat shop conditions is NOT helping. It sure doesn't do anything for the US economy either.

Gee, do you think instead of doing the same ole, with the same ole, and expecting different results we ought to give different viewpoints and different plans a try????

Excellent article!

It is clear that there have been two major movements in modern history that have resulted in a massive influx of global terrorists. One was the US sponsored Mujahadeen in Afghanistan that President Reagan termed "freedom fighters", the CIA trained and US backed fighters resisting Soviet occupation in the 80s. When the Mujahadeen claimed victory, they spread out throughout the Middle East and into parts of Europe and Asia and took with them their new skills to perform terrorist acts elsewhere. That was the first big terrorist movement, and again, it was the result of American "interests" in the region, also called blowback.

The new blowback is Iraq. Before today's American-occupied Iraq, when it was led by a cruel dictator, the country was NOT a haven for terrorists. Saddam was a secular president, and while he was quite the tyrant, the country feared his totalitarian rule not terrorism. Now Iraq is the "cause celebre" for terrorism, in Washington's own words. Terrorist expert Peter Bergen, who covers Bin Laden and Al-Qaida extensively, predicted this well before Bush invaded. We opened up a power-vacuum and terrorist organizations, of course, will follow us anywhere, especially where we create massive instability and chaos.

Iraq is the second most important terrorist movement thatnks to the Bush administration, which is, quite paradoxically, leading a war on terrorism.

Hows that for irony. Fighting terrorism by creating new terrorists. Bringing stability and peace to the Middle East through instability and endless war. When exactly does Bush's policies start to make any sense?

Sandy,

Excellent points. Youre right, of course. Fighting terrorism involves police work, plain and simple. Not bombs and collaterla damage which creates new terrorists and fuels terrorism.

Lainie:
> I think that we need to work on ideas for how to end
> these struggles.... There is a lot of talk and I'd rather
> see action.

That is one of the best things I have read here in a long time.
It throws some things in perspective to wonder, well, why aren't
we working on ideas globally on how to handle this, at least
having some discussion?

I'm just guessing, but I have got to believe it is because the
whole war, on both sides, terrorists and our side is in some way
a cover for a the clearer and more immediate agenda of
people close to the war and the governments to profit.

It is somehow up to the people of the world to figure out how
to short-cricuit this buildup of dangerous potential and discharge
the power of the poltical people who are using government
anywhere for what it can bring them and their friends rather
than what it can do to increase justice, order, knowledge,
security worldwide.

There is a saying if I can find it ...

> I like to believe that people in the long run are going to
> do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed,
> I think that people want peace so much that one of these
> days governments had better get out of the way and let
> them have it.
- Dwight David Eisenhower (US President & General)

Osama wanted to fight Saddam for invading Kuwait. If AL Qaeda was in Iraq, it was to overthrow Saddam. Remember, Saddam was secular, he was not a RELIGIOUS fanatic. The weak minded believe A M radio which is so full of lies that they won't take calls from opposing views, least thery expose their weak lies.
Any Military strategist will tell you that you strike the enemy in the flanks. Bush is sooooo stupid, he thinks Al Qaeda is dumb, that they are bogged down in Iraq.
What a stupid thing to say and even stupider (I sound like W)to believe.
Come on, this war is a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.

David,
Do you have any insite into the plans of "the candidates who are willing to take a more constructive approach in the fight against terrorism." to actually fight terrorism?

I wanted to touch one thing.... Why the world laughs at America. We are laughed at for a host of different reasons. For example during World War I: We were fighting a war to make the world safe for democracy, according to President Woodrow Wilson, but the PResident passed a law to make make discrimination at federal level legal.

When African-Americans returned home from WWI rather than being hailed as heroes they were accorded a foot in the anus along with second class citizenship, beatings, domestic terrorism, lynching and the like. Our President and the government said nothing while their countrymen were being treated like animals in the early half of the 20th century.

If we fast foward to World War II African-Americans and other minority groups are still regarded as second class citizens... There are laws mandating this. The desegregation of the armed forces didn't take place until after the war, passed by an executive order of Harry S. Truman...

I won't jump into the present day as it might be seen as redundant, but consider this.... Shouldn't we consider that other nations are looking at how America treats its own! Historically speaking.

"If they can treat their own citizens in this manner, where does that leave us?" Is this the plane that "they" are operating from.... Just a thought.

