Aiding al Qa'ida

If it wasn’t obvious before, it most certainly is now. The leaders of al Qa’ida are counting on the Anti-War Movement in the U.S. to win out politically and for our government to pull our troops from Iraq BEFORE the country is stabilized politically.

In previous articles and comments some have argued that al Qa'ida has a goal of controlling their own country.
There are some in these discussions who claim they know al Qa'ida doesn't want their own Nation. They went as far as to claim we, who believe al Qa'ida wants their own Nation, hadn't a clue what we were talking about. They asked, 'Why would al Qa'ida need a country?' For many of us, the answer to that question was already an obvious one.

Thanks to an intercepted letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi the argument that al Qa'ida DOES want their own Islamic State can be made using a stronger argument. They gave us the evidence themselves. A letter that was not meant for Western media will help the Pro-War side in the War on Terrorism.

From the web page linked above:

"Al-Zawahiri's letter offers a strategic vision for al Qa'ida's direction for Iraq and beyond, and portrays
al Qa'ida's senior leadership's isolation and dependence.

Among the letter's highlights are discussions indicating:

The centrality of the war in Iraq for the global jihad.


From al Qa'ida's point of view, the war does not end with an American departure.


An acknowledgment of the appeal of democracy to the Iraqis.


The strategic vision of inevitable conflict, with a tacit recognition of current political dynamics in Iraq; with a call by al-Zawahiri for political action equal to military action.


The need to maintain popular support at least until jihadist rule has been established.


Admission that more than half the struggle is taking place "in the battlefield of the media." "


Kennedy may actually have helped the 'Pro-War argument', unintentionally of course, when he claimed Iraq is 'Bush's Vietnam'. In a sense, by promoting the Anti-War Movement, Kennedy is 'Aiding al Qa'ida'. This has become more obvious by reading the letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi.
The Anti-War Movement latched onto Kennedy's statement and ran with it. The only problem is:
It will now backfire if those who have claimed that there is NO comparison between Vietnam and Iraq handle this properly.
The Pro-War side needs to point out that the ONLY comparisons that can be made are the Poltical one and the way the Media portrays the story. The one where our Politicians back down and call for the removal of troops. The one where the media sides with the Anti-War Movement. The Anti-War Movement that will ultimately end in the failure of our War on Terrorism, as a whole, if allowed to win out.
(The following mentioned in Eric's 'The Meaning of Jihad'.)
Barbara Boxer went on National television and stated that al Qa'ida(terrorists) had NO interest in controlling their own country nor to be part of any government. I guess if she thinks they want no part of a government(country) like ours or any other Western Nation she would be correct. I do not think that is what she meant though. She may come out later today and say she was 'misunderstood' when she made those statements.
al-Zawahiri expects the U.S. to pull out before the 'job is done' based on the Anti-War Movement of Vietnam. They believe we are weak. It is understandable when people like Kennedy, Boxer, and Pelosi are 'leading' the Anti-War Movement.
al Qa'ida was NOT expecting President Bush. A President that would actually take the fight to the Middle East. They were expecting another President like Clinton. They did not get Gore. They did not get Kerry. Too bad.

Even Kofi Annan agrees that part of the problems in Iraq stem from the UN Security Council not approving the Invasion.
"Annan last year told the BBC in an interview that the 15-member U.N. Security Council should have approved the Iraq invasion.

Asked whether the invasion broke international law, Annan said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the U.N. Charter from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal." "

Had the UN backed the invasion of Iraq it would have been viewed differently by the world community and the insurgency would not have had the UN decision to aid in their fight. It was 'illegal' only in the view of the UN based on a Charter Annan no longer supports.

Annan also said this:
""I think there are many Muslims that are extremely unhappy today. Unhappy because they feel victimised, they feel isolated, they feel victimised in their own society, they feel victimised in the West, and they feel this profiling against them. And the Iraqi situation has not helped matters," he said." (from the same article)

Helped matters for whom?
al Qa'ida not only attacks the 'infidels' they attack fellow Muslims. They attack anyone who does not follow their radical form of Islam.
al-Zarqawi declared war on fellow Muslims. al-Zawahiri warned him that this move is hurting their ability to achieve their goals. That it was a mistake.

In an Address to the Islamic World by Kofi Annan:

"Excellencies, as leaders it is our duty to face reality. And the reality is - I say it with the deepest humility and sadness - that in this rapidly changing world, most Islamic societies have fallen far behind. Most of my Muslim friends - indeed, most of you - complain to me that the state systems of the Islamic world are weak, as is its influence in shaping world events for the better. Many Muslims also complain that, far too often, they cannot participate as they should in shaping the direction of their countries, and that many of them, particularly women, are denied the fundamental human rights which are not only enshrined in the United Nations Charter but also clearly entailed by the Islamic principle of the equality of all human beings under God."

He finished with this:

"Excellencies, the path of political reform, education and development is the only one that offers real hope of a more prosperous present and a glorious future. Only you can lead your peoples on that path. And you must. As the Holy Quran says: "Verily, never will Allah change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves." [11: 13] "

Bush was right. This is a War against Radical Islam. (I'm glad he finally came right out and said that.)
This is a movement to fight oppression. This is a movement to change the governments in the Middle East and other places around the world where they keep their people in poverty and won't let them receive an education. It is a movement to give girls and women freedom. Give all of them the same rights as we enjoy in the Western World. Spreading Democracy and promoting the moderate side of Islam is the answer.
These arguments were more obvious when we invaded Afghanistan. The goal from the beginning was to help the oppressed peoples of the Middle East. Bush has the right idea, though it can be argued that the strategy was flawed. Flawed because he may have gone after the oppressive countries in the wrong order.
The goal is honorable. The fight against Radical Islam must continue. Finishing the 'job' in Iraq will not be accomplished unless the people of Iraq are secure and have their new Government firmly in place. We must not pull out too early like those in the Anti-War movement would like.
Thank you, al-Zawahiri, for your help in showing why our country needs to be 'Pro-War' and 'Stay the Course'.

Posted by Dawn at October 12, 2005 1:34 PM
Comments
Comment #85245

Dawn,
So we intercepted a letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi? Really? Think about it. We don’t know where either one of them are located. How likely does that scenario sound?

Ever hear of Psy-Ops?

Remember the letter to Zarqawi about the poor morale among the insurgents? Did you believe that too?

Sadly, sometimes our government lies. It is especially prone to do so in time of war. Agencies like Total Information Awareness (changed in 2003 to Terrorist Information Awareness) exist, and people such as John Poindexter and Negroponte are despicable. They are utterly undeserving of US citizenship. But they are out there, and they have garnered power.

Careful about being too credulous.


Posted by: phx8 at October 12, 2005 3:23 PM
Comment #85249

Dawn…

When I read the letter yesterday, it was a confirmation of my beliefs about the “insurgency”, the war in Iraq and those who oppose that war.

To those who say, “Pull our troops out NOW”…I say, “Read the letter.”

Posted by: Jim T at October 12, 2005 3:29 PM
Comment #85250

phx8,

About as credulous as the Downing Street Memos, huh?

Posted by: Jim T at October 12, 2005 3:31 PM
Comment #85254

Here are my 2 cents. Many have died in Iraq. Young women and men children, fathers, mothers, ect. They went to the call of duty……Duty! If we as americans pull out those troops we have let those young women, and men, children, fathers, mothers, die in vain! Please let them finish the job they went their for what ever it may be please.

Posted by: Robert at October 12, 2005 3:42 PM
Comment #85261

phx8,

I had planned to place your argument in my article because I expected it.
Thanks for the quick response!

Posted by: dawn at October 12, 2005 4:04 PM
Comment #85264

Interesting timing on the appearance of that letter, no?

Posted by: Adrienne at October 12, 2005 4:08 PM
Comment #85268

Phx8 and Adrienne:

It’s not beyond belief that our government, whether in a Democratic or Republican control, might falsify a letter like this. What is beyond belief is the speed with which people like you simply make the assumption that it is falsified.

Virtually any kind of news that doesn’t fit the argument becomes some kind of conspiracy. What that means is that you’ve already decided on a conclusion, and that means that you’ve already decided which pieces of information you want to believe.

That is what happened with the Dan Rather memos. He even as much as said so when he said that despite the fact that the memos were false, the information in them was correct. You see, he had decided what the truth was, so the facts no longer mattered.

Once this mindset occurs, no amount of fact finding matters, since you can blithely dismiss any fact by suggesting that it is part of the conspiracy.

A healthy level of circumspection is good. A dose of “conspiracy theory” thought process isnt.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 12, 2005 4:23 PM
Comment #85271

‘This is a movement to fight oppression. This is a movement to change the governments in the Middle East and other places around the world where they keep their people in poverty and won’t let them receive an education. It is a movement to give girls and women freedom. Give all of them the same rights as we enjoy in the Western World.’

Which does nothing to explain why we’re in Iraq and not in Saudi Arabia. If thinking of this as some sort of fight for freedom helps you sleep at night, than I guess do what you have to do. But we’re not winning in Afghanistan, and we’re not winning in Iraq and you can blame the left all you want - but we’re not one’s running government, and we’re not running these wars.

