Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Bushie bushie bush
innocenceNonus Posted: Tue Jun 28 18:05:55 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  So I was reading about one of Bush's recent speeches [don't ask me which one. i don't know.] when I saw that he doesn't want to put a timetable on pulling out a large number of troops in Iraq. I can see the logic behind this, which I guess would be "you can't rush these things" or "you can't gauge these things accurately" or something along those lines; however, I still find it dangerous for him to say something like that, and I also imagine it has made several Americans and non-Americans uncomfortable. I know it's got me squirming in my seat like I've got coals in my pants.

Also, as I read more, Bush says that he wants to pull out after equipping Iraqi troops and helping the goverment transition to a permanent democratic government. I don't know about anyone else, but upon reading that, it seemed like we'd be saying to the world through our actions, "Ok. We can't 'do' anymore and too many of our troops are dead. So, we'll leave and let the Iraqis fight the 'insurgents' who are technically their ex-fellow countrymen, and we'll leave the government so it can start 'standing on its own.'"

I dunno. It reads more like a death sentence. I mean, with America already helping, so many people are dying. If America leaves upon "equipping Iraqi security forces to take over the anti-insurgency fight," the only good outcome would be fewer of the US's number dying.

And what happens if the insurgents take over again? Or what if the "democratic government" collapses?

Ack.

Anyway, just offering this to the table for discussion. I know how we all love political arguments!!

Plus, interested in seeing what some other GTers have got to say.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jun 28 18:21:17 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hey ! I'm going to ask you this one more time - Is that tiramisu in your avatar ?


 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Jun 28 18:41:20 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mmmm ... Tiramisu. The best tiramisu I've ever had was in a litle Italian place in Tahoe (not the lake, you can't do that, but in one of the surrounding towns.) I haven't had a good one in a long while.


Actually it's not. The overwhelming majority of 'insurgents' are not Iraqis, which are pissing the Iraqi people off like no business. Say whatever you want about Sadam (and please do), but he kept his cities maintained with electicity, water, sewage, and other things that are necessary, with price of 'you say anything wrong and you'll get electrodes to your testicles'. We also bombed these during the invasion and we have been avoiding the rebuilding of those important things for urban living. Wait, that was a tangent. Sorry. Still the point remains that what we're doing Iraq is more like swatting around at the bees instead closing the windows and spraying the nest.

I don't like how (a) he's being vague and coy about the idea of conditions (while hemoraging money instead spending it on a real threat or things like science health or education (b) how he's mocking those who ask those questions and (c) wasting an entire night of television avoiding questions and telling us things we could know if we just hated ourselves enough to watch FoxNews for an hour.


 
Ed Posted: Tue Jun 28 19:01:13 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>Hey ! I'm going to ask you this one more time - Is that tiramisu in your avatar ?

"...tiramisu.jpg"


 
FN Posted: Tue Jun 28 19:20:31 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Let's put it this way; the Brits are still in Ulster, there have been forces present on Cyprus for how long, 30 years?

Numerous other examples.

You do the math.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jun 28 20:57:30 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>Actually it's not. The overwhelming majority of 'insurgents' are not Iraqis, which are pissing the Iraqi people off like no business. Say whatever you want about Sadam (and please do), but he kept his cities maintained with electicity, water, sewage, and other things that are necessary, with price of 'you say anything wrong and you'll get electrodes to your testicles'. We also bombed these during the invasion and we have been avoiding the rebuilding of those important things for urban living. Wait, that was a tangent. Sorry. Still the point remains that what we're doing Iraq is more like swatting around at the bees instead closing the windows and spraying the nest.
>
Under Saddam, the city utilities were dicey at best. As of now, the iraqis have more water, sewers, and electricity than before the war.
As a reward or punishment, Saddam actually turned utilities off or on for his "beloved people".
>
>I don't like how (a) he's being vague and coy about the idea of conditions (while hemoraging money instead spending it on a real threat or things like science health or education (b) how he's mocking those who ask those questions and (c) wasting an entire night of television avoiding questions and telling us things we could know if we just hated ourselves enough to watch FoxNews for an hour.
>
Fox news is the only TV network that will actually give you the story from both points of view.
The networks are pretty much liberal only and if the conservative point of view is presented along with the liberal point of view then of course that guy will be branded a conservative.
A case in point: during the heat of the presidential election, Kitty Kelly was on CBS, NBC, and ABC every day for a week and a half, but not once were the Swiftvets even mentioned during this time.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Tue Jun 28 22:13:57 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>Hey ! I'm going to ask you this one more time - Is that tiramisu in your avatar ?

