Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

The country has reached this point after two and one half years of the most egregious mendacity and mis-representation by this administration I have ever witnessed in American politics. We will leave Iraq because a large majority of the American people think its wrong policy, that a large majority think Bush lied about the reasons for invading Iraq, and because a large majority of the American people don’t trust this administration anymore. No WMD, no provable links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam,no Iraqi oil that will pay for the invasion, no flowers thrown at the feet of our troops. No democracy at the end of a gun. We can have 2100 dead Americans that died for nothing but imperial hubris, or we can have 20,000 American dead that died for nothing.
At this point I think the American people prefer the former. This administration is going down, and it certainly wasn’t the Democrats and the Left that did it to them—they did it to themselves, through lying, incompetence, and a ruthless disregard for the rule of international law.

Posted by: Tim Crow at November 18, 2005 10:02 PM

Gosh, I did a search through Murtha’s speech and couldn’t find the word “surrender” anywhere. A little hype here?

Posted by: womanmarine at November 18, 2005 10:08 PM

Need to check out C-span right now, get your info from the source and not Fox. Debate is on now 10:20pm

Posted by: MyPetGoat at November 18, 2005 10:20 PM

Have you ever heard the word PRESSTITUTE? Maybe we need the word BLOGSTITUTE too? Actually, all I read in the post was the death throes of the neocon.

I like guys who’ve never been there who criticize us who’ve been there,” Murtha said. “I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and sent people to war and then don’t like to hear suggestions that what may need to be done.

Posted by: Dave at November 18, 2005 10:49 PM

Oh yeah, at least you got the “Bush lied” part right.

Posted by: Dave at November 18, 2005 11:17 PM

Its amazing how much the posters in this column parrot the Republican Talking Points. Its as if they have no thoughts of their own and must wait for the email to come.

Personally, I do not believe we should leave Iraq. We must fight until we have complete and total victory.

Posted by: Aldous at November 18, 2005 11:31 PM

I say we just turn that whole region to glass in one flash and call it a day. No more problem…just a lot of melted quartz.

Posted by: Nuke Em at November 18, 2005 11:41 PM

It all depends on U.S. interest. If it makes sense to stay, we should stay. If it makes sense to leave, we should leave.

Let’s just look at this logically. For the time being, put aside the partisan rancor. Assume you know nothing and have no opinion about how we got into Iraq. Look at where we are now and what we could expect to happen if we leave. There will be a time when American troops (most of them) leave Iraq. When should it be? That depends on what is best for the U.S. That is all.

Wasn’t the criticism of the U.S. in Afghanistan that the U.S. just neglected the place after the Soviet withdrawal and it became a failed state? Would Iraq become a failed state if we leave in the next few months? Do we have a chance of making it better if we stay?

We disagree about whether the president told the truth. BUT for the purposes of our decision that matters not at all. The decision to stay or go is about the future not the past. And the decision must be made on what is best for our future.

Posted by: Jack at November 18, 2005 11:44 PM

If Murtha thinks that “being there” gives him the sole right to have an opinion and that it makes him immune from criticism, then let’s listen to our troops who ARE in Iraq right now and see if they think the mission should be abandoned.

Democrats love to put the spotlight on anybody with a service record who parrots their party line, but the overwhelming majority of veterans get sick to even look at a Democrat.

Military service doesn’t make Murtha right. Benedict Arnold had a more distinguished military record than Murtha does.

Posted by: sanger at November 18, 2005 11:45 PM

What killed us in Vietnam was a culture of sugarcoating and compartmentalizing, where Americans did not know what was fucked up with the war until it was too late to do a damn thing about it.

The soldiers were left to deal with the screwed up strategy, left to feel like they didn’t fight hard enough, or feel positive positive enough about the war to fight it to the fullest.

And that’s been the bullshit eating at this country for the last four and a half decades. The fact is, we put billions of dollars and millions of soldiers through Vietnam, killing millions of Vietnamese is in the process. In one form or another, we fought this war for a decade and a half, and even before then we were pumping money into the French colonial’s fight to keep the country.

We wasted fifty thousand American lives for that war. And why? Because the leadership was never willing, for political or egotistical reasons to take the risk and come out and call a losing war a losing war.

A losing war can be turned into a diplomatic settlement, or better yet turned around as we identify and treat the problems, but without the realization that our efforts, however strenuous, are not doing the job, we just waste our time, compounding our mistakes with interest.

The Bush culture assumes the worst of us, but we’ve simply been trying to sound the wake up call. Unfortunately, this is not an administration that’s interested in hearing the opinion of others, especially not from the political opposition. It doesn’t help that people have built a cult of personality around Bush, or that he’s combined Kennedy’s mistakes with Johnson’s.

I just hope at some point it just dawns on you folks why things happened this way, and why it’s futile to wage war to satisfy a political minority and its prejudices.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 19, 2005 12:13 AM

Stephen:

Make that 58,000 American deaths in Vietnam.

Posted by: Tim Crow at November 19, 2005 12:24 AM

Stephen:

I am for withdrawl of troops, but not the way the left is. I support the war. It’s better than the alternatives. I don’t think Bush lied, and I am deeply concerned about the intelligence.

I support going into Iraq and taking out Sadaam. I don’t support an open end forever no progress commitment. There is progress that the left ignores or minimizes. We have had two very well run elections and should have a third in a few weeks. Then in January we should have a completely legitimate government in place. Here is my troop withdrawl plan.