Posted by: Justin at October 12, 2005 4:28 PM
Comment #85273
Thanks to an intercepted letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi the argument that al Qa’ida DOES want their own Islamic State can be made using a stronger argument.

Thanks to Mr. Bush’s ill-conceived invasion of Iraq, they now actually have a chance of getting their own state.

al Qa’ida was NOT expecting President Bush.

Right. I’m sure they never imagined a President who would actually refuse to go after the men who were responsible for 9/11.

They did not get Gore. They did not get Kerry. Too bad.

Too bad indeed.

Had the UN backed the invasion of Iraq it would have been viewed differently by the world community and the insurgency would not have had the UN decision to aid in their fight.

You’re damn right. The problem is, it isn’t the UN’s responsibility to go along with every ill-conceived plan the U.S. wants. It’s the U.S.’s responsibility to make a case for action. They failed in that area, and for good reason.

But your assessment now only reaffirms the position that many of us had before the war - go into Iraq if you can get international approval. If you can’t, then acheive your objectives through other means. Because a lack of international legitimacy will only serve to cause greater problems in the aftermath of any war.

Bush was right. This is a War against Radical Islam. (I’m glad he finally came right out and said that.)

Do you mean he was right about this after the first 4 or 5 reasons for the war in Iraq were proved wrong?

How do you expect to win this war against religious fanatics? By killing them? That’s usually the goal in a “war” right? Unfortuantely, that only creates more fanatics, as we’ve seen in Iraq. So what exactly is the plan here? That’s what we’re all wondering.

This is a movement to fight oppression. This is a movement to change the governments in the Middle East and other places around the world where they keep their people in poverty and won’t let them receive an education.

Then why does Bush hold hands with the leaders of Saudi Arabia and prop up a military dictatorship in Pakistan? How does this fit into the goals stated above?

It is a movement to give girls and women freedom.

Really? How is that working out in the new Iraqi constitution?

Give all of them the same rights as we enjoy in the Western World.

Wow. I guess the Iraqis missed the memo on that one too.

Spreading Democracy and promoting the moderate side of Islam is the answer.

Do you suppose that bombing the hell out of Islamic countries and keeping their people in the dark without minimal safety, basic utilities or services is going to promote the moderate side of Islam?

These arguments were more obvious when we invaded Afghanistan. The goal from the beginning was to help the oppressed peoples of the Middle East.

Uh, no. The goal from the beginning in Afghanistan was to capture the man responsible for 9/11 and depose the government that was harboring him. But when that proved a touch too difficult, the President just quit trying and hoped we would forget - and apparently you and much of the right have indeed forgotten.

Bush has the right idea, though it can be argued that the strategy was flawed. Flawed because he may have gone after the oppressive countries in the wrong order.

Kind of a major-league f***-up, don’t ya think?

Finishing the ‘job’ in Iraq will not be accomplished unless the people of Iraq are secure and have their new Government firmly in place.

I agree. How is that progressing? I’ll answer for you. Pathetically, criminally, unbelievably bad.


Posted by: Burt at October 12, 2005 4:30 PM
Comment #85274
Virtually any kind of news that doesn’t fit the argument becomes some kind of conspiracy. What that means is that you’ve already decided on a conclusion, and that means that you’ve already decided which pieces of information you want to believe.

That is what happened with the Dan Rather memos. He even as much as said so when he said that despite the fact that the memos were false, the information in them was correct. You see, he had decided what the truth was, so the facts no longer mattered.

What a great explanation for how the Bush administration twisted intelligence in the lead up to the Iraq war. Thanks Joe!

Posted by: Burt at October 12, 2005 4:32 PM
Comment #85277

Come on, people. Think!

We publish a 6,000 word letter in its entirety, yet we won’t show OBL & Zawahiri videotapes for fear of hidden messages? We intercept a letter on Islamic fundamentalist strategy, yet make sure Zarqawi receives the strategic advice by publishing the whole letter?

Posted by: phx8 at October 12, 2005 4:46 PM
Comment #85279

I too am incredulous of the letter’s release timing. I’m not going to dismiss it off hand like many do. But that pesky Zawahiri has some mighty convenient timings, just like the 44 Al Qaida #2s we’ve captured.

That aside I’m used to seeing this argument:

“Here are my 2 cents. Many have died in Iraq. Young women and men children, fathers, mothers, ect. They went to the call of duty……Duty! If we as americans pull out those troops we have let those young women, and men, children, fathers, mothers, die in vain! Please let them finish the job they went their for what ever it may be please. “

Ok I can buy that. But what did they go for? WMDs? We didn’t find any. Oust Saddam? Did that. Allow democratic elections? They’re voting. What else? Our troops have done an excellent job. Let’s bring some of them home.

“Bush was right. This is a War against Radical Islam. (I’m glad he finally came right out and said that.)
This is a movement to fight oppression. This is a movement to change the governments in the Middle East and other places around the world where they keep their people in poverty and won’t let them receive an education.”

You’re right this is a war against radical Islam. However, the only way to win against a religion is to kill everyone who follows it. You can no more kill radical islam than you can kill fundamentalist christianity. You speak of giving freedoms to women, yet the Iraqi consitution would give less freedom to women than before. You speak of democracy. Well what happens when the terrorists become the largest political party? Look at Syria and Hamas where they excercise a huge amount of political influence. Look at Iran. This is a war without end. And I wonder how much more debt do we have to pass off to our children before we say the job is done.

Posted by: chantico at October 12, 2005 5:06 PM
Comment #85280

Dawn,

“The goal from the beginning was to help the oppressed peoples of the Middle East.”

1st WMDs
2nd Regime change
3rd Iraqi Freedom
4th To spread Democracy across the Middle East
5th Take the Fight to them
6th Fight against those who share in the terrorist ideology
7th See above post

Let’s say the letter is 100% authentic. It does not change the fact that we invaded Iraq based on false intelligence, with poorly planned and equiped mission, that has been responsible for thousands of deaths and no end in sight.
P.S. hundreds of billions of tax dollars to fund this screw up.
We realize that we are stuck in Iraq. We are still against the war from the stand point that we should have never started it. We should have gone after those responsible for 9/11, not those who “share their ideology.”
If someone steals your car, do you go after the person responsible? Or do you go after those who would steal a car, if the opportunity arose?
Bush Sucks!

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 12, 2005 5:09 PM
Comment #85285

Burt:

Twisted intelligence?

Here is what the President said about Iraq, and I quote: “It should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace the regime.”

He also said, “Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.” …The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War…The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government…”

The Secretary of Defense said the following: We want to “degrade Saddam Hussein’s ability to make and use [WMD]. We want to diminish his ability to wage war against his neighbors. And we want to demonstrate the consequences of flouting international obligations.”

SecState concluded the following: “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” And that the world has not “seen, except maybe since Hitler, somebody who is quite as evil as Saddam Hussein.”

There’s your twisted intelligence.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 12, 2005 5:29 PM
Comment #85289

Dawn et al

Great piece.

I was fascinated as I read the 14 page letter this morning..and I was disgusted to read some of the posts here.

Let’s see..one of the posts suggests that the letter was a plant and Burt was….well burt as usual.

As I read the letter I could hear the screams of the lefties…..basicially an arguement can be made that the lefties now don’t have a single defensible point left,no?

PLUS,the constitution actually made some progress today…..all in all a bad hair day for the left.

If lefty can’t see that a third world war has started,then why even bother engaging in discourse?

The evil Egyptian doctor used the can’t see the forest thru the tree anology in his text…but lefty can’t find his way out of a circle on this.

My prediction:Bush’s approval rating adds another point this week,and another 2 after the ratification.

Plus,the rat pointed to Pakistan as Bin Laden’s hiding place it seems to me.

Next stop,Syria then on to Iran.

Bring ‘em on!

(I can actually see Burt busting a blood vessel too)…maybe even David,Pundit and Stephen.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at October 12, 2005 5:34 PM
Comment #85303

Joe,

How delightfully intellectually dishonest of you. Picking out a few select quotes about what the administration’s supposed goals were (and which have little to nothing to do with intelligence I might add) doesn’t help your case much.

We all know that I can post dozens upon dozens of quotes that make this administration look rather foolish in that area. Let’s not get into this game again. It’s one that you will lose - badly.

Posted by: Burt at October 12, 2005 6:15 PM
Comment #85305

Dawn, you have it completely backwards. al Queda is counting on your rhetoric to insure the US DOES NOT pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan. The greatest boon and support for growing their ranks of radical Islamist fundamentalists depends almost completely upon our STAYING, fueling their recruitments.

They want folks like yourself and Bush to intercept such communique’s and use them to justify NOT pulling out. It is simple reverse psychology. And let’s face it, the psychological war is the one they are fighting and winning as they generate growing numbers of recruits and supporters, while we bankrupt our nation on bombs, troops, ammo, and foreign aid trying to fight a conventional war. Ho Chih Minh understood, and so does al-Queda, and incompetent American leadership fails to learn the lessons of history. Another factor al-Queda counts on.

This administration does not realize our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is our own worst enemy. If this administration had any competence at all, they would have found a way to use agent countries to replace us in Afhanistan and Iraq. But, we so dissed the international community, that option did not even exist for us.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2005 6:19 PM
Comment #85306

Eagle,

You’re way off base - as usual. About me anyway.