ack. sorry. i have a bad habit of not rechecking threads.

yes.

because i love tiramisu. a lot.


 
addi Posted: Tue Jun 28 22:20:51 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:

>Under Saddam, the city utilities were dicey at best. As of now, the iraqis have more water, sewers, and electricity than before the war.

As of one month ago...

After nearly two years and hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of repairs to rebuild Iraq's crumbling power plants, electricity production remains below prewar levels, according to the latest State Department figures. John "Dick" Dumford, a consultant who oversees the electrical sector for USAID, said that production, depressed by fuel shortages, had been worsened by the maintenance problems.
He said Iraq's gas and thermal generators, if properly maintained and operated, could produce about 8,000 megawatts a day — enough to cover demand. Instead, they are only producing about 3,000 megawatts a day. As a result, Iraqis still endure daily blackouts.

You must have got your news from that fair and balanced station.....Fox

But I'm sure it's all been fixed by now. I mean Bush would tell us if they were still having serious problems with electric service


 
Asswipe Posted: Wed Jun 29 01:37:38 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  the more i think about the war, and the objectives of those Americans in command, the more i realize that the US's objectives have to be for the betterment of, not only the US, but also the Iraqis. While we will benefit from farming oil and whatever other natural resources and the like that they produce, the iraqis will also benefit from the capitalist production methods. capitalism is, afterall, a system where those--with the ideas to produce what others want to buy--supply jobs for the rest of the lot; a system where the movers and shakers come up with grand goals and ideas, like education or building computers, and they(the movers and shakers) hire a bunch of trained monkeys, like most of my relatives, to come in and do all of the technical work and/or paperwork, thus supplying jobs for some, and products for others.

addison: if someone says the generators could produce substantial demands, then simply tossing people into the rolls required and giving them money for doing so, well, that doesn't seem like a hard task.

i guess, the main question that rests with me is: why does all of the resistance exist? why do crazy amounts of insurgents flock to iraq to combat the terrorist forces of america? when all we want to do is allow everyone a chance to help produce a better world.

i enjoy how america's path (if we believe all of the director's methods and goals, of creating a better life for those less fortunate, like the iraqis) line up more with socialism than with any other governmental ideal, as we're looking out for the welfare of the whole group. But our path also benefits us. Which sort of wraps a big red ribbon around the whole project.

Am i crazy? Or just not understanding what's actually taking place here? if anyone understands what i'm saying, give me a chatroom thumbs up.


 
DanSRose Posted: Wed Jun 29 01:38:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Addi, Lord of the Sheep, got to that before me. Much of Baghdad is also without proper sewage. That's always a good thing for plague.

Fox does not give both points of view. First, they give the 'Left' a mininum amount of time. Secondly, their guests are ridiculously poor speakers or so far on the extreme that in no matter what context they give their information, it'd be weird.
Also, the various anchors have repeatadely said they are conservative.
It's all Right bias. Worse is their claim of "Fair and Balanced", when it's not. It's not because it's not.


 
Silentmind Posted: Wed Jun 29 02:03:53 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  A fucking study was done on Fox's "accuracy" Well over 80% of the people that listed fox as their primary news gathering source said they believe one of three misconceptions about the war. One was that they found WMD in Iraq, the second was that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 terror attacks, and the third escapes me. The people that listed NPR had the lowest percentage. Might be fair and balanced, but it sure as hell isn't a good source.