Kerry says to imediately withdraw 20,000 troops. That is easy to agree to because that is the amount of the increase in troops for the election only. (Troop strength was about 140,000 beefed up to 160,000 for the election cycle). Election is over, bring 20,000 home that were there for the election.
That could happen anytime after January. (Might as well have the extra security until everyone has raised their hands).

That is the kicker when this Republican pro war voter needs to see some clear progress in turning things over to the Iraqis. I don’t care if it takes a year or two, as long as it is sytematic and measurable.

I am against the Democrats NOW because the objective of getting a legitimate government in place is so near. I think Democrats are wrong NOW to push for withdrawl. Wait until after January inaguration.

Come March or so, this Republican will be switching sides slowly. Do I think we were wrong to go into Iraq? No I don’t. Do I think we have made a mess of things? Yes, and I think wars do that. Wars are messy.

I think it is time to say we have given the Iraqi people the best chance at democracy they are ever going to have. They need to fight for it, and come Spring it will be time to see them fight.

Lets see, a year from now, I hope we have under 100,000 troops in Iraq. By the time when a new president takes over, maybe 20,000 but in the desert and not very visable, to do training and guard our bases.

If the Democrats had put their request for President Bush to give a reasonable timetable for withdrawal next year, and I were in congress I probably would have voted for it. Had I been in Congress now, with it brought up this side of the elections I would vote against it.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 19, 2005 12:30 AM

sanger:

As in the words of Murtha:

“I like guys who’ve never been there that criticize us who’ve been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don’t like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.”

So… sanger… How many deferments did you get? Murtha visited Veterans Hospitals every week since the war started and spent most of his time untangling red tape to help soldiers. How many armless and paralyzed GIs have YOU helped, sanger? This does not include that yellow sticker on your SUV, btw.

Posted by: Aldous at November 19, 2005 12:30 AM

Stephen:

I also disagree with you that this is a loosing war. It might be a loosing war. A truce and we win. By that I mean if we negotiate to withdraw with the insurgency and they take part in the democratic government we win!!

If I (this is a stretch) were an Iraqi, I would be glad the Americans came, but inside I would support the insurgency. Americans are foreigners. While glad that I would be free from Sadaam, I wouldn’t want any foreigners around fixing things.

I don’t think all is lost. I think we say to Iraq, it is time for you to govern your country, God bless you!!

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 19, 2005 12:36 AM

Aldous, do you really want to go down that road? I support the war, why don’t you ask me if I was in the military or not?

Afraid you might find out that you have treating a disabled veteran like you have been the past few months?

The fact is that anyone who questions anyone else because they did or did not server are morons. Even Murtha. Because of his comments he’s pretty much lost any respect he might have had in my eyes. He makes that statement and then they get all up in arms when one of the senators takes a call from a current military officer. What a horrible position to put yourself into and people like Aldous just don’t get it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 19, 2005 12:37 AM

Right on, Rhinegold.

If Democrats really want debates about foreign policy to be restricted to veterans, then Democratic ideas would barely get any hearing at all. I was born in 1970 and was never subject to the draft, but my grandfather was a three star general in WWII, my dad and an uncle are Vietnam combat vets and I now have three cousins in the military—one who is currently a Marine in Iraq.

None of these guys go around saying that everybody else should just shut up and listen to them because they have military service and only their opinions are valid. And except for one cousin (not the one in Iraq), they’re all die-hard Republicans.

The Democratics, I hope, don’t actually want a military dicatorship in this country, though you’d never know it by the way they trot out every veteran who agrees with them (while ignoring the majority of veterans who don’t).

Posted by: sanger at November 19, 2005 12:53 AM

I’m stunned.

YOu accuse the liberals of having “Friends in the Media” …huh? Have you not been paying attention? I cannot believe that their are still people out there unaware of the degree to which this, the worst and most dishonest administration in American history, has controlled the information and stilted the view of their own actions. It is a credit to free press that there are still sources out there that are objective…BUT THEY ARE NOT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA!!! Get real.

For instance, the American media is glossing over, at best, the fact that the insurgency in Iraq is a PRODUCT of our involvement there! Zarqawi (sp?) is there for the PUPOSE of creating havoc in Iraq because WE are there. We have provided the battlefield and the REAL losers are the Iraqi civilians who are caught up in it. Perhaps on some level it is better to know where the enemy is…but we are killing more innocents than enemies with the end result that we are creating enemies faster than we can kill them. Is this SAFETY? If we leave REPUBLICANS in power any longer, there won’t anything of the country our founding fathers intended and created. what exactly is all this CONSERVATIVE of? Not life, not peace, not diplomacy, not economic health or oportunity, not free markets, not democracy…only chaos and death, which you republicans seem to think are American values that should be preserved by patriots. HAH!

Consider this: Clinton did not shy away from military action. He sent troops in to deal with the chaos in Bosnia and Kosovo, but he did so LEGALLY by gaining UN help and approval and thus shared the cost in money and lives with the rest of the peace loving world! …and we had the longest period of sustained economic growth in American history during his presidency. I guess you GOP goofs just can’t take it that it was brought to you by a Democrat! How much time and money was spent trying to crucify him in the supoosedly liberal media?