If the constitution makes progress, I’m a happy person. I want Iraq to become as stable as possible as quickly as possible. Because I know we can’t leave until that happens. I just happen to disagree with the administration’s half-wit ideas on how to achieve that.

Plus,the rat pointed to Pakistan as Bin Laden’s hiding place it seems to me.

You’re just figuring this out? I’ve been screaming about this for months. Why don’t you do something constructive and demand this jackass President act on it?

Posted by: Burt at October 12, 2005 6:21 PM
Comment #85307

Dawn,

Let’s review the facts as they were known BEFORE the invasion:

1. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Even President Bush admitted it.
2. Iraq posed little or no threat to this country. It had neither WMDs NOR a program to reconstitute them. The sanctions were working. Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice both said so in 2001.
3. There was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

Given this, it seems pretty obvious that invading Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror, and while an overwhelming number of Americans supported (and continue to support) the war on terror, an increasingly large majority of Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq.

If, as you said, the “goal from the beginning was to help the oppressed peoples of the Middle East”, then why didn’t Colin Powell mention the words “freedom” or “democracy” one single time in his justification of the war to the United Nations? His speech was only this country’s justification for the war to the rest of the world.

Furthermore, if opposition to a war is (as you stronly imply) giving aid and conmfort to the enemy, then why weren’t the Republican leaders imprisoned for doing exactly that when President Clinton ordered US troops into Kosovo at NATO’s request?

By the way, just where ARE Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar? And if “we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here”, how does that account for the attacks in London, Madrid, Indonesia, and elsewhere?

Sicilian Eagle, be careful what you wish for (“Next stop,Syria then on to Iran”). You just might get it. Especially if Dubya’s poll numbers drop much further.

Posted by: ElliottBay at October 12, 2005 6:21 PM
Comment #85313

Did not President Bush say in the aftermath of 9/11 that we were in a war against terrorists and that we wouldn’t distinguish between an actual terrorist and those that harbor them?

I think we can all agree that Iraq harbored terrorists.

That is ALL the reason I need to invade Iraq.

I think this is going to be a VERY long war and I see Iraq as just one battle.

Posted by: tomd at October 12, 2005 6:50 PM
Comment #85318

What seems to be forgotten in all of this bullsh*t is that those of you who approved of this war in the first place were the original caterers to Osama and his now rapidly growing terror club. It was your actions that put us in this position and now that the wool has been pulled back from the eyes of the majority you want to blame those of us who opposed this war from the beginning.
To that I say go f*ck yourselves.
Pulling our troops out of Iraq is not ending the rebuilding of your f*cking destruction but it would likely put a stop to the sensless killing of human beings on both sides which are being carried out at the expense of tarnishing what most of us believe to be true freedom and democracy.
It is also highly likely that the rest of the world would be more than willing to help the good people of Iraq defend themselves from further tyrrany if they did not have to fear being killed by association with our redneck bubba-ry.
The path we are currently on has now proven itself to the majority of Americans unable to accomplish that task without the removal of our military. That is what the call for the removal of our troops is about.
Read the polls- most of America is ready to end this quagmire. When we pulled our military out of Vietnam lots of Americans stayed successfully and peacefully helped them rebuild- even the greedy ones who still profit heavily importing drugs to our country.

Posted by: shame on you at October 12, 2005 7:34 PM
Comment #85320

The War on Terror effectively ended with the capture of Sheik Mohammed Khalid. Al Qaida was primarily a training organization, and a loosely knit one at that; as an organization it ceased operational effectiveness a long time ago.

OBL & Zawahiri remain at large, in hiding, probably in Pakistan. Though they apparently no longer participate in operations, their words still spread poison. They need to be taken out for this reason (as well a matter of justice, and finally, revenge).

In Afghanistan, most of the Taliban leadership remains intact and at large. The best chance to win the War on Terror on the conventional battlefield slipped away in the months after 9/11. The War on Terror will continue to be an intelligence matter, a policing operation, as it has been for the past couple of years.

The War on Terror and the Invasion of Iraq are different matters. Al Qaida and Zarqawi’s organization, Al Qaida in Iraq, are two different groups, with different goals.

By the way, anyone painting their thumbs purple in antipation of the Iraqi constitutional referendum?

More good news for the most gullible among you: the Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds have reached a compromise which makes the consititution palatable for the Sunnis! Yes, it’s October 12th, printed consititutions (printed in Europe, btw) have already been distributed in Iraq, and it appears no one will really know what they’re voting on October 15th.

Watch the constitution pass. When it comes to graft and corruption and fraud, the Iraqi politicians and the US Neo-cons are a match made in heaven.

Posted by: phx8 at October 12, 2005 7:47 PM
Comment #85323

phx8,

The Iraqis know exactly what they are voting for. It’s whatever their religious leaders ORDER them to vote for.

With the new agreement, Iraq’s most powerful Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani “ordered Shiites to vote ‘yes’ in the referendum,” one of his aides, Faisal Thbub, said.

Yay, democracy!!!!

Posted by: Burt at October 12, 2005 7:55 PM
Comment #85324

For all this Armchair Patriotism crap coming from the Right, I have yet to see a swarm of Young Republicans rushing to volunteer.

Posted by: Aldous at October 12, 2005 7:56 PM
Comment #85326

The timing on this report is just too perfect.

Dawn? Joe? Care to comment?

Posted by: Burt at October 12, 2005 8:02 PM
Comment #85327

Oh, one more item on the purported letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi:

“By God, if by chance you’re going to Fallujah, send greetings to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.”

That’s from the letter. The letter to Zarqawi sends greetings for Zarqawi, and specifies a city. Now, call me excessively cautious, but if I were hiding, with a multi-million dollar bounty on my head, communicating with another person in the same situation, I don’t think I’d say “Greetings to you in Fallujah!”

Posted by: phx8 at October 12, 2005 8:02 PM
Comment #85328

Clowns to left and jokers to the right!

If we pull out of Iraq than the Iraqi’s will have to fight Al Qa’ida themselves. Most Iraqi’s don’t want those assholes running their country anymore than they want us! They fight us to make us leave, they’ll fight them to make them leave. We put in our proxies, they will fight our proxies. We need to get out and let them straighten it out themselves.

Posted by: Dave at October 12, 2005 8:10 PM
Comment #85330

It just occured to me that the Right is laying the groundwork to scapegoat the Left for losing the War in Iraq. All this endless whining about the Anti-War Movement is just cover for the Republican’s incompetence and stupidity in defending this country. The Right KNOWS its going to lose Iraq to Al Queda. What else to do but put the blame to someone else?

Posted by: Aldous at October 12, 2005 8:19 PM
Comment #85332

Like it or not, the Iraqi war has been started. It needs to be finished, however it ends. We saw what happened when Bush Sr. pulled his troops out of Iraq during the Persian Gulf War back in the 90s. He left a dictator in power, he went on a reign of terror for more than a decade afterwards. If the original Bush had continued his push, we wouldn’t be in this situation today. Pulling out of Iraq is the easy way out. We need to bite the bullet on this one and stay there as long as we need to.

Posted by: Justin at October 12, 2005 8:21 PM
Comment #85334

“it would likely put a stop to the sensless killing of human beings on both sides”

This just shows liberals don’t understand this enemy. They kill! That’s what they do. The ONLY way to stop them is kill them first. Bin Laden himself said “we love death”. They will NEVER stop unless someone (US) stands up and stops them. And if the liberals can’t understand that, then that’s very sad for them.

Posted by: mike at October 12, 2005 8:26 PM
Comment #85339

Mike-

Since you know so much about liberals I’m sure you know that they think that people like you love death too- that if you support this war you are a killer and a terrorist too.
You should then also know that liberals know that rightwing neo-cons understand that, yet they still do it, and then they try to blame the fall-out on the liberals that opposed them in the first place.
I bet you’ve also figured out that most liberals are not democrats but rather folks like the conservative Christians who vote for republicans, even though they don’t really represent their true values.
Finally, I’m sure you also know that most Americans are actually listening to the liberals now, and they know that this war is proving to be very sad for all of humanity.

Posted by: shame on you at October 12, 2005 9:28 PM
Comment #85340

I think if you dont like this country or what its doing or the administration you should get out no is making you stay here no one wants you here this country was attacked by terrorist………..Terrorist! So if another country is leting them hang out well then see ya to that government! Job well done troops now the people of Iraq no longer have to fear being gased by the thousands! something this country will never have to worry about. Unless the liberals are allowed to run it. So we have’nt found osama and his crew we will in the mean time for all the countries harboring terrorist you are either with us or against us and I would hate to be against us. Again if you dont like this administration or country or government please leave I will help even give you the numbers to call just tell me where do you wanna go?

Posted by: Robert at October 12, 2005 9:36 PM
Comment #85342

Burt:

Joe,

How delightfully intellectually dishonest of you. Picking out a few select quotes about what the administration’s supposed goals were (and which have little to nothing to do with intelligence I might add) doesn’t help your case much.

We all know that I can post dozens upon dozens of quotes that make this administration look rather foolish in that area. Let’s not get into this game again. It’s one that you will lose - badly.