 
Silentmind Posted: Wed Jun 29 02:07:30 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://docbug.com/blog/archives/000047.html

A overview of the study is listed there, as well as a link to the actual study.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jun 29 06:58:44 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  As reported by Karl Zinzmeister last April :

Despite repeated sabotage, Iraq is now generating more electricity than existed in the country before the war. We continue to hear about shortages for two reasons:



First, Saddam shamelessly hogged the country’s electricity in his capital, shunting 57 percent to Baghdad while the provinces were starved for juice. Today, power is distributed fairly to all population centers, and Baghdad gets 28 percent of the total. That means occasional shortages in privileged neighborhoods unused to such things—but Iraqis as a whole are better off.



Second, as I described earlier, Iraq is in the midst of a consumer surge. All those new washing machines, and air conditioners, and satellite TVs require juice, so electricity demand is rising—faster than the steady increases in generation. Yes, that’s a problem, but a “nice” problem, not a simple indicator of nothing getting fixed.






 
FN Posted: Wed Jun 29 07:44:35 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Seems like everything smells like roses in Iraq, lets all move there.


 
addi Posted: Wed Jun 29 07:49:37 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:

>addison: if someone says the generators could produce substantial demands, then simply tossing people into the rolls required and giving them money for doing so, well, that doesn't seem like a hard task.

Unfortunately, it is proving to be a difficult task.
I read a report of a technition from Bektel (sp) that went in to inspect a sewage treatment plant right after the invasion. What he found was disturbing, from outdated machinery, to poor quality control, to backed up sewage in the tanks making the plant useless.
So.....
We tore the place apart and started all over; Everything new and state of the art. Several months (and millions of $'s)later the same guy went back to inspect the plant and much to his dismay what he found was that the new plant had fallen in the same state as when he had first arrived. He reported that the Iraqi workers had let the new plant fall into a mess again, and the sewage backup had gotten so bad that the plant was once again useless.
He said that only a small group of workers were actually showing up for work, and that most were only working a half day.

My point is that it doesn't seem like it's just a simple matter of throwing millions of dollars their way and putting in some bodies to operate these plants.
For reasons I'm not qualified to analyze it seems like they have some serious human resourse problems to overcome with many Iraqi workers. I don't know if it's a poor work ethic, general apathy, a dislike of Americans, fear of being seen as helping the enemy by the insurgents....but it is a problem that we're having in trying to rebuild the utilities and infrastructure there.

I think what peeves me the most is when I hear Cheney or Rumsfeld or any other administration official put their happy spin on the serious problems the people face there and make it look all rosey and under control.
I do think in some respects a significant amount of Iraqi people are better off than when Saddam was in power. I also think that the insurgents are not going to go away and suddenly stop terrorizing the Iraqi's that are seen as "assisting" our efforts. Those poor people are between a rock and a hard place. If we end up leaving prematurely then civil war and chaos will follow. If we end up staying then we will continue to be viewed as a hostile invading force occupying muslim land...and the suicide bombings will continue to kill our soldiers and Iraqi civilians on a daily basis.

To say that we didn't fully think out the consequences of our actions there is a gross understatement.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jun 29 08:27:07 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>A fucking study was done on Fox's "accuracy" Well over 80% of the people that listed fox as their primary news gathering source said they believe one of three misconceptions about the war. One was that they found WMD in Iraq, the second was that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 terror attacks, and the third escapes me. The people that listed NPR had the lowest percentage. Might be fair and balanced, but it sure as hell isn't a good source.
>
What a fucking study that was eh ?
How far and wide do you think they had to look to find anyone who actually believes that WMD's were found in Iraq ?
C'mon now, really . . .
Every day in every news outlet the Bush administration has been castigated for not finding any WMD's including FOX.
Surely this "study" wasn't skewed against FOX, surely it couldn't have been skewed.
I suppose these same folks would do a study that shows Dan Rather and CBS to be a model of virtue and truthfullness.