RGF

Posted by: RGF at November 19, 2005 01:08 AM

I am at a loss as to why the insurgents need to negotiate with us. This civil war everybody is scared of is already happening. The insurgents can read polls, just like us. They know we’re straining our military to the breaking point, a military that wasn’t designed to engage in a low-grade insurgent conflict like we’re stuck in now.
They are making American forces the target, and they can take their time. We’re already looking for the exits.

Just out of curiosity, what would ‘victory’ look like over there? A well-established democracy that’s friendly to us? Who in their right mind thinks that is going to happen? When we leave, there is going to be a bloodbath in all liklihood, and it was inevitable considering the reality of the political and religious factions;they have to play out their political destiny after 30-plus years of Saddam. It’s a fool’s dream to think we have the wherewithall to effect a budding democratic nation over there. Who says this Iraqi society is even capable of supporting such an animal? The way our democracy is unraveling, who are we to impose ‘democracy?’

Posted by: Tim Crow at November 19, 2005 01:16 AM

Um, RGF, I hate to break it to you but Clinton did not have UN backing in regards to US/NATO actions in Bosnia and Kosovo.

I know it might sort of put a kink in your tirade, but it’s best to do so with facts, dontcha think?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 19, 2005 01:20 AM

And I’m still waiting for Aldous to ask me if I had a deferrment or not, I wonder why he hasn’t yet?

And I can’t imagine WHY I would be so upset about people trying to shut other people up in that way. I must just be a silly goose.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 19, 2005 01:27 AM

The shallow end of the political gene pool in this country is finally revealing itself.

Bush polls are finally accelerating in their inevitable plummet. A bemused majority now stares in disbelief at such ill cut gems as “Bush lied, therefore we must surrender” and today’s uproarious Senate Republiclown “pull out” circus. Well, it’s gratifying.

It’s gratifying to know that the ship of state need no longer be a Poseiden Adventure. It’s gratifying to know that eventually complacent America can wake up and smell the moron.

Anybody want to give odds on which month of 2006 Duhbbleyew will be impeached? I’d say by about April.

Posted by: Blogical at November 19, 2005 01:43 AM

Jrl,
Source? Link? Best guesses are that Zarqawi did go into a hospital in Baghad after being wounded in Afghanistan, and that Saddam Hussein’s people didn’t know Zarqawi was in Iraq at the time.

Very little is known about Zarqawi. I’m sure we both agree he is an enemy, and that he is a despicable human being. But as for details on his movements, I’m sure the best minds in the country are working on his capture, but for now we’re limited to guessing.

Posted by: phx8 at November 19, 2005 02:15 AM

Rhinehold:

So… how many deferments have you had? While you are answering that how many times have you insinuated that Democrats do not support the troops and hate America?

Posted by: Aldous at November 19, 2005 05:19 AM

Rhinehold

Thank you.I enjoy your posts tremendously.Your sentiments are those of a significant portion of America.Thank you also for service to your country.

All
After spending time on the other side this week swimming with the great unwashed,it dawned on me what the president must do.

He must talk directly to the American people simply and regularily and build a case for progeress in Iraq.He must let the American people know that our committment is not open ended,that is dependent on Iraq security standing on its own .He must focus on the good that is occurring there.

And he must pound this message home repeatedly and directly to the American people.

He must take one message and one message alone at a time.

I wish one oh his speech writers would sit down and write one speech that containes the following:

Since January 1 this year we have built (fill in the amount)hospitals,we have built (fill in the amount)schools,we have built (fill in the amount)dams,electriciial stations,sub-statiions.

We will have built by next year (fill in the amount).

We need to do the following in the next 3 months.:build (fillin the amount)more schools,roads,hoptitals,ect.

Iraqi forces have gone from (fill in the amount) to (fill in the amount).

In 3 months they will be (fill in the amount).

Then he should give that speech 100 times all over the country.In three months do it again.
It should be fact filled,no bullshit.

Finally,I would grab General Casey and the other top commanders and give them one order:You guys have exactly 60 days to catch the insurgency leadership or you will be replaced.No more bullshit:lead,follow,or get out of the way.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 19, 2005 07:16 AM

sicilianeagle:

I would believe your post more if you had included George Junior visiting Iraq in the near future. Now THAT will convince me that we are improving security. Maybe in one of the secured cities?

Posted by: Aldous at November 19, 2005 08:06 AM

Hi Eric,

“�€œBush deceived us.�€ These three words condemn Democrats and the left”

Bush did decieve us. You’re spinning out of control here. Bush said that Iraq’s aluminum tubes were for nuclear centrifuges long after it was obvious that they were for no such thing.

Bush lied about Iraq attacking us on 9/11 and soldiers fought and died believing those lies.

Do you have the integrity to aknowledge the facts here?

“Calling the White House a bunch of chickenhawks is about as low as it gets.”

Calling those who hold Bush accountable for his statements traitors is as low as it gets. The “Chickenhawks” bit is low but Bush and Cheney have stooped far lower.

“The left needs to stop lying and stop dividing this country.”

You seem to be so corrupted by right wing spin that you can’t think clearly. You’re unaware that the right is working like crazy to divide this country aren’t you?

Can you aknowledge the facts here or are you too indoctrinated by right wing spin to think clearly?

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 19, 2005 09:05 AM

*No, you are not excused.

Politically Correct Moral Outrage.

2,100 American military volunteers killed since March 2002.

168,000 Americans killed in highway accidents since March 2002.

Where is the moral outrage about our brothers and sisters killed each day by the evil automobile empire.