I will admit to my intellectual dishonesty. But its NOT the intellectual dishonesty that you accuse me of. I provided quotes from the President, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State that give their rationale for military action against Iraq. You claim these rationales have “little to nothing to do with intelligence”.

The quotes I provided came from none other than Bill Clinton, William Cohen and Madeline Albright in 1998 as rationale for taking military action against Iraq. Amazing how the logic they used and the logic used by President Bush are identical enough for you to think that the quotes actually came from the Bush administration. Yet only the Bush admin is called liars.

Yes, Burt, this was a little game, but I didn’t lose it badly. Thanks for being there to show the hypocrisy.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 12, 2005 9:57 PM
Comment #85345

“I think if you dont like this country or what its doing or the administration you should get out no is making you stay here no one wants you here this country was attacked by terrorist………..Terrorist! So if another country is leting them hang out well then see ya to that government! Job well done troops now the people of Iraq no longer have to fear being gased by the thousands! something this country will never have to worry about. Unless the liberals are allowed to run it. So we have’nt found osama and his crew we will in the mean time for all the countries harboring terrorist you are either with us or against us and I would hate to be against us. Again if you dont like this administration or country or government please leave I will help even give you the numbers to call just tell me where do you wanna go?”


by that logic what are you doing on the internet on not in the army? Also Saudi Arabia and Iran just called, they said something about terrorists harboring.

Posted by: chantico at October 12, 2005 10:14 PM
Comment #85346

First of all I am a US marine. To the other announcement have terrorist will come.

Posted by: Robert at October 12, 2005 10:17 PM
Comment #85348

Well then Robert. You put your money where your mouth is. Good for you. While I might not agree with you, I do commend you on living what you preach.

Posted by: chantico at October 12, 2005 10:28 PM
Comment #85355

Thank you though I dont agree with you trust me we would much rather be at homes with our wives children ect. But we have invested in this fight with thelives of our brothers and will not leave untill honor is bestowed on them if we left its like saying to the guys oops sorry you died here and all but we are going to quit so dont die next time. War is hell there is no right or wrong reason for it (cant we just all get along) but it must happen heck there would’nt be a US with out war. Untill every last terrorist die’s or other countries start stepping up to the plate it will never end it is not only our problem it is the worlds problem. Yes I am a Marine like you I have a life aswell just wanna do what we have to do and make sure those guys did not die in vain….ever! Thank you.

Posted by: robert at October 12, 2005 10:38 PM
Comment #85384

Robert
Liberals commend your patriotism as we believe that you too think America can be a truly great nation. Unfortunately for you, we also firmly believe your approach is guided by the penal inadequacies of wealthy elitists that use your conservativism to control you while they somehow use our desire to help you against us quite effectively.
I don’t know what else to say besides I’m sorry that us p*ssy liberals are trying to save your bitch ass from this administration’s ole protege Osama and his bitches that have been equally bamboozled into believing they need to avenge their pimp for the sh*t your pimps (i.e. Cheney and Rummie and Bush 41 etc,etc,etc…) did to him in the 80’s.
Perhaps you can’t comprehend how the triple evils of poverty, racism and war are forms of a vicious cycle that benefit no one but the greedy bastards signing the measley paychecks that more and more Americans are forced to accept because Walmart can keep getting people poorer than our poor, people with governments that care even less about the wellfare of their people than the democrats in our country do, to produce American branded sh*t for smaller and smaller prices.
Perhaps you do get this and you hope and pray that you are one of them and that someday you will be compensated with a fat private sector job for the services you provide to them today- assuming you live and don’t go crazy and kill yourself over the things you’ve done.
I hope and pray you are not stupid enough to ho for these douche bags because you actually believe that they believe in the same God you were raised to believe in. If that is the case it is even sadder for you than it is for those who do it in Washington for the big money- and ultimately for those who finance putting them there.

Posted by: shame on you at October 12, 2005 11:31 PM
Comment #85391

Al Qa’ida has a better chance of running Iraq if we stay. Each day we stay in Iraq the more terrorism grows in that country. If you want to keep on fighting you can be hired on by Kellog Brown & Root as a private contractor and get more bang for your buck. I so wish you guys would take advantage of these opportunities.

When did it become one of the seven deadly sins to admit you made a mistake in trusting this administration. It’s not that big of a deal; your not Jesus Christ. I think a lot of people who are interested in politics, right and left, just think this is a game. Well it’s not and were doing a lot more damage than just blowing Iraq into glass. Wake up.

Posted by: dawnblows at October 12, 2005 11:46 PM
Comment #85394

Robert,
Good post. However, you write:

“… if you dont like this country or what its doing or the administration you should get out…”

Wrong. I don’t like this administration. I don’t trust it. I think there are many evil people in power, people who confuse loyalty to their party and their own self-interest with loyalty to the country. Specifically, I mean people like Rove and Negroponte.

And I am not leaving.

Furthermore, your opinion doesn’t matter. That sounds harsh to civilian ears, but you know what I’m saying. You volunteered, and while you have your personal opinions, volunteering to serve means obeying lawful orders.

To digress… I’m always amazed that the internet allows people in the military to publicly express views. When I was in there was no internet, but even speaking to newspapers or writing letters to the editor was out of the question, and I was not supposed to ever walk around outside of the base wearing a flight suit…

But if it were up to me & many liberals like me, while you might be in Afghanistan, you and your buds would not be putting it on the line in Iraq.

However, a lawful order is just that, we’re in Iraq now, and I wish you and yours the best while we civilians sort it all out. And you might keep in mind it’s liberals like myself who fight for your VA rights, and Republicans who want to cut them back; when conservatives talk about cutting back on government, the funding for veterans is usually one of their targets…

Posted by: phx8 at October 12, 2005 11:51 PM
Comment #85404

“heck there would’nt be a US with out war.”

C’mon Robert, if that is the best logic you can muster you’ve got to go back to 10th grade American history class.
The revolutionaries in America were the insurgents. The British were being rebelled against by our American ancestors. Our nation descends from terrorists.
Ironically, George Bush’s ancestors were the f*cking British. They came over to profiteer after our revolution had made us a new capitalist frontier.
Your logic would suggest that you’d have supported the British saying “We must stay and kill every last one of these un-uniformed bastards that have killed our matching redcoated brothers lest they will have died in vain!”
If that went over your head because you were sleeping in the 10th grade I said that your logic supports only the actions of Iraqi insurgency.

PS I don’t know if you’ve heard this one but Iraq wasn’t involved in the terror attacks on 9/11. They had actually never have been tied to any terror attacks on American soil until we made their dirtpile into American soil.

Posted by: shame on you at October 13, 2005 12:19 AM
Comment #85461

“I don’t know what else to say besides I’m sorry that us p*ssy liberals are trying to save your bitch ass from this administration’s ole protege Osama and his bitches that have been equally bamboozled into believing they need to avenge their pimp for the sh*t your pimps (i.e. Cheney and Rummie and Bush 41 etc,etc,etc…) did to him in the 80’s.”….Typical liberal logic….Trying to protect us from ourselves even if we don’t want their help.

Posted by: tomd at October 13, 2005 2:43 AM
Comment #85469

Speaking for myself, I don’t want to save Republicans. I just want the Iraq War end in complete victory with Republicans doing all the dying.

Is that so bad?

Posted by: Aldous at October 13, 2005 3:28 AM
Comment #85472

tomd,

Did not President Bush say in the aftermath of 9/11 that we were in a war against terrorists and that we wouldn’t distinguish between an actual terrorist and those that harbor them?

I think we can all agree that Iraq harbored terrorists.

That is ALL the reason I need to invade Iraq.

I think we cann all agree that Iraq harbor NOW/ terrorists, yes.
Oh, BTW, UK harbored (they were legal brits) the terrorists that made the London attacks this summer. Please invade UK.

I think this is going to be a VERY long war and I see Iraq as just one battle.

Yeah, troops, what about 20 duty tours?
BTW, the Iraq war could have been very short, like one week, if someone, anyone have an aftermath plan for peace.
But those who want this war are all about war, not peace. So, indeed, until someone (american people, for once?) want peace, this war will never end.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 13, 2005 4:29 AM
Comment #85480

Sorry for unclosed bold tag, guys.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 13, 2005 5:05 AM
Comment #85548

“Friday Oct 11,2002 WASHINGTON (CNN) — The US Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.”

…so don’t give me that crap about “there were no weapons of mass destruction”. The article states that the U.N. said there was, the Senate said there was, even Clinton said there was. Only a fool would say there wasn’t any.

but don’t let me put a damper on any liberal rants

Posted by: Chris at October 13, 2005 8:12 AM
Comment #85556

Philippe:

Of course you recognize the difference between having terrorists within one’s borders and HARBORING those same terrorists.

With your analogy, a family with a criminal living with them (despite them not being aware of the criminal activities) would be guilty of harboring a fugitive and should be jailed.

The Taliban government aided, supported and allowed known terrorism and deserved to be taken out.