 
DanSRose Posted: Wed Jun 29 09:28:40 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  No, no they haven't. They haven't said anything about WMDs in months.

What silentmind is talking about is on page 15:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

Say whatever you want, but the study was headed by researchers at the University of Maryland. We're pretty snooty about setting research parameters at a level that borders obsessive compulsive and we have top-notch people.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jun 29 09:33:42 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sorry dude, I'm not buying it.
Show me these folks who actually believe that WMD's were found in Iraq.
You couldn't even get that in a middle schoold.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jun 29 09:41:06 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>Say whatever you want, but the study was headed by researchers at the University of Maryland. We're pretty snooty about setting research parameters at a level that borders obsessive compulsive and we have top-notch people.
>
I know, I've heard the same things about the New York Times and The LA times.
I also heard the same things about Dan Rather.


 
addi Posted: Wed Jun 29 09:53:02 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
> One was that they found WMD in Iraq, the second was that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 terror attacks, and the third escapes me.

If I'm not mistaken the third one was that these people believe Bush will be seated at the right hand of God in heaven : )

I haven't seen the report Silentmind is referring to, but it does seem plausible.
We already know from a poll taken after the 2004 election amoung Bush voters that the majority of those asked believed that Saddam was directly involved with the 9/11 attacks.
A large portion of republican voters are much more likely to believe the masterful spin Carl Rove generates, than the truth.



 
DanSRose Posted: Wed Jun 29 09:53:25 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Now you're just wrong. Wrong = wrong.
This is real peer tested research. If anything, since the Naval War Colege is involved, it should be a bit toward the left.
It was a series of 6 month polls on perception, bias, and belief. These are independet research institutions who research things, and do it well, for a living.
But it doens't matter. You won't believe facts and numbers anyhow.
whatever. (today's a shit day, but yay for gay marriage in Canada)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jun 29 10:09:58 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>But it doens't matter. You won't believe facts and numbers anyhow.
>whatever.
>
Facts and numbers no longer matter because they are ceasing to exist.
You can put up your facts and numbers and back them up and I can put mine up as well. You say I'm wrong and I say you're wrong. But hey, we both have our facts and numbers to rely on right ?
It's nothing more than a matter of opinion anymore.
Still, I can believe that there were large numbers of folks who thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11 just based on the crap that was given to them on the evening news, but I defy you to show me anyone who is not retarded that believes we found WMD's in Iraq.


 
FN Posted: Wed Jun 29 11:48:32 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>It's nothing more than a matter of opinion anymore.

Lol.

And that doesn't disturb you in anyway, I presume?

And also, if that's the case, don't you think there is a real danger that populists take over the dumb masses?

Imagine if that became a reality.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Wed Jun 29 22:53:24 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>Sorry dude, I'm not buying it.
>Show me these folks who actually believe that WMD's were found in Iraq.
>You couldn't even get that in a middle schoold.

Actually...

My sister believed that that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 as did my youth group leader.

Eh? Eh? Eh?


 
Silentmind Posted: Thu Jun 30 00:30:27 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Its a random sampling hif. And {if you actually took the time to read the study} the percentages were based on: Belived one or more misconception x% Believed two or more X% and so on. And hif, those people do exist.

Part of the problem exists with Fox, they report something that is wrong, ie. WMD's found in Iraq. {the metal tube incident comes to mind} and then they do a story at 12 at night that they actually weren't used in making WMD's. Actually the issue arises with most 24 new/entertainment channels. The reason why NPR and the print was so low, is because as events rapidly develop, they check the source and validity before they report it, not after. Fox is just the worst out of the major 24 hour news channels.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 30 07:03:18 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>Its a random sampling hif. And {if you actually took the time to read the study} the percentages were based on: Belived one or more misconception x% Believed two or more X% and so on. And hif, those people do exist.
>
How do you know these people exist?
Have you met them ?
I doubt that they do and until I meet them or see them produced, I will remain unconvinced.
As for NPR, the are the most liberally slanted network out there.


 
addi Posted: Thu Jun 30 07:33:18 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:

>How do you know these people exist?
>Have you met them ?