The fact is terrorism is not a thing you can declare war on, it's an idea, not a country. The previously stated approach of criminal prosecution and intelligence gathering, to prevent terrorist events is indeed, as I think we've proven over the last few years, a much better approach than invading countries. The British, in charge in Afghanistan are adamant that they cannot keep on, that the country will be lost unless something is done, We are making no progress in Iraq, and plainly never will, unless we put the country on a war footing, draft, industrial mobilization, etc. Notice the only one that gets mentioned by the BA is the one with massive, sweet, shallow oil deposits, that the oil companies are simply salivating over. Notice the legislature disbanded for summer, without signing the bill that would give them the sweetheart deals they had rolled into the oil bill there. Now the Sunnis have rejected the bill so it won't be happening anyway. Little George is going to come away from this business venture as empty as he did from everything else he ever touched. We, the taxpayers are going to be the ones to foot the bill, once more. I predict this is going to be a lot like Nixon, and no one in a year or two will ever admit they voted for this idiot.

David Anderson; "Dan R - I surely hope that you are not refering to the same British reports that have been refuted repeatedly, first by the media and then by Blair's own government. The president and his administration made a case for war, and that case was that they were certain that Saddam had WMD's and was collaborating with al Qaeda. The administration has steadily backed away from these claims over the years. "

If those rebutes were worth the breath used, then explain how we found the documents that there was no aggreance between Suddam's government and Al-Quada's group on the purchess of these items? These rebuttals only came out after the documents were found in one of Suddam's file cabnets. So if this never happened, how did we find these documents? Second if this never happened, why did Russia never refute this claim, but instead support the facts they had?
I believe unless someone can show me different, that this was coerced and not the truth. There is more going on here than the media is letting out. Too many anti-war politicians working to force facts out of lies, and then the media pushing these as truths. Even more so, most of the media covered and showed something on the documents, then when the issue in the UK came up, the story on the documents went into hiding, why? A good reporter (not that there are many today) should have run with that and tried to find out, but none did.
So I am forced to believe that the story on the faking of this incident is all smoke and mirrors so the Anti-war crowds can have their way. And if you look at the major player in this case in the UK, was that politician that has a long record of being a political hack and lier. Although he and Ted "hic" Kenedy and Kerry got a long good, only shows how birds of a feather...

Shun P. if America is such a horrible place than why do so many people in other nations desire to emigrate here more than any other nation on earth?

Why do thousands of Mexicans risk their lives every day to come here?

Why does everyone actively seek out our aid?

Why does the UN take so much money from us?

Oh and do you think America is the only nation on earth that has racial/ethnic issues?

I quite agree with most everything in this article, perhaps except for the candidates you outline. I'm not sure what to make of the whole group of candidates. How invested are they in absolutely solving the mess Bush has made in the entire world? And how more deeply are they invested in solving what has happened to America since Bush? My concern is getting a wimp who will not carry through what has to be done. Someone still to swayed by special interest groups with power and money, at the expense of not just Americans but world citizens.

In a recent international poll, more people in the world than ever in the history of America consider the US the number one threat to international security.

Olga, you wrote: "The problem is that we know Al-Quada had operatives in Iraq before we went in."

My personal opinion based on having studied this very closely, is that there likely were far more al-Quada operatives in America at the time. Saddam had a ruthless, no-terrorist policy in Iraq, where he executed people who were even rumored to be terrorists against his dictatorial and sectarian government. Let's consider things with an ironic and fictive perspective, where Mexico was the dominant power base in the western world. By all rights, then, a Mexican Bush might likely have invaded the US in the name of its national security, just as the Pentagon had secret plans during the Cold War to invade and take over Canada, should things with Russia go south.

Dana, you wrote: "Why does the UN take so much money from us?"

You are joking, I hope. If not, where are you getting your info from? The US is about the biggest debtor nation to the UN.

And what is this "take?"

The difficulty with the UN has to do with the fact that it was not designed with a unilateral or unipolar power structure. Since 1992 or so, the US has dominated all features of global economic and power functions, and in the past 7 years, has indiscriminately ignored the needs and aspirations of member states. That is cause right now for a huge frustration, equal if not worse to the frustration Lincoln felt in 1861, when England - then the world's mightiest power - almost went to war against the US again, to capitalize on our internal struggle.

Dana,

If other countries jump off a bridge.....

The argument that all our friends are doing it when applied to racism and injustice is...well...best to not fill in that blank. I assume from the tone of your comment you are in the love it or leave it crowd. I think the Brits took the same tone with the colonists in the 16 and 1700's. That didn't work out real well for them either. When people feel expendable, they rebel. That's how we got here.

Good points SHUN.

Excellent points by Sandy F. and Shun.

Great job.

Great Article,
I wonder if when Shrub and Darth Vader declare marshall law and announce they are suspending the general election in 2008, if they will call the masses of American citizens who WILL rise up in defiance "insurgents?"