That’s something we can all agree upon, isn’t it? Regarding Iraq, we know they too harbored terrorists, though to a different degree than did Afghanistan.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at October 13, 2005 8:31 AM
Comment #85564

Tom-

This is a big problem then- because liberals don’t want your blind vengeance blood on our hands kind of help either. We don’t want the NYC subways getting blown-up because of you’re ignorrant support of this war.
Besides you’re missing the biggest point- no matter how you cut it (sans the rich bitches still in office that are not currently representing the will of their constituencies) you are now the minority in this country. Those of us against this war now have the support of the majority. MOST AMERICANS ARE READY FOR TROOP WITHDRAWL. The realization that the longer we stay there the more the violence around the world is going to escalate is finally settling in.
We don’t have any new troops to send because recruiting is at an all time low. Are you ready to be drafted or have your children drafted? Do you want to go breath the air in Iraq or have to take experimental drugs and then come back and die from some freaky desease that they refuse to research because the government is afraid to take resposiblity for your medical bills due to the VA having its budgets slashed by the administration and congress you want to defend? This goes beyond your need for an eye for eye no matter who’s eye it is attitude.
Go kill your videogame enemies not your neighbors.
Try paying attention for more than 10 seconds and you’ll see that these current terrorists did not throw the first stone and more importantly they did not throw the last one. We’ve blown up a couple of whole countries since 9/11 and then taken them over. This kind starts making the twin towers seem not so big. Do you really want to find out how hard they’ll push back? Do you get that our side is both intentionally and unintentionally killing people that support why we came to Iraq and that is causing our allies to decrease and our enemies to increase?
It’s time we stop killing and just help them build the better tommorrow we keep promising.

Aldous
I feel what you’re saying- I could probably deal with the moderates becoming the far right given it were the only choice. I would find compromise far more palatable. I end a lot of days wishing all the close minded bigots of the world that lust for bloody vengeance would just vanish over night but when we wake up the next day we must recognize the need for balance too. Nothing will be accoplished in a one sided world. We just need for it to not be such an extreme world.

Posted by: shame on you at October 13, 2005 8:52 AM
Comment #85565

Hey Robert,

If George W. Bush and fools like you represent what America should be, pray that America finds a quick death.

And I’ve already left and plan on staying gone, right here in Indonesia laughing my ass off from afar at you fools.

Posted by: dtom21 at October 13, 2005 8:58 AM
Comment #85567

Dawn,

Spreading Democracy and promoting the moderate side of Islam is the answer.

When was spreading moderate Islam ever a goal. Tell the christian missionaries that are part of the second invasion of Iraq to go home if you truly believe this. I have never heard of a conservative christian promoting Islam or any other religion for that matter.

Remember, Bush also called this war a crusade at one time.

Do you also read history books, With our great democracy spread that you propose, we are becoming what we fought against in Germany (twice), Japan and most importantly the great Red Scare in the USSR.

Just remember my bumper sticker slogan “Pro America/Anti Bush”.

Dawn, stop the hating.

Posted by: reed at October 13, 2005 9:10 AM
Comment #85570

Hey Chris

Your logic might suggest that the world should take us out for having the most WMD and being the most willing to terrorize with them.
Even if they did have them- which c’mon it really is time to give it up we still haven’t found any evidence of them- if some one is swinging a Louisville Slugger in your direction are you going to pray that your hands can stop it or that you can duck fast enough or are you going to try to find a something big enough to defend yourself with?
Besides this actual logic, maybe you’ve read that many members of that congress have since said that given what they know today to be true they would not have authorized this war. They were lied to along with the UN by this administration. F*ck, the guy who did the lying is now quoted as saying that that was the saddest day of his career.
Alas, I forget that you probably prescribe to Rove’s philosophy that if you tell a lie often enough it will become the truth. So sad for all of us that there are so many of you gullible suckers in the world.

Posted by: John S at October 13, 2005 9:22 AM
Comment #85572

Robert,

“Job well done troops now the people of Iraq no longer have to fear being gased by the thousands!”

But they do have to worry about being blown up while shopping.
Being shot in the back of the head and dumped in an alley.
And those pesky suicide car-bombs.
Let us not forget beheaded.

Chris,

“so don’t give me that crap about “there were no weapons of mass destruction”. The article states that the U.N. said there was, the Senate said there was, even Clinton said there was. Only a fool would say there wasn’t any.”

You are correct.
Cheney admitted there were none. Bush admitted there were none. Rumsfeld admitted there were none and they are all most certainly fools.
There were no WMDs in Iraq. They keep this type of information hidden in books,T.V. news and news papers.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 13, 2005 9:27 AM
Comment #85573

Okay…let me get this straight.

*We know the letter was forged because of questionable timing? (I am guessing you mean, by timing, when it was released to joe public, not when it was supposedly snatched?)
*al-Zawahiri actually wrote this well thought out letter and planned for it’s interception BECAUSE al-Zawahiri is using REVERSE psychology.(Maybe it’s actually reverse reverse psychology. Which can happen when one gets to thinking too much.)
*Republicans are brainwashed.(Especially the ones serving our country.)
*Republicans are terrorists.(Spreading Democracy by forcefully removing a dictator is the same as al Qa’ida committing acts of violence to spread their radical form of Islam.)
*All Republicans should die and leave the U.S. to the clear thinking Liberals.
*If Clinton(D) had removed Saddam by force, he would have been supported by the left but since Bush(R) did it the whole thing is a mistake OR - the left knew Clinton would never actually invade so it made what he and his cronies said okay - (mentioned above by joebagodonuts).

It seems to me that even if al-Zawahiri was caught with the letter someone would still say it was set up that way by Bush, and the letter is fake, and the timing is questionable, and it makes no difference if he is in custody ….

I was really expecting comments on ALL THOSE Kofi quotes I threw in. I imagine the Bush Admin. got to him.

Posted by: dawn at October 13, 2005 9:29 AM
Comment #85576

Reed,

“I have never heard of a conservative christian promoting Islam or any other religion for that matter.”

I seem to recall OUR leader calling for Americans to restrain themselves (after 9/11) to keep hate crimes against Muslims from happening. Why? because most of us never gave much thought to the (probably)peaceful, moderate Muslim living down the street before 9/11?
I seem to recall Christian leaders saying that the majority of Muslims are peace loving people and that it is a ‘few’ radicals that are giving Islam a bad name.
This may not be a ‘promotion’ of Islam but it sure isn’t a way to destroy Islam.

Who do you think I ‘hate’?

Posted by: dawn at October 13, 2005 9:41 AM
Comment #85577

Chris,

The article states that the U.N. said there was

Nope, the article states that the U.N. resolution required that Saddam Hussein give up his WMDs. UN inspectors were proceeding at this article publish time to determine if it was the case or not. Their conclusions were not ready at this time.
Few months later, when US attacked Iraq, there weren’t not supporting the “Saddam Hussein refused to give up its WMDs” mantra.
Since we all know they were right.

the Senate said there was, even Clinton said there was. Only a fool would say there wasn’t any.

Hum, call me a fool but… were are they?
And, more important, if everybody (except fools) knows they exists, why oh why nobody don’t search them anymore in Iraq (or in Syria, for that matter)?
Isn’t their (potential) existence the most dangerous threat to western civilizations in a global terrorism period?
It should be the #1 issue to fix in the War On Terror, right???

So, why nobody is currently looking after these WMDs in Iraq or Syria!?!
Why???

JBOD,

Of course you recognize the difference between having terrorists within one’s borders and HARBORING those same terrorists.

Of course. That was a sarcasm pushing a little bit over the edge my counter argument, I agree.

With your analogy, a family with a criminal living with them (despite them not being aware of the criminal activities) would be guilty of harboring a fugitive and should be jailed.

And unfortunatly, I’m pretty sure this happend too often with Iraqis currently in jail. How many families members were jailed with a suspected terrorist/rebel that were living with them?
None? I really doubt it.

The Taliban government aided, supported and allowed known terrorism and deserved to be taken out. That’s something we can all agree upon, isn’t it?

Agreed. And I was and still supporting the war against talibans in Afghanistan. French troops are there, too. I’m just worried that this country is becoming a narco-state driven by local warlords since…

Regarding Iraq, we know they too harbored terrorists, though to a different degree than did Afghanistan.

Define “different”?
Bigger or smaller?

If it’s bigger, why moving to Afghanistan first then?
If it’s smaller, why shift-focusing from Afghanistan to Iraq while OBL and Mollah Omar are still running free?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 13, 2005 9:44 AM
Comment #85580

I am an old man, age doesn’t make you smarter, but it does give you a sense of history.

EVERY WAR we ever fought had its appeasers and its critics. The Revolutionary War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Viet Nam and now the war against terror.

Many wanted to appease the British, Chamberlin appeased the Nazis, many wanted Rosevelt to appease the Japanese, Clinton appeased the Koreans, and now many want to appease the Terrorissts by pulling out of Iraq.

If the appeasers had their way we would be driving on the wrong side of the road, the West coast would be speaking Japanese and the West coast would be speaking German.

Want to learn to speak Arabic??

Appease the Terrorists, move out of Iraq.

Posted by: chris ford at October 13, 2005 10:00 AM
Comment #85581

Actually Joe, the UK did harbour terrorists (just not the ones responsible for July 7th). The idea was that by keeping them in this country we could keep an eye on them, and because we have strict laws against extraditing people to countries where they may be tortured or face the death penalty. Of course, all these “Al-Qaeda” terrorists were actually people fighting their own governments. So they were wanted in places like Jordan, Algeria, Morocco etc for terrorist attacks there, but we wouldn’t send them back for the reasons given above as well as that, well, we really didn’t mind that much that they were attacking these governments.