How about developing a backbone, get in and get the job done. This bickering about “yesterday” is unproductive.

Bush Admin has met every objective deadline, on time, and with success in Iraq. There is a process, ya know. It is amazing how the opposition (a.k.a. DUH) is (again) calling for the same things the Bush Admin Plan is already engaged in. Train Iraqi forces, establish democratic government, leave. We’re almost there, so shutup with the bitchin’, roll up your sleeves, and contribute help instead of hindrance.

Now finish your dinner and move forward with a positive attitude. You’re excused.

Posted by: Chris at November 19, 2005 09:08 AM

Louis,

Not that you would ever participate in the partisan spin that you accuse others of but could you provide a credible link where Bush said that Iraq attacked us on 911?
If you think it is only one side who is trying to divide this country into camps then you are not paying much attention. Both sides do the same thing.

Mike P

Posted by: Mike P at November 19, 2005 09:11 AM

Hi Mike,

“Not that you would ever participate in the partisan spin that you accuse others of”

If you’re accusing me of engaging in spin why not provide an example or two?

“could you provide a credible link where Bush said that Iraq attacked us on 911?”

Here’s one. I can provide more if you’re interested.

“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.” Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).”

“If you think it is only one side who is trying to divide this country into camps then you are not paying much attention.”

I don’t think that. The right wing tends to accuse everybody who disagrees with them of treason which is far more divisive than what the Democrats are up to.

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 19, 2005 09:21 AM

Hi Chris,

“Bush Admin has met every objective deadline, on time, and with success in Iraq.”

Does it bother you that the Prime Minister of Iraq is a member of the “Dawa party” which is an Iranian anti-American terrorist organization?

Our troops are fighting and dying in order to support those who side with Iranian terrorist groups. Do you think that’s good policy?

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 19, 2005 09:24 AM

Um, LouisXIV,

Where in your quote does it say that Iraq was involved in 9/11?

Or do you think that there is only one terrorist group and Afghanistan was the only country supporting terrorism as a national policy and that we are only at war or concerned about those that attacked us on 9/11?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 19, 2005 09:35 AM

Hi Rhinehold,

“Where in your quote does it say that Iraq was involved in 9/11?”

When Bush said that the Iraq war was started on 9/11. When he went on to speak of “that terrible morning” and the “19 evil men”.

“Or do you think that there is only one terrorist group and Afghanistan was the only country supporting terrorism as a national policy”

Syrian, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and others were supporting terrorism and they were all far more dangerous to us than Iraq was.

“are only at war or concerned about those that attacked us on 9/11?”

We’re concerned about all sorts of problems in the world but that doesn’t justify our troops fighting and dying believing Bush’s lies about Iraq attacking us on 9/11.

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 19, 2005 09:42 AM

I’m confused…
If the Democrats really know they are right…

Stop the funding for the war. (filibuster that!)
Impeach the President and VP now.
Demand and legislate the return of the troops ASAP.

They won’t do it, because they don’t really believe what they are saying. They just want the power back.

Posted by: Discerner at November 19, 2005 10:01 AM

eric,

On the intel leading up to our gambit.

From Knight/Ridder;

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13125351.htm

“Chalabi met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and national security adviser Stephen Hadley on Wednesday, although neither would be photographed with him. He’s to meet with Vice President Dick Cheney, a longtime patron, next week.

Chalabi’s presence poses a dilemma for President Bush and his aides: It comes at a time when questions over the administration’s case for a pre-emptive war against Iraq are being raised anew. But Chalabi could play a major role in Iraq’s future, making him hard to ignore.

On the prewar intelligence, Chalabi pointed to one passage in a March report by an independent presidential commission - he cited the page number - that he said cleared the INC of charges of feeding false information.

The passage, however, deals with only a single source - code-named “Curveball” - who provided fabricated information on Saddam’s supposed mobile biological weapons facilities. The report concluded that “Curveball” wasn’t connected to the INC.

But Chalabi’s organization provided the Bush administration and some news organizations with other alleged Iraqi defectors who claimed that Saddam had hidden nuclear, chemical and biological warfare programs and was training Islamic extremists in assassinations, hijackings and bombings.

For instance, an INC-produced defector named Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri said in December 2001 that he had visited 20 nuclear, chemical and biological warfare sites. But he showed deception in a CIA-administered lie detector test and intelligence officials dismissed him as unreliable.

Nevertheless, the White House gave his claim prominence in a background paper that was published in conjunction with a speech that Bush delivered to the U.N. General Assembly eight months later. His account first appeared in The New York Times, which the White House cited in the paper.

Saeed was unable to identify a single illicit arms facility to U.S. weapons inspectors when he was brought back to Iraq in 2004.”

Gee, his information was unreliable, go figure.

And from informationclearinghouse;

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6455.htm

By JIM DWYER

“07/09/04 “New York Times” — Shortly after President Bush declared war on terrorism in the fall of 2001, the Iraqi National Congress, the exile group led by Ahmad Chalabi, sent out a simple, urgent message to its network of intelligence agents: find evidence of outlawed weapons that would make Saddam Hussein a prime target for the United States.

Inevitably, that request reached Muhammad al-Zubaidi, himself an Iraqi exile who had been working to undermine Mr. Hussein for 24 years from posts in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and northern Iraq. Under the playful name of Al Deeb - Arabic for The Wolf - Mr. Zubaidi, now 52, served as a field leader for about 75 to 100 people who collected information on the machinations of Iraq’s police state.