No we will be called "al kida".........................................

Good article David. I disagree with you on one point, however. You state that Al-Qaida is not responsible for the sectarian violence in Iraq. In fact, Al-Qaida announced publicly that it was going to fuel and incite this sectarian violence in order to bring about exactly what happened. And they did. They attacked sites holy to the other side, etc. until finally people fought back and the civil war erupted exactly as they planned. They want the Iraqis at one another's throats as it simply fuels the chaos they so enjoy.

The fairy tale that Iraq was some sort of Al-Qaida safe-haven under Saddam is so much whitewash. At the very most there were one or two training camps, not there with Saddam's permission, but there because our no-fly zones made it impossible for Saddam's army to find them and root them out as they had in the past, so again, we created the problem, then try to use the problem we created as an excuse for what we did. It's all just an enormous game to the Bush administration. After all, they're not the ones dying.

Devin: I sure as hell hope what you say will not happen. More and more people are becoming convinced that Bush will do this and that there will be no elections in 2008 as a result. Do you really think that the military will just meekly fall into line? What about the millions of Americans who own guns? That's just too scary to even anticipate.

"I assume from the tone of your comment you are in the love it or leave it crowd."

No my point was that while it's ok to point out America's faults it's not acceptable to pretend that we are unique in having those faults and that every other nation is a utopian paradise that is morally superior to us.

We tend to conveniently forget that there were a fair number of prominent people in America who were sympathetic to the Nazi cause -- the two most prominent being Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford. A portrait of Henry Ford was proudly displayed by Hitler in the Chancery throughout the Nazi era. In addition, Hitler also complimented Calvin Coolidges support for eugenics which drove the Abenaki Indians in Vermont to hide their lineage in order to avoid being sterilized. Because of his expressed pre-war sentiments -- America's most famous pilot, Lindbergh, wound up sitting out the war.

George: You're one of the few that know this.

Carolyn: There honestly is a growing concern that a situation will be orchestrated, much as Devin implies, prior to the 2008 election... I've heard this one before in my life, but never have the global economic incentives for this been so high. When I think about it, it makes me upset at Gore for having backed off in 2000, when he should have fought a legal battle for the presidency. So much might have been avoided in hindsight.

Brent,

Equally upsetting that Kerry backed off -- and then went on a nice long recuperative vacation -- from the consequences and fallout of having broken his promise to Edwards to pursue the outcome in the courts!

Having just watched the Senate trying to roast Gonzales, to no avail so far though I continue to have faith, it does not seem at all implausible to me that Bush and Co will continue to do whatever they want -- unless they are stopped.

Great article, David,

Bush Co is always spouting about "lessons learned" though somehow they don't learn -- so is it stupidity or calculated greed and callousness. I've believed for some that that it's the latter. Edwards/Kucinich are the only one's I feel have documented and demonstrated integrity. O'bama -- maybe. He's made some statements that make me think he's already sold out to big interests -- time will tell.

btw, I'm an agnostic and I feel reasonably comfortable that Edwards won't allow his faith to override his decisions and duty as president to we the people and the constitution. It's ironic that the messianic Bushies have undermined our faith in just about everything.

That's exactly right. It was a relative handful of people that attacked us on 9/11, it wasn't Iraq or Iraqis. After 9/11, most of the world was on our side. Then Bush started threatening Iraq and support for America started waning. Lets be realistic, Iraq's neighbors Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordon wouldn't allow us to attack from their territory. Only Kuwait, that might feel a little obliged to the US, would allow us through their land. The world was not with us on this war. Now, We've used secret prisons and torture, we've spent 100's of billions of tax dollars, and gotten 10's of thousands of innocent people killed. Does anybody think there are more people on our side now? Does anybody think that we are safer with fewer friends and more enemies? This war has been the wrong approach since day one. Yes, terrorism is a serious problem that has to be dealt with but I don't think there is any doubt that the Bush administration has made the problem worse. We've got to turn this boar around.

Dan R.,

You seem convinced that Saddam had connection to Al-Qaeda. Explain to me this, how does an Islamic fundamentalist, a member of an international terrorist group, like bin Laden share the same political objectives as a secular--and I stress SECULAR--dictator of Iraq, who like most other leaders of nations, is primarily concerned with staying in power and not the wide-ranging, religious-political interests of Al-Qaeda?

And even if there was some, distant "connection" between Iraq and terrorist groups, Iraq was the least saturated country of all the Middle Eastern countries with respect to Islamic fundamentalism. Saudi Arabia is a bastion for terrorist groups, and still is. If you are looking for links, look no further than our great ally, Saudi Arabia. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that bin Laden was quite warm with the Saudi prince, and was very displeased when Saudi Arabia did not act to intervene when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bin Laden certainly did not care for Saddam too much than.