We’ve now decided that we don’t want these characters anymore, so we’re busy signing all these bilateral extradition treaties with various countries, where they promise (with fingers crossed no doubt) not to torture or execute anyone we send back home.

Posted by: Paul at October 13, 2005 10:06 AM
Comment #85583

Phillipe:

I’d say Iraq harbored terrorists to a smaller degree than Afghanistan. Perhaps the better way to say it is to call it certainly a less formal manner. I don’t know about numbers or dollars, but it was certainly less officially state sanctioned in Iraq as compared to Afghanistan (where, of course it wasnt officially state sanctioned, but handled with a well known wink).

The argument of whether we should have stayed only in Afghanistan is a legitimate one. So too is the idea of going to Iraq to break that country’s terror network as well. I favored going into Iraq for these reasons: 1) Saddam didnt comply over a 12 year span so why think he would change 2)IMO, he was wriggling out of the containment box and was relatively close to getting sanctions removed; if this happened, all hell breaks loose and he is out of containment.

Both arguments have merit, in my opinion. I’d not have been opposed to finishing Afghanistan and then going to Iraq, but I would have been opposed to not going into Iraq as long as Saddam didnt comply.

Paul:

I think there is a difference between harboring terrorist (meaning aiding and funding them) and keeping tabs on terrorists. The old axiom of “keep your friends close, but your enemies closer” seems to fit.

Britain certainly did not aid or abet terrorism, to my knowledge. If they did not properly contain the terrorists, that’s possibly more a flaw in execution rather than strategy .

Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 13, 2005 10:19 AM
Comment #85588

I seem to recall our ancestors in the 80’s (while we essentially had this same administration) crying about a terrorist nation called Libya and their brutal dictator Quaddafi whom was left in place and then controlled by US led UN sanctions.
I wonder why after this successful endeavor (I assume it was a success since Libya is no longer considered a terrorist nation by us or the UN and the santions are lifted) we decided that the same was not working in Iraq which had been even more crippled by sanctions than Libya had been. Libya was even closer to your supposed source of yellow cake- I’m sure they could have made a play for it just as easily.
I mean it’s not like the Iraqi people were hating on us even though we were starving their children to spite Saddam. They were hating on Saddam, right? Isn’t that why we needed to liberate them?
Who’s going to be next?
How about our nearby neighbor Cuba? Should we get them too? The sanctions don’t seem to be working out so well. Miami has been taken over by their brutal Scarface lovin’ terror squads and Buena Vista Social Clubs. At least we’ve got Guantanamo.
While we’re at it we’re going to have to put Israel on that list too, their ass has become way to big for their sanctioned britches. Look- they’re giving us the finger behind our backs. The most recent spies we’ve captured on our soil came from…
Take off the blinders and join us in reality, please.

Posted by: bush licker at October 13, 2005 10:42 AM
Comment #85589

I seem to recall our ancestors in the 80’s (while we essentially had this same administration) crying about a terrorist nation called Libya and their brutal dictator Quaddafi who was left in place and then controlled by US led UN sanctions.
I wonder why after this successful endeavor (I assume it was a success since Libya is no longer considered a terrorist nation by us or the UN and the santions are lifted) we decided that the same was not working in Iraq which had been even more crippled by sanctions than Libya had been. Libya was even closer to your supposed source of yellow cake- I’m sure they could have made a play for it just as easily.
I mean it’s not like the Iraqi people were hating on us even though we were starving their children to spite Saddam. They were hating on Saddam, right? Isn’t that why we needed to liberate them?
Who’s going to be next?
How about our nearby neighbor Cuba? Should we get them too? The sanctions don’t seem to be working out so well. Miami has been taken over by their brutal Scarface lovin’ terror squads and Buena Vista Social Clubs. At least we’ve got Guantanamo.
While we’re at it we’re going to have to put Israel on that list too, their ass has become way to big for their sanctioned britches. Look- they’re giving us the finger behind our backs. The most recent spies we’ve captured on our soil came from…
Take off the blinders and join us in reality, please.

Posted by: bush licker at October 13, 2005 10:47 AM
Comment #85592

Aldous said

It just occured to me that the Right is laying the groundwork to scapegoat the Left for losing the War in Iraq. All this endless whining about the Anti-War Movement is just cover for the Republican’s incompetence and stupidity in defending this country. The Right KNOWS its going to lose Iraq to Al Queda. What else to do but put the blame to someone else?

Aldous, you hit the nail squarely on the head. The far Right deserves the “hate Americans first” label.

IMO, the far right has only one REAL agenda: to eliminate all vestiges of liberalism in this country by any means necessary. That is their most important goal, and it supercedes EVERYTHING else. The far right is driven almost exclusively by their HATRED of all forms of liberalism and they won’t pass up ANY opportunity to attack it.

They don’t care about anything wlse. They don’t care about actually governing. God knows they aren’t any good at it - they can’t even perform the most fundamental of all of government’s duties, which is to protect its citizens.

The key phrase is “by any means”, and that, as Aldous astutely pointed out, includes playing the blame game. So when something goes wrong in this country because of right wing ineptitude, they don’t have to fix it. Oh, no. All they have to do is get their thousands of fellow travellers, dittoheads, etc. to start blaming the liberals for it. The charges don’t have to be truthful. They don’t have to have facts to back them up. If enough people spread the same lies, they will start to be believed. And it’s the accusation that gets remembered, not the denial, or the retraction or the proof of innocence. As kctim put it in another thread, all liberals are guilty until proven innocent.

So much for the American way. The far Right has turned this country into “the land of the fleeced and the home of the blame.”

Posted by: ElliottBay at October 13, 2005 10:53 AM
Comment #85593

Joe,

You’re tricky alright. Not convincing, but tricky I guess.

I guess when you need to use Clinton’s words to support Bush’s positions, you’ve really reached the end of the line, huh? I should have known it was a Clinton quote anyway, since he said that using military force was the best way to prevent another Gulf War. Bush didn’t do a whole lot to prevent that, did he?

By the way, I didn’t say that Bush “lied”. I said the administration had made up their mind that WMDs were in Iraq, regardless of the evidence that came their way - exactly what you accused CBS News of (rightly I might add, IMO). Saying that they were predisposed to certain intelligence is about as nice as I can put it.

Again, I ask you to comment on this article.

Posted by: Burt at October 13, 2005 10:58 AM
Comment #85594

Bushlicker,

Great examples from you where rogue nations have been kept in check without costly, devestating major military actions.

These guys on the right who are so afraid of so-called “appeasement” just show their yellow streaks. They are such cowards and have so little faith in America that they really believe that Saddam could have brought down this great country despite his having been crippled by UN sanctions.

Get some backbone, Republicans!

Posted by: Burt at October 13, 2005 11:03 AM
Comment #85597

Again, if George and his crew hadn’t been so hell bent to invade (sorry! “liberate”) a country with absolutely NO connection to Al Qaeda, the US would now have $200,000,000,000 more in funds and 165,000 more troops to fight AL QAEDA with!

Just remember Rummy shaking Hussein’s hand and smiling…like Noriega, it’s deja vu all over again, baby. Will the Republicans EVER learn???

Posted by: jon at October 13, 2005 11:17 AM
Comment #85609

A article in my AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE says the anti war movement is that they are “realist not leftist”. The real republican movement,not neocon ramblings like this article. Is this site a place where anyone with computer can start a chat ?I thought the article was from a actual writer. SO, WHO THE HELL IS”DAWN”

Posted by: Alan at October 13, 2005 12:20 PM
Comment #85613

Dawn, the only reason there’s a growing movement to pull our troops out of Iraq is because President Bush failed to win. He’s a loser. President Bush is not committed to winning and he has no plan to win.

In fact, Democrats are worried that he’ll cave in to pressure from Congressional Republicans who are afraid they’ll lose next years elections if we’re still in Iraq,

“We have to be prepared for a long involvement. We have to do it not just rhetorically. We have to have the resources, we have to expand our army, our Marine Corps, we have to provide them with the best equipment possible,” [Senator Jack] Reed(D-RI) said. “There’s lots of things we can do.”

“My fear is that there’s pressure in the United States that is forcing us to re-evaluate our position rather than what’s happening on the ground in Iraq,” Reed said.

President Bush could get serious about winning in Iraq and win back the support of America — but he’s not going to.

Posted by: American Pundit at October 13, 2005 12:39 PM
Comment #85614

Oh, and this is just funny:

Even Kofi Annan agrees that part of the problems in Iraq stem from the UN Security Council not approving the Invasion.

What Annan said is that Bush screwed himself by invading Iraq on false premises. Bush further screwed himself by not accepting the UN’s offer to take over Iraq and provide French, Indian, German, and other international peacekeeping troops,

The Bush administration has abandoned the idea of giving the United Nations more of a role in the occupation of Iraq as sought by France, India and other countries as a condition for their participation in peacekeeping there, administration officials say.

“The administration is not willing to confront going to the Security Council and saying, ‘We really need to make Iraq an international operation,’” an administration official said. “You can make a case that it would be better to do that, but, right now, the situation in Iraq is not that dire.”