Over the next three months, Mr. Zubaidi and his associates gathered statements from defectors who said they had knowledge of Mr. Hussein’s military facilities and who had fled Iraq for neighboring countries.

In short order, that same group of defectors took their stories to American intelligence agents and journalists. The defectors spoke of a nation pocketed with mobile weapons laboratories, a new secret weapons site beneath a Baghdad hospital, a meeting between a member of Mr. Hussein’s government and Osama bin Laden - accounts that ultimately became potent elements in Mr. Bush’s case for war.

Those accusations remain unproven. In fact, Mr. Zubaidi said in interviews last week in Lebanon, the ominous claims by the defectors differed significantly from the versions that they had first related to him and his associates. Mr. Zubaidi provided his handwritten diaries from 2001 and 2002, and his existing reports on the statements originally made by the defectors.”

Whether or not Mr. Bush himself lied is a moot point. The intel that he “relied” on himself, and then passed on to Congress, wasn’t just flawed, quite a bit of it was faked by defectors that had an agenda.

Oh, and BTW, we apparently couldn’t tell the difference.

We, America, a country that is supposed to have some of the best and the brightest in the intel business, and this is the best that we can do?
If that is the case, we are in graver danger than we could ever have imagined.

Posted by: Rocky at November 19, 2005 10:09 AM

The whole debate about pulling out our troops is dishonest and it is mostly the Democrats fault.

Nobody - NOBODY - would really pull of our Iraq any time soon. The consequences would be too dire for us even to contemplate. Any intelligent and informed person who says he advocates it is lying. Anyone who honestly thinks it is a good idea is not intelligent or informed. In this case we should have LESS respect for the opinions of the honest guys.

The Democrats are using this “pull out” BS as a stick to beat the administration. With some notable exceptions, they are neither stupid or craven enough to do it. That would normally be an okay thing to do in politics. Not now. We don’t live in a bubble. Enemies and friends are listening carefully. The insurgents can�€™t win militarily. Their strategy is to make life so miserable that civilized people can�€™t stay. It is a typical Leninist strategy and it has a successful track record unless it is opposed. Then it fails.

As for our policy, look to the future. What kind of world do you want and how do you think that can best be achieved. If you want to argue about how we got into the war, we can do that. But it this debate doesn�€™t belong in the same context as what we should do now.

Posted by: Jack at November 19, 2005 10:27 AM

How can we surrender in a war that’s already over. Mission was accomplished. Or didn’t you guys see the banner?

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at November 19, 2005 10:32 AM

Eric,
Do you not think that the title should be “House GOP calls for Immediate Withdraw of Troops? At least this way the “Liberal Media” would be telling the truth, would they not?

Although I have tried to stay out of the political debacle caused by this administration and only inject when I believe my points of view matter. I can not help but see just how �€œNature�€™s Spin Master�€ is playing one side against the other in this game of chess. The Whitehouse under the leadership of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney wants to compare and link Senior House Rep. Murtha�€™s statement to Michael Moore and Company as to throw a bone to the dogs of society to chase and hunt down what they fear. The feared �€œLiberal Media�€ sides with President Bush and prints the words �€œCall for Immediate Withdraw.�€ Both inducing fear and anger that has even penetrated down to this very blog.

And the biggest act of �€œTotal Incompetence�€ was Friday afternoon when the Republican Representative Hunter of the Arm Services Committee called for the immediate vote on to completely withdraw all troops from Iraq. While reasonable people can and probable should feel that this action was taken in order to stop the on slot of International News (at least that is what we hope happened anyway) the atmosphere created by the Leadership of the Republican Party was not that of a body in charge. Stupidity on both sides of the House ran wild and for what? Just to hear themselves rant for hours?

No, if either side had a lick of Common Sense than last nights vote on should we withdraw our troops immediately would have been stated by both sides to show our resolve to do what we can to help the Iraq Citizens. See, the way I look at it is they could of used the time more wisely by in Rep Hunters words �€œShow our Troops were we stand.�€ In this manner the debate could of focused on were we stand in Iraq? An important question that precedes the question of immediate redeployment don�€™t you think?

Now redeployment is in and of itself may not a bad thing; however, this is where many of you might disagree with me. Building homes and schools is one thing, but unless America is willing to make our Military the World�€™s Police than it is time that we shift gears if this is truly a global war on terror. It�€™s time to unleash the Dogs of War 21st Century Style. First, we need to pull all unnecessary troops and prisoners. If they do not have any major business in Iraq than we pull them out. Second; we bring in SWAT Teams so they can advice and assist local civil law officers. Third; we establish �€œMulti-National Strike Forces�€ to advice and assist the Iraq Military. Politically and Diplomatically rest in the hands of the Iraq Citizens. For what is right for them as a Nation may not meet my idea of being right; however, the mark is and must remain that we are able to see their Reason and Logic as a Nation of Laws.

Nevertheless, we can not talk about that because the Leadership of the Republican Party believes that staying the course is more important than doing the right thing by �€œWe the People.�€ So after this political stunt (and btw I consider the stunt a tat for what the Democrats did a few weeks ago) what is next on the agenda? When will the Republican Leadership in Congress grow a set and explain to the American Public just how �€œTotally Incompetent and Impenitent�€ this administration has handled the stewardship of their terms.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 19, 2005 10:44 AM

Eric,
It’s downright funny to watch you spin, twist, and squirm in a DESPERATE attempt to do something - ANYTHING - to try to spread the blame for Iraq to the Dems. The FACT is that support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, for the Bush administration, and for Republicans in general is draining like water from a flushed toilet. Which I think is a great metaphor, considering all the crap the Bush admin and it far right wing psychophants have dished out.

sanger,

If Democrats really want debates about foreign policy to be restricted to veterans, then Democratic ideas would barely get any hearing at all.