But even if we can make the case that Iraq was connected to Al-Qaeda why were so many ever-revolving false pretenses made to justify an invasion of Iraq? This connection was only one such justification, and none of them held any water.

Finally, since when does having links to terrorists justify massive invasion and slaughter of the citizenry? As I have noted on my other posts, the US is currently harboring some 30 or 40 anti-Cuban terrorists in Southern Florida, one of whom is the renowned terrorist Jose Carriles, who has conducted operations that have brought down a commercial airliner full of innocent people. Does Cuba have a right to invade and bomb South Florida? Of course not. The US government is knowingly hiding these terrorists from Venezuela and Cuba, who are demanding they be extradited. But by our own logic and moralism we shouldnt have invaded Iraq either.

Terrorism is just another false pretense for neo-colonialism, which is taking place in Iraq right now for those brave enough to open their eyes.

Gustavo S., I probaly should not answer your lame and agressively dim comments, but I will this time.

"You seem convinced that Saddam had connection to Al-Qaeda. Explain to me this, how does an Islamic fundamentalist, a member of an international terrorist group, like bin Laden share the same political objectives as a secular--and I stress SECULAR--dictator of Iraq, who like most other leaders of nations, is primarily concerned with staying in power and not the wide-ranging, religious-political interests of Al-Qaeda?"

Easy. Suddam was a person that is as evil to all around him as he could be. Dealing with Al-Quada was just a means to two seperate but equal ends. One it would put money in his coffers, and two it would endanger the countries the did not like, namely the US and UK. Not that hard to figure actually. In fact most countries he did not like but used them to his own power.

"And even if there was some, distant "connection" between Iraq and terrorist groups, Iraq was the least saturated country of all the Middle Eastern countries with respect to Islamic fundamentalism. Saudi Arabia is a bastion for terrorist groups, and still is. If you are looking for links, look no further than our great ally, Saudi Arabia. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that bin Laden was quite warm with the Saudi prince, and was very displeased when Saudi Arabia did not act to intervene when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bin Laden certainly did not care for Saddam too much than."
Old news. Why not try something more original, because your arguement is weak. Yes they have been a finacial and even harbored some terror organizations, and so far no one president, republican or Democrat has lifted a finger to deal with it. So unless you can show something new here, get of the broken record before it breaks with you.

"But even if we can make the case that Iraq was connected to Al-Qaeda why were so many ever-revolving false pretenses made to justify an invasion of Iraq? This connection was only one such justification, and none of them held any water."

Most of the false pretenses, came after we found out they were either false or unclusive when we got in. None was known for sure either way until we (the coalition) could get that information Suddam keptr hidden. But your libby friends disposed of that fact so that they could have a case even though their boat leaks like a sieve.

"Terrorism is just another false pretense for neo-colonialism, which is taking place in Iraq right now for those brave enough to open their eyes. "

Are you actually that stupid? Or are you just showing how mentally deficient you are?

Scot, you bring forth an interesting point. In that international poll to analyze how the world views threat to security, Kuwait was the only middle eastern/Persian Gulf nation - well, along with Israel - that did not state the US to be the biggest threat. Bush's wild-west strategies, which puts his policies into the pockets of huge corporate interests, has actually created a scenario where it often is "we" who are becoming what we were fighting against.

Dan,

I hate to to take it back to kindergarten days, but its mighty big of you to call me stupid when you cannot create a single coherent thought. Did you have too many Busch Lites? I hope so, for your sake.

Actually, your logic shows a great incomepetence for international relations. As I mentioned, the goals of an international terrorist organization and Iraq under Saddam were hardly the same. Saddam was not bent on global Jihad, nor did he care much to piss off the most powerful country in the world. Saddam wanted to remain in power.

Your last point on the evidence for invading Iraq was by far the most illogical. For a seemingly highly "intelligent" person , you should be familiar with the concept of burden of proof. If I accuse you of something--say for instance, not being able to write coherent sentences--then the burden of proof falls on me, not you. So with this logic--which, by the way, is standard practice in our domestic legal system here in the US, so in other words something Americans highly value--it is not enough to base a war and invasion off of what Iraq may be guilty of.

Its simply put, a fallacy. Its not up to Iraq to prove it doesnt have WMDs, its up to the United States to find the evidence. But your moralism is quite flawed anyway, so this probably doesnt matter to you much. Im sure you are fine with bombing people in Iraq, regardless of evidence, because sooner or later you can point your finger to some papers we found in Saddam's file cabinet.