Posted by: American Pundit at October 13, 2005 12:46 PM
Comment #85616

Despite all the statements both left and right concerning terrorism, the Muslims are reproducing at a rate 17 times greater than most other groups. They have said they will rule the world in the year 2020. In the next generation they will have enough people to vote that the guns and bombings will not make a hill of beans differnece. They will vote themselves into power and then watch the “infidels” perish. A different view needs to be looked at. Is this biblical prophecy being fulfilled? Study and see.

Posted by: tom at October 13, 2005 1:00 PM
Comment #85618

Tom,
Prove it.

“They” are going to rule the world, eh? Are you sure you’re not thinking of Pinky and the Brain? You see, Pinky and the Brain reproduce 17 times faster than anyone else, and they openly make plans every night to take over the world. Biblical prophecy being fulfilled? A different point of view needs to be looked at.

Get a grip.

Posted by: phx8 at October 13, 2005 1:10 PM
Comment #85622

I wish you people would use your heads for something more than satellite dishes, accepting everything you hear and simply rebroadcasting it without thought.

Do you remember the completely undamaged passport that supposedly flew from one of the “hijacked” planes, through a raging ball of fire, debris, and glass, and ended up on the street a couple of blocks away from the towers? It was in all the big media for a brief time, until it was later discovered that the man portrayed in the passport was actually still alive. WOOPS! Never heard about that again.

This “intercepted” letter is the same thing. The kind of garbage that men in power feed to hungry sow like yourselves, all lined up at the ‘left vs right’ trough. That way, like Dawn, you’ll say “See! It was them terrorists! They’re really out to get us.” It’s horribe that you will eagerly accept any scraps that the government will allow you to fight over.

Go ahead and tell me that I automatically assumed that the letter is false … OF COURSE I DID! You should too! These traitors in our federal government have the burden of proof on THEIR shoulders, not the other way around. And someone else made an extrememly good point which hasn’t been countered - why publish a letter between enemy leaders over the mass media? Oh, because it’s declassified now? Because now, it wouldn’t serve these enemies? That’s ridiculous.

If you buy that, then you also believe that the footage from the rest of the MANY security cameras at the pentagon on 9/11 should never be released. You believe that the EIGHT black boxes (two per plane) should remain unheard, unstudied, and forgotten. You believe, even after seeing the famed “Osama confession” video that we were attacked by idiots operating out of a cave thousands of miles away, even though the “Osama” in the video is so obviously fake that it makes me want to puke.

I don’t care if you think you are a “liberal” or a “conservative”, both of which are constantly supplied with an idealogue to attack the other to keep you distracted with a political video game. If you consider yourself an American, then it’s about time you wake up! We are all being lied to, over and over again. Go ahead and call me a “conspiracy theorist” if you have to. I once automatically associated those words just as any of you who are still conditioned to do so.

Please people … turn off your tv’s and stop accepting the “news” as real journalism. Take a look at this president’s administration and understand that structure is strategy in slow motion. Look at the people Bush surrounds himself with and ask yourself, “what is his goal?”. Actually, I’ll go ahead and address the ignorance of the big oil theory: Oil makes people very rich, yep. There are lots of big oil connections in Bush’s administration, yep. Are they … trying to get richer? Nope, not really. Money is not as important as power in a world where money isn’t even REAL. This is a global problem folks. It’s not about money for Bush and his beneficiaries (except for the war time contractors), they have all the wealth in the world through their ties with the international banks. This is about controlling the supply of oil, thereby controlling nations, therefore controlling whole populations.

How well do you think our military would be controlling our borders if WE had the largest remaining oil wells, hm? This country has nothing to protect, except it’s powerful military, which is being misled and used by globalists as the preferred force to initiate world order. Their vision for this country is wheat production, fishing for Japan, minerals for Africa, and so on. The signs are all around you. As part of the plan, the worlds food production is coming under the control of large international corporations. Why do you think genetically altered seeds, which grow sterile plants and resist certain manufacturers’ pesticides, are being made into law around the world?

This war in Iraq is a stage - a theatre. It’s the American military feeding itself. Don’t you think it should be addressed in the so called “big media” that we supply our troops with radioactive ammunition? Yep, the somewhat known DU rounds found in everything from tank shells to cluster bombs. Every day, Iraqi babies are born without faces, have no skin, or are horribly deformed in some way. If this is the spread of freedom, then you can spread it over yourself … I want my children to be free of radioactivity, thanks anyway.

Have a nice day, folks. Actually, brew a pot of coffee and have a good read:

prisonplanet.com

Posted by: subverter at October 13, 2005 1:24 PM
Comment #85624

thanks subverter,
I agree whole heartedly but the issues of left and right will still exist unless you’ve figured out a solution for the necessity of balance required to maintain the ecology beyond this global economic terrorism

Posted by: shame on you at October 13, 2005 1:39 PM
Comment #85626

Okay -
al Qa’ida spoke out and said the letter is fake. Now I believe the Bush Spin Machine planted the evidence.

‘SO, WHO THE HELL IS”DAWN”’ - good question.

Posted by: dawn at October 13, 2005 1:50 PM
Comment #85628

AP,

The quote is:
“Annan last year told the BBC in an interview that the 15-member U.N. Security Council should have approved the Iraq invasion.”

How do you get ‘Bush screwed himself’ out of that?

Posted by: dawn at October 13, 2005 1:56 PM
Comment #85631

Dawn,

That’s not a quote from Annan. That’s a statement in an article with no corresponding quote to back it up.

The rest of the actual quotes in the article you cited are overwhelmingly negative toward the Bush administration.

Posted by: Burt at October 13, 2005 2:09 PM
Comment #85633

Dawn

If I remember correctly Annan was suggesting that at least some PEACEKEEPERS would have had a foot in the door, helping avoid the sensless death and destruction being carried out without them. I’m sure he would have liked to have more of a stake in the oil revenues as well.
I don’t know how Bush screwed himself- he never intended to leave until the desert was sucked dry. He certainly screwed us though, as gas prices continue to grow faster than anything but our national debt, and now they tell us to have keeping warm this winter suckers.

Posted by: John S at October 13, 2005 2:17 PM
Comment #85635

Phx8
Check out the population figures as far back as you like. Do the math. Most people have their heads somewhere else and are wondering “how can that happen here?”, or “that can’t happen here.”.
Most people will wake up some day and say “how did that happen here?”. The hand writing is on the wall. It is not a left/right, Rep/Dem, Con/Lib thing it is history and prophecy being fulfilled.

Posted by: tom at October 13, 2005 2:56 PM
Comment #85641

Well, this is kinda interesting.

Posted by: Burt at October 13, 2005 3:18 PM
Comment #85642

Smells like another Rove tactic

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda’s wing in
Iraq on Thursday rejected as a fabrication a letter by a top group leader that was issued by U.S. officials and suggested deep internal rifts among militants….

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051013/wl_nm/iraq_qaeda_letter_dc

Posted by: testa at October 13, 2005 3:29 PM
Comment #85647

To ‘shame on you’:

Political balance is a farce. We only perceive balance because we are under the rule of an oligarchy which presents itself to us with two faces: republican and democrat. This is to foster the illusion of choice, but when both faces speak to you from the same head, what you have is a lie.

The solution is equal representation, as outlined in the Constitution. In order to take this country back, I believe the first step is to circumvent the federal election commission, which is jointly controlled by the two ruling parties, and structured to eliminate third party candidates. The FEC is the main gate to all government, and that is why I think if any revolution is to take place without undesirable force, like civil war, then we must start here.

It should be intolerable to every American that the FEC allows electronic voting booths which are seriously contraversial to be placed, en masse, into the so called “swing” counties so close to important elections, without hardcore proof of their infallibility. Just a little bit of common sense, like Ockam’s razor, is all you need to see the possibilities.

Furthermore, we all know that the “big media” lie to us, or at least omit facts on a regular basis. There’s not alot we can do about them, except threaten their advertisers with bad press (which they aren’t likely to get, since the press isn’t on our side). However, pulling the FEC out from its roots might get their attention.

We should attempt to eliminate all electronic voting booths first. We should participate vigilantly in the counting process of paper ballots, to ensure that no one is attempting to keep anything behind closed doors. And we should support third party candidates with lawyers to speak on their behalf about the constitutionality of the FEC’s qualifications for participation. This part could go to the supreme court, as the two parties will fight against any notion of losing power harder than the’ve ever fought against each other. Remember that I said that - they will fight hand in hand against YOU harder than they’ve ever quarreled amongst themselves. If it gets to that point, and the supreme court rules against the American people, what do you think should happen then? Unfortunatley they seem to be in a trend against the commoner already, as in the eminent domain case.

We also have to vote anti-incumbant, as has been talked about at length in this forum. That should provide a sufficient wake up call to those in government who know what they’re supposed to be doing, but aren’t. The same message applies to those who intend to get into government wearing the same masks.

The economy also hinges on a move against our ruling parties. I think our economy, and most economies, are better off when they are defined by their geography, while considerate of their boundaries of self sufficiency. When we are dependant on other nations to survive, we lose the power to govern ourselves. It’s fairly simple to understand, given the situation with foreign oil. If Saudi Arabia had no oil, they would certainly not be such “good friends” with any puppet president from now until it all dries up.