Careful what you wish for, sanger, because if only veterans’ voices count, the Bush ADministration and most of the current Republican leadership should also be excluded from the debate:

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve.
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey - avoided the draft, did not serve.
House Majority Leader Tom Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve. “So many minority youths had volunteered … that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself.”
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt - did not serve
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist - did not serve.
Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-KY - did not serve
Rick Santorum, R-PA, third ranking Republican in the Senate - did not serve.
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott - avoided the draft, did not serve.
GW Bush - decided that a six-year Nat’l Guard commitment really means four years. Still says that he’s “been to war.” Huh?
VP Cheney - several deferments. In his own words, “had other priorities than military service”
Former Att’y Gen. John Ashcroft - did not serve Jeb Bush, Florida Governor - did not serve.
Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - avoided the draft, did not serve
Eliot Abrams, did not serve
Paul Wolfowitz, did nnot serve
Richard Perle, did not serve
Rudy Giuliani, did not serve
Michael Bloomberg, did not serve
George Will, did not serve
Bill O’Reilly, did not serve
Paul Gigot, did not serve.
Bill Bennett, Did not serve
Pat Buchanan, did not serve
Rush Limbaugh, did not serve. 4-F with a ‘pilonidal cyst’ (a boil)
Michael Savage - did not serve
Pat Robertson - claimed during 1986 campaign to be a “combat veteran.” In reality, was a “Liquor Officer.”
Bill Kristol, did not serve
Sean Hannity, did not serve.
Kenneth Starr, did not serve
Antonin Scalia, did not serve
Clarence Thomas, did not serve
Ralph Reed, did not serve
Michael Medved, did not serve

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 19, 2005 10:58 AM

Hi Jack,

“The whole debate about pulling out our troops is dishonest and it is mostly the Democrats fault.”

I’ve opposed occupying Iraq all along. I think it’s going to be the worst strategic blunder in the history of this nation.

I knew that our occupation of Iraq was going to be an incredible mess and I knew that Republicans were going to blame those of us who opposed the war for the mess.

We’re in a situation where there are no valid options. Staying in Iraq is a really bad option but pulling out is also an incredibly bad option. Bush and Cheney have gotten us into a horrible situation that will take us a long time to extracate ourselves from.

“It is a typical Leninist strategy”

It’s a typical Middle Eastern strategy and has been used there for thousands of years. They let a powerful force into the country and then the powerful force dies the “death of a thousand cuts” for years to come. This was extremely predictable.

“If you want to argue about how we got into the war, we can do that.”

I want to point out that those who led us into war are so incredibly stupid and dishonest that they shouldn’t remain in control.

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 19, 2005 10:59 AM

Like most other Marines, I was shocked and dismayed by Rep. Murtha’s comments on Nov. 17. I do not question his prior service; it is the stuff that USMC legends are made of. But, calling for withdrawal simply because people are dying is the ultimate act of cowardice, and is tantamount to surrender. As anyone who has ever served in combat will tell you, wars are inherently dangerous. People die, on both sides.

I am 100% disabled. I served in combat operations in Grenada, Honduras, Tunisia, Panama and Desert Storm. I have also been awarded two Purple Hearts. I do not point this out to put my service over and above anyone else’s, I am merely pointing out that Mr. Murtha is not the only Marine who has seen combat in variety of theaters. Because of my disabilities, I am at the local VA hospital 2-3 times a week. Like Mr. Murtha, I also often leave in tears when I see my fellow Marines with grave injuries. Where he and I differ is in how we approach the matter.

These men fought, and fought with valor. Regardless of whether they personally believed in the war, they did their jobs, and did them well. Are we to tell them that they are failures? Because that is what surrender means-failure. Pulling out without a resolution to the conflict is the same as telling these men that they did NOT do their jobs well; that they couldn’t win this war.

Mr. Murtha lost his nerve, somewhere. Marines do not surrender. We never have, and never will. How strongly do I feel about this? I have written to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, requesting that Mr. Murtha no longer be entitled to the honor of calling himself a Marine. That he be stripped of all the rights and privileges that are accorded a retired Marine Corps officer. I would have expected that Mr. Murtha be disappointed in the conduct of the war, as any other veteran is. I also would have expected Mr. Murtha to use his influence to press for a victory-not to call for surrender! Why do I feel so strongly about this? For a Marine, the only more damning accusation than cowardice during combat is to be called a traitor - and there isn’t much difference. Cowards will get more men killed than any enemy barrage ever will.

Ray Rothfeldt
SSgt, USMC 1983-1994

Posted by: Ray at November 19, 2005 11:18 AM

Louis

So wadda we do?

Re Leninist strategy

It may not be strictly a Leninist strategy, but it certainly is not a traditional one.

If tradional forces - Greek, Romans even more modern imperial nations - had occupied the region and suffered the type of casulities we suffered they would never leave. The cost is just not that high. (Of course traditional imperialist would also be exploitng the region. We are not. In fact we invest our own resources in it.)