From "The Sixth Sense" (edited out of the final cut):

Cole Sear: I see dumb people.

Malcolm Crowe: In your dreams?
[Cole shakes his head no]

Malcolm Crowe: While you're awake?
[Cole nods and points to TV]

Malcolm Crowe: Dumb people like, in the White House? In Washington?

Cole Sear: Walking around like regular people. They don't see the truth. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're dumb.

Malcolm Crowe: How often do you see them?

Cole Sear: All the time, especially when I watch Fox News.

Cole Sear: They see only what they want to see.


: )




 
Mesh Posted: Thu Jun 30 07:46:17 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I know several people who think they found WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam was the 9/11 mastermind. And I live in a preeeety liberal area. I don't know where they get their news from, but its certainly not the same place I get mine from.


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Jun 30 07:52:28 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And I'd like to say, I tried arguing with one of them, and they just up and called me an idiot for not believing it. Never will I try to argue that again, they wanted to keep believing what they've believed all along, no matter what.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 30 08:43:20 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I've never met anyone who actually believes they found WMD's in Iraq.
The Bush administration was pounded on every news outlet, every single day for months about this very issue.
You would have to be retarded and live in a vacuum to believe this.


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Jun 30 08:59:03 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>
>You would have to be retarded and live in a vacuum to believe this.

Exactly why I wont ever try arguing with them again.


And to be honest, I dont think they watch ANY news, be it FOX, CNN, BBC, or anything else.


 
addi Posted: Thu Jun 30 09:06:03 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  meshuggah said:

>And to be honest, I dont think they watch ANY news, be it FOX, CNN, BBC, or anything else.

Many of them get their "news" from their pastors, or from newsletters in the mail from christian coalition organizations, or from shows like the 700 Club on TV


 
FN Posted: Thu Jun 30 09:13:45 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I think it's quite striking how you're ready to believe whatever fits your story without anything backing it up hif, but when a neutral testing agency takes a poll like that you'd have to meet all the (100's? of) people they questioned.

I guess you read the quotes page that was posted here a few days ago. I think its unnerving that you don't see anything wrong with it.

Also, keeping in mind that America was out to save the Iraqi's and such, how do you condone the use of depleted uranium.

http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/iraq.html

http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

Some pictures of what radation causes.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051105K.shtml

Seems pretty valid, quoting the Lancet and such, but I'm sure hif's bible belters will know better.

http://www.iicph.org/docs/du_qa.htm

Usefull if you don't know what DU is about.



Also, yesterday I saw an interview with an Iraqi doctor who came to visit Belgium for a conference on the use of DU.

He was head of the cancer department in a major Iraqi hospital (I think it was in Bagdad or Basra, I'm not sure, it was 3 at night or something and I was sleepy while watching it, however I remember recognizing the name of the city so it must have been a big one).

During the first gulf war the hospital he was working in, and the areas surrounding it, were struck by DU rounds.

By this time, 19 of his staff members had died because of all kinds of cancers, and he himself had just had a tumor removed from his left leg a month or 2 ago. A few years ago the same crew who was interviewing him had visited him in his hospital, where a few years after the first gulf war cancer ratings (especially among children) had tripled/quadrupled. Those who had been exposed to radiation (the one with cancer after heavy bombing or after playing with shell casings and such) were in a seperate location of the hospital. All the children (with extreme deformities, can't really describe it) they had filmed then had died, the one they had asked a few questions had died 2 weeks after they "interviewed" him (a 9 year old boy with an extreme form of intestinal and genital cancer), and also a baby they filmed for a while while the doctor was explaining its situation, had died 2 days later.

When asked if he still hoped on improving the situation, he said he wasn't allowed to lose hope. He was asked if now (2005) he was able to treat his patients, but , as the head of the cancer department, he said there were no supplies given to his department to effectively treat even 1 patient.