Freeing up the resources of our federal government by detangling all the weeds and pests that infect it now would ultimately pave the way for innovative technology to replace our dependancies on other nations. Also, the money we continually borrow from China (who considers us an enemy) could slow to a stop if we could ever get some honest people into the treasury and federal reserve.

Trust is something that the federal government seems to consider is on tap and bottomless, and they have become drunk with abusing it. So we need to show them exactly how much we trust them, don’t you agree?

Posted by: subverter at October 13, 2005 3:55 PM
Comment #85648

Burt:

I did not fall back on Clinton to prove Bush correct. I fell back on Clinton’s quotes to show that you would disagree with them BECAUSE you thought they were Bush quotes. The point was that Bush and Clinton reached the same conclusions, had the same goals (regime change), and the same analysis of the circumstances. Yet you call claim that only Bush misused the intelligence. I was just showing the inherent hypocrisy in that.

As far as your article, if you’ve been reading my posts on WB, you’d know that I have stated freely that there have been a myriad of mistakes in Iraq. That doesn’t mean that the policy of going in to Iraq is wrong, but it does mean that some of the strategy is wrong. The fact remains that the anti war left has focused on every “wrong” event. For example, when we slowed down to reinforce the supply lines, the anti war left howled about how we went in too fast. They neglected to consider that had we gone in slow, we would have faced different problems, but problems nonetheless (burning oilfields, possible chemical attacks etc).

So Burt, I recognize that we need to do better in Iraq. But i also recognize that there is a lot of good going on that never reaches the people, because its not publicized.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 13, 2005 3:57 PM
Comment #85649

Burt:

so now there is conflicting evidence regarding the letter. So at this point, whom do you believe? You have three choices: A) Believe the US government B) Believe Al Queda or C) Withhold judgement because you just dont know.

Which choice do you choose and why?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 13, 2005 4:02 PM
Comment #85651

To joebagodonuts:

I would chose D) Discount both A and B because they are in league, and avoid declaring C even if it’s true because we have a right to voice our opinions, even if they are based on information fed to us by people we can never trust.

Whether or not it gets approval, jumping to conclusions is a pivitol part of fact finding.

Just as an aside, I think that allowing us to hear Al qaeda’s dismissal of this love letter is a way for the Bush administration to divide us between those who support the Bush administration, and the terrorists. Can’t I believe that the whole ordeal is a real-time interactive tv show with a true-life cast without being catagorized as an enemy, or a lefty, or a hippie, or from outer space?

Posted by: subverter at October 13, 2005 4:29 PM
Comment #85671
I did not fall back on Clinton to prove Bush correct. I fell back on Clinton’s quotes to show that you would disagree with them BECAUSE you thought they were Bush quotes. The point was that Bush and Clinton reached the same conclusions, had the same goals (regime change), and the same analysis of the circumstances. Yet you call claim that only Bush misused the intelligence. I was just showing the inherent hypocrisy in that.

I’m aware of what you were trying to do, but perhaps you will give me enough credit for not taking your bait. I didn’t disagree with the quotes you presented, only indicated that they did not relate to the topic at hand - handling pre-war intelligence.

Similarly, you admit that there are things that could be done better in Iraq. Great. I agree. But the article I asked you to comment on again specifically relates to handling of pre-war intelligence, not Iraq war strategy. For some reason you refuse to acknowledge or comment on this topic. I don’t blame you.

Posted by: Burt at October 13, 2005 5:31 PM
Comment #85673

Joe,

I would answer C. I honestly don’t know whether the letter is valid or not. Either way, I think it’s sad that Bushco has bastardized the truth so much that it is getting harder to believe this administration over Al Qaeda.

Posted by: Burt at October 13, 2005 5:33 PM
Comment #85689

dtom

yes till the next surinamie hits ya

Posted by: robert at October 13, 2005 6:16 PM
Comment #85691

Some interesting facts:
There has been an average of 160,000 troops stationed in Iraq
during the last 22 months. During this time the firearm death
total is 2,112. This is a death rate of 60 per 100,000.

In comparison, the firearm death rate in Washington DC is 80.6 per 100,000.

This means you are more likely to get shot and killed in our
Nation’s Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in
the nation, than you are in Iraq.


Conclusion:
We should pull out of Washington DC immediately!

Posted by: robert at October 13, 2005 6:35 PM
Comment #85812

Burt:

I’ve discussed pre war intelligence over and over. I’ll do it once more.

When you look at intelligence information in hindsight, it’s easy to know which pieces of intelligence to believe and which to discard. When evaluating intelligence on the front end, you always have competing bits of information. Different sources tell you different things. I’m not surprised that there was information about civil unrest, problems between competing ethnic interests etc. There was also information that discounted these.

As an example, look at New Orleans and the complaints about why the levees were not built to withstand Cat 5 hurricanes etc. Everyone has known that New Orleans faced potential dangers, everyone knew the city was built below sea level, there were different thoughts on the level of damage that might occur etc. Not until it happened did people put all the puzzle pieces together….and this was a relatively simplistic issue, far more so than an everchanging issue such as war.

Ther is always going to be a point where you have to step forward with the best information you have. And that information will always be flawed to some extent. It creates a stunningly easy ability for someone to come in AFTER the fact and provide a Monday morning quarterback viewpoint, which you have nicely shown.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at October 14, 2005 1:17 PM
Comment #85858

Robert
First of all I am a US marine. To the other announcement have terrorist will come.

Thankyou for serving our country.
Youall will ALWAYS have my support regardless of the lefts willingness to abandon youall.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 14, 2005 6:30 PM
Comment #85862

bush licker
Quaddafi was brought under control until an A6 driver put a bomb down the chiminey of his palace.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 14, 2005 6:45 PM
Comment #85869

“Thankyou for serving our country.
Youall will ALWAYS have my support regardless of the lefts willingness to abandon youall.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 14, 2005 06:30 PM”….DITTO

Posted by: tomd at October 14, 2005 7:23 PM
Comment #85895
When you look at intelligence information in hindsight, it’s easy to know which pieces of intelligence to believe and which to discard.

JBOD, the CIA itself was telling Bush which pieces to discard. They were telling him he was wrong. Wrong about the aluminum tubes, wrong about the yellowcake, wrong about Mohamad Atta’s connection to Saddam, wrong, wrong, wrong.

And UNMOVIC was producing solid intelligence that Iraq had no WMD. President Bush knew his increasingly discredited assessment was based on pre-1998 intelligence and unreliable informants who hadn’t been in Iraq for a decade — and this was all public knowledge at the time, there’s no hindsight here.

Even Powell called it “bullshit”.

Intelligence is not the problem, the problem is how the politicos cherry picked the reports to “fix the facts” around a policy that was already decided. President Bush deliberately misled America.

Christ, back in early 2003 you guys on the right even acknowledged that it looked like there was no WMD or terrorism link, but y’all were sure President Bush had some “secret knowledge” that he couldn’t reveal that would make all the discrepencies fit. He didn’t. He manipulated the intel and ignored it where it didn’t fit the policy. He deliberately told us it was a fact Saddam had WMD and he knew where they were. President Bush lied.

Posted by: American Pundit at October 15, 2005 12:44 AM
Comment #85986

AP

Please document for me where UNMOVIC stated that Iraq had no WMD’s. I recall them saying they had found nothing, but not that they were certain there were no WMD’s.

Since you stated this as fact, I’ll await YOUR homework to see if you are correct. Acceptable sources will be UNMOVIC itself as opposed to any kind of news reports you might want to foist on me.

Posted by: joebagdonuts at October 15, 2005 9:07 PM
Comment #86233
Republicans & Conservatives: A multiple-editor weblog dedicated to providing news, opinion and commentary for American politics, particularly from the vantage point of conservatives and the Republican Party.

I thought the above is where I was at. What am I missing here?

Posted by: Laura B. at October 17, 2005 11:07 PM
Comment #86681

AP:

I’m still waiting.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 19, 2005 5:28 PM
Comment #86927

ALDOUS
AMEN TO YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE RIGHT VOLUNTEERING, I HAVE BEEN ASKING THAT FOR WEEKS WITH NOT ONE WILLING TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. TYPICAL COWARDS WHO TALK TOUGH BUT HAVE A GIANT YELLOW STREAK DOWN THEIR BACK. YOU CAN TELL THEY TAKE AFTER THEIR NOT SO FEARLESS, DRAFT DODGING,YELLOWBELLIED PRESIDENT AND ALL THE REST OF HIS CRONIES THAT BROUGHT THEIR WAY OUT OF NAM.THEIR NOTHING BUT A LOT OF TALK ESPECIALLY THAT GUY NAMED SICILIAN EAGLE, THE BIGGEST COWARD OF THEM ALL. DON’T EXPECT AN ANSWER ANYTIME SOON


Your comments are no longer welcome here. Take your personal attacks elsewhere. —WatchBlog Managing Editor

Posted by: JSAVAGE at October 20, 2005 6:19 PM
Comment #87493

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/09/us-soldiers-allegedly-trading-pictures.html

Posted by: no wonder they hate us... at October 23, 2005 3:32 PM
Post a comment