What the insurgents are doing that is different is that they are targeting civilians and trying to create a great deal of local suffering. Their military significance is almost zero. This would have had little effect on the decisions of any imperial power. They expected the natives to kill each other and sometimes used that to their advantage.

The terrorist can win only by making more civilized people so sick of the carnage that they just leave. That is our danger. We can never be driven out of Iraq, but we can be sickened out.

The irony is that leaves the initiative in the hands of the worst killer.

Posted by: Jack at November 19, 2005 11:19 AM

I am an Iraqi insurgent. These views of your Demorats make me pleased. We knew your soft ways would would draw you back to your malls, your televisions. We only had to wait. As you carry on your pullouts, it will be for us to wait a little. Then, praise be to Allah, we make Iraq into a land ruled by our blessed mullahs. The rule of Shia will be absolute. Those whom you Western liberal humanists and Christians treat like favored children—women, homosexuals, non-believers, dissenters—we will return to their rightful place. Our brothers, the Taliban, shall be our guides. Our Iranian neighbors will shake their nuclear bombs in your faces and you will be too weak, too lacking in will, to do nought but crawl at our feet.

In your weakness you argue morality and guilt and show the world your self-loathing— as if you made us your enemy. Fools! We hate you because you are everything we are not—praise Allah. You are democratic, individualistic, value human potential, and show self-restraint.

Do you think we will stop because you are doing the “right” thing and appeasing us and your irrational consciences? We will push you crusaders back and back further. Opposing you, killing you, destroying your Western values is our life, our reason, our faith.

Posted by: David at November 19, 2005 11:20 AM

“Where in your quote does it say that Iraq was involved in 9/11?”

When Bush said that the Iraq war was started on 9/11. When he went on to speak of “that terrible morning” and the “19 evil men”.

Ah, but that’s not what he said. He said that the war on terror started on 9/11 and that Iraq was just one battle in that war. Afghanistan was the first, Iraq the next…

“Or do you think that there is only one terrorist group and Afghanistan was the only country supporting terrorism as a national policy”

Syrian, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and others were supporting terrorism and they were all far more dangerous to us than Iraq was.

I would have to disagree, how were these countries more dangerous to us than a country that was shooting at our planes and planning attacks against us? I don’t remember Syria, Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Iran and Pakistan doing any of those things OR having 12 Chapter Seven UN resolutions against them….

Please, provide in detail how they were more of a threat.

“are only at war or concerned about those that attacked us on 9/11?”

We’re concerned about all sorts of problems in the world but that doesn’t justify our troops fighting and dying believing Bush’s lies about Iraq attacking us on 9/11.

Again, Bush never said what you claim he did. Who’s the one lying?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 19, 2005 11:25 AM

Hi Jack,

“So wadda we do?”

Good question! We remain in Iraq for years to come exhausting valuable human and financial resources there. We continue to support and caputulate to a government that is tied to Iranian terrorists (the Prime Minister of Iraq is a member of the Dawa party which is Iranian anti-American terrorist group).

We continue to defer to murderous thugs such as Al Sadr.

We’re in a situation where there are no valid options. Colin Powell was right about the notion of thinking twice before going into Iraq.

“The cost is just not that high.”

Do you have any ideas on how we will pay for the war or do you think we should continue to borrow heavily for the whole time we’re bogged down there?

“What the insurgents are doing that is different is that they are targeting civilians and trying to create a great deal of local suffering.”

What they’re doing is inflicting a thousand cuts on us indirectly…their attacking those who we need to support us.

“The terrorist can win only by making more civilized people so sick of the carnage that they just leave.”

That’s a very effective strategy. Many of the best and the brightest Irqi people have been thrust into extremely barbaric conditions.

We’re in a situation where the terrorists have the advantage over our massive military resources. This situation was extremely predictable.

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 19, 2005 11:32 AM

Hi Rinehold,

“Ah, but that�€™s not what he said.”

He said that the war with Iraq was started on 9/11 and went on to refer to what al qaeda did on that day. You’re unable to aknowledge the obvious here.

“how were these countries more dangerous to us than a country that was shooting at our planes and planning attacks against us?”

Pakistan was selling nuclear weapons to terrorists. The Pakistani military is full of people who support OBL and they have access to nuclear weapons.

Saudi Arabia funded those who attacked us on 9/11. The other countries I mentionedd had close ties to al qaeda and Saddam’s ties weren’t at all that close.

Saddams attacks on our planes weren’t a significant threat compared to the threat that al qaeda presented. Saddam’s military resources were 5th rate and easily dealt with.

“Who�€™s the one lying?”

Bush is the one. I’m merely holding him accountable.

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 19, 2005 11:40 AM

David,
You speak that you hate us for who and what Americans stand for. In this quest you list democratic, individualistic, value human potential, and show self-restraint. Yet you call it faith and praise Allah. Does not Allah believe in being “Unalienable Right Regardless?” Well the one thing our society promotes that yours don’t is the ability to live unalienable right regardless of race, color, or creed by the Laws of the Land. So reasonable and logically I ask you do you hate America because our gvernment and Sages give us the freewill granted to us by the “Creator?”

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 19, 2005 11:48 AM

Ray,

“Mr. Murtha lost his nerve, somewhere. Marines do not surrender. We never have, and never will. How strongly do I feel about this? I have written to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, requesting that Mr. Murtha no longer be entitled to the honor of calling himself a Marine. That he be stripped of all the rights and privileges that are accorded a retired Marine Corps officer.”