From the horse's mouth I guess.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 30 09:55:57 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I think it's quite striking how you're ready to believe whatever fits your story without anything backing it up hif, but when a neutral testing agency takes a poll like that you'd have to meet all the (100's? of) people they questioned.
>
Neutral ? how do you know ?
I'm suspicious of anything that comes from a liberal university.

>I guess you read the quotes page that was posted here a few days ago. I think its unnerving that you don't see anything wrong with it.
>
What quotes page ?

>Also, keeping in mind that America was out to save the Iraqi's and such, how do you condone the use of depleted uranium.
>
See there you go spouting things that were published as fact when they have no basis in truth.
Out to save the Iraqis ?
Before 9/11 no one on the planet was out to save the Iraqis.
No Americans or Belgians or anyone else cared whether they had enough power or water in Baghdad. This is about the war on terror. All the rest is just fodder for the tabloids. It's smoke and mirrors created by the media so they can have something to bitch about and sell their product.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 30 10:25:13 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  One small excerpt about your PIPA folks who conducted your "not skewed" poll:

The poll was taken by the "Program on International Policy Attitudes," which specializes in polling Americans about pointless little factoids loved by liberals. One PIPA poll, for example, asked whether "so far this year, more Israelis or more Palestinians have died in the conflict, or is the number roughly equal?" To the shock and dismay of the researchers, "only 32 percent of respondents were aware that more deaths have occurred on the Palestinian side than on the Israeli side."

There was no poll question about which group was more likely to die as a result of suicide bombings against innocent civilians and which as a result of strategic strikes against known terrorists. During World War II, PIPA would have been issuing indignant press releases announcing that "only 32 percent of respondents are aware Hitler is kind to his dog."

The most famous PIPA poll claims to demonstrate that "the Fox News audience showed the highest average rate of misperceptions" about the war with Iraq – by which they mean "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids about the war with Iraq." You say the average American can't regurgitate liberal talking points on command? Well, I'll be darned! And the public schools are trying so hard!

The poll asked questions like this: "Is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization?" Sixty-seven percent of Fox News Channel viewers said the United States had found evidence of a link. Liberals view this as a "misperception."




 
FN Posted: Thu Jun 30 10:50:23 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>This is about the war on terror.

Alright, so it wasn't about WMD's, and there is no proven link between Saddam and bin laden, and you have claimed on more than one occassion that the interests of the Iraqi's themselves are very important to you and America, then again, what's up with the DU shells, and what's going on in Iraq anyway if it's not for the good of the people and there is no terrorism link.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 30 11:08:33 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>filthy mcnasty said:
>>This is about the war on terror.
>
>Alright, so it wasn't about WMD's, and there is no proven link between Saddam and bin laden, and you have claimed on more than one occassion that the interests of the Iraqi's themselves are very important to you and America, then again, what's up with the DU shells, and what's going on in Iraq anyway if it's not for the good of the people and there is no terrorism link.
>
Who said there was no terrorism link ?


 
FN Posted: Thu Jun 30 11:53:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Where is the link.

Also, I'll have to see it personally to believe it, and talk to the people in charge myself.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 30 12:42:16 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Where is the link.
>
>Also, I'll have to see it personally to believe it, and talk to the people in charge myself.
>
duh



 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 30 13:03:50 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
It’s All About 9/11
The president links Iraq and al Qaeda — and the usual suspects moan.

by Andrew C. McCarthy



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

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

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

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

That is why we are in Iraq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.





 
innocenceNonus Posted: Thu Jun 30 15:27:28 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hey! I have an idea.

Let's all plan a trip to Iraq and just check it out for ourselves. It'll be great! We can pack sandwiches and bring along a margarita machine.

For the liberals, we'll have blueberry! For the conservatives, raspberry! Woohoo!

And we'll serve the terrorists Malatov cocktails! [Jk... Could I get arrested for saying that?? Am I even thinking of the right explosive? >< There goes the humor...]

But seriously, let's just go for ourselves and check it out. Hopefully we won't.. uhh... die.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]