Heres the point Dan...

If you wanna find dirt on a government, it shouldnt be very hard. Every government has something to hide, and the United States has more than any other state.

What is most revealing is the fact that you skipped my most important point, and that is the notion that the US government harbors terrorists, and that its own logic and values cannot be applied universally because that would justify an invasion of Florida by states that have been harmed by those terrorists. You leave this out because you practice intentional ignorance. Your moralism is either flawed, or you simply dont care to understand the real implications of your position. Again, intentional ignorance.

And you call me stupid. At least I can square my values and beliefs.

So dont post anything in my direction until you can tell me why a foreign policy to bomb innocent people because their leader has papers that connect him to terrorists is a just policy, when considering, here again, that the country leading the war on terror also harbors terrorists...

Finally, we can skip neocolonialism and empire because that is far too big a subject for you I can tell. But as a student of international relations I can tell you that many scholars, those on the right and the left, have come to terms with our empire in some for or fashion. Even our neocons believe we are an empire.

So what, if not the business of colonialism, do empires do?

Gustavo,

Plausible deniability. Bush wanted it and he got it. Now, it was a mistake. His bad. I don't think it's even about empire, though that may be the result. He had power, and he used it to settle his own score and further his own insane agenda. I'm not sure W has the intellect for empire.

It is very true that the government of Iran wanted the regime of Sadaam to fall for religious reasons. I think it just far too convenient that Iran came out so well in all of it thanks to our bumbling. To me, that casts doubt on any "intelligence" I've heard about so far.

"I'm not sure W has the intellect for empire."

Lol, good point..

Folks, this talk about Bush suspending elections, he cannot. Elections are owned by the states. If an election in your state is suspended you can know if was done by people in your state doing it, and that they are the insurgents. Never has an election been cancelled in this country, not in WWII, not in the civil war.

Not to mention the people who actually elect the president, who tally the results from the states are federal people from both parties and have no authority to decide not to do their jobs.

Also, Bush's power ends Jan ??? 21st is it??? He has no authority to be in the White House after that day, and no authority that anyone in Congress needs to listen to or respect.

That there are quite a few people who think like this is a measure of how poor we all seem to be at understanding how our government works and runs.

Good exercise might be though, what would you personally do, or what you can think of to do to stop something like this if it did happen? We are politically hogtied and making ourselves so vulnerable to something like this every year goes by that we export our manufacturing or become more dependent on global importand and non-local food and durables.

Bruce, you point out a sage aspect of the Constitution's preserving state's rights. However, in the event of a fabricated or exploited terrorist action (IE: Bust et al become aware of it but decide to let it happen) prior to November 2008, how do you think the average voter, who unfortunately often are sheep thinking they need a fundamentalist shepherd at such times to do their thinking, will react?

I believe to this day, a similar scenario occurred during Carter's reelection campaign in 1979, where I believe with intuitive intelligence and political/cultural hindsight, that Republicans and multinational industrialists who later became a strong aspect of the Reagan and later both Bush administrations, for example Rumsfeld, exploited the hostage situation in Iran by promising things backstage to Tehran if they'd only release these terrorized US public servants after Reagan got elected.

Brent, if the average voter is really so ...??.... then we do not have democracy anyway, and the Constitution is merely a piece of paper. I wonder if we have to sink low enough to test this scenario, and wouldn't it be great if we passed the test again?

This all did start with a certain group of Republicans, and you can trace and arc of this kind of "fascism" as Juan way up above says to WWI, Bush's grandfather, Smedley Butler. Somehow when we were not so smart we seemed to do fine, we find FDR and he put the world right. It was not democracy that did it, sadly.

Dan R.,

You replied to Gustavo: //Old news. Why not try something more original, because your arguement is weak. Yes they have been a finacial and even harbored some terror organizations, and so far no one president, republican or Democrat has lifted a finger to deal with it.//

Old news, new news -- so big deal -- it's all Bush-Clinton Lite because both sides did it? What would be news, really good news, is if the Bush-Clinton Lites would actually read some history -- old and new. Now 'that' might make for some open mindedness, or did you change your mind, Dan?

Lyndon,

I was feeling a bit down at the general 'state of affairs' but the image of Dan and JJack fighting terrorists, of all kinds, back to back so to speak, perked me right up. We all thought it was a political joke when Charlie Rangel said there should be a draft. . .he's still saying it. . .maybe Dan and JJack will not be found wanting. . . .

Idea and Fact: Go tell President Bush that here's a challenge...And I bet President Castro work the fair test, and strictly under medical terms.....President Bush would you take an M.M.P.I. and match you score with President's Castro?

And of course make the test results public?