All due respect, but what a load of crap.

Mr. Murtha hasn’t asked for anything that Bush hasn’t stated publicly before.

All the vote last night confirmed was that there are morons on both sides of the aisle, that are willing to stoop to anything to further their own political gains. The most of them, especialy Jean Schmidt, are a complete waste of gravity.
To compare Mr. Murtha to Michael Moore is beyond the pale. He should be praised for having the courage to stand up for what he belives, whether he right or wrong, and respected for his service.

Posted by: Rocky at November 19, 2005 11:49 AM

He said that the war with Iraq was started on 9/11 and went on to refer to what al qaeda did on that day. You’re unable to aknowledge the obvious here.

Well, since you can’t read you’re own quote I’ll re-post it:

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed

Let’s analyze the particulars.

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on.

What part of this don’t you understand. The BATTLE of Iraq is part of the WAR on TERROR. The WAR on TERROR started on 9/11 when we moved from dealing with these threats with police action to military action.

Bush in no way states in this quote that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Unless you know some other version of English you are applying to the quote.

Pakistan was selling nuclear weapons to terrorists. The Pakistani military is full of people who support OBL and they have access to nuclear weapons.

Ok, please show me a single bit of evidence, pre-2003, that shows that the Pakistani GOVERNMENT was involved in giving nuclear weapons to terrorists, and if those terrorists HAD nuclear weapons, why have they not been used yet?

Saudi Arabia funded those who attacked us on 9/11

Ok, show me the evidence that the ruling government of Saudia Arabia was funding al Qaeda knowingly. Oh, and again, pre-2003.

The other countries I mentionedd had close ties to al qaeda and Saddam’s ties weren’t at all that close

Again, please provide evidence for your assertions, pre-2003, and again you are going to have to show that building a chemical weapon plant in the Sudan wasn’t a close tie between al-Qaeda and Saddam. Whow was working closer with al-Qaeda, other than the Taliban, on any endeavor and please provide the evidence.

Saddams attacks on our planes weren’t a significant threat compared to the threat that al qaeda presented. Saddam’s military resources were 5th rate and easily dealt with.

Great, and al-Qaeda before 9/11 was a bunch of guys in the desert hurling epithets at us. They had killed, maybe, a dozen or so Americans before then at best?

They were actively trying to attack us, as we Saddam. What other countries besides Afghanistan, through al-Qaeda and Iraq, through the IIS and other terrorist groups that Saddam supported, were actively trying to attack the US in 2002? Please name one and show your evidence.

Again, you show no evidence whatsoever that Bush stated that Iraq was involved in 9/11. You committ a fallacy that only those terrorists involved in 9/11 are the ones we should be worried about. If you actually have some evidence to show your assertion that Bush stated that Iraq was involved in 9/11 at all, please provide it here, you have so far failed to do so.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 19, 2005 11:53 AM

My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq. Rep. Murtha, as quoted in People’s Weekly World

And this nut was supposedly in the Military? If he was he had to be a Marine, they’re the only ones dense enough to accually believe that the Military is part of the Diplomatic Corps. I reckon it’s because the only thing idiots like him are good for is playing gaurd to a bunch of no count ambassadors.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 19, 2005 11:57 AM

If we don’t get a grip on reality, the reality grip will us. We get the terrorist, or they get us.

Posted by: rick at November 19, 2005 11:59 AM

Louis,

The situation was entirely predicatable, in that I agree. So is the strategy employed by al-Sadr. Every opposing military leader since the Korean War has used it, realizing that they could not defeat our military, but that they could defeat our political might. They have understood that as a Nation, we like to bicker, quarrel, and destroy ourselves. They understand that Americans like things quick and easy, and do not have the stamina to stick and fight a protracted war any longer. Gen. Diop used this strategy to perfection during Vietnam; he lost every battle, but won the war.

Understand that it is not our military power that is being tested; it is our resolve. For me this war did not begin on 9/11. It began in 1983, when 5 guys I went through boot camp with died in Beirut. We ran then, too; and the result is the world you see today.

It does not matter how we got into Iraq. That is immaterial to the fact that we are there, and for the first time in history, we have the opportunity to take the fight to the terrorists. If the American public decides to wake up and realize that, and demands that we actually go in full-bore, al-Sadr knows his cause is lost.

I have read, with much bemusement, all the questions about how we can possibly win this war. It is really quite simple, folks, and the same way any war is won. You kill your enemy. You find them, and kill them. If it means wiping out a few villages, so be it. If it means killing every man, woman, and child who dares to confront you, then you do it.

The thing is, I doubt that the American people can stomach total war. Yes, 2100 men have died in the 2 1/2 years we’ve been in Iraq. There were 2100 dead in the first 15 minutes of D-Day. There were 2100 dead before noon of day one on Iwo Jima. The point is, total war means lots of casualties - and Americans don’t want our wars to be messy. We have grown soft, and no longer have the instinct that made us the pre-eminent power in the world. The only problem is, our enemy is a fanatical bunch, akin to the Japanese of WWII. They are willing to sustain high casualties and massive destruction in pursuit of their goals.

It has become another war of attrition. Oddly, the side with fewer resources may win, yet again. The reason is because the one resource you cannot quantify - resolve - may lie with the terrorists, and not with us. That would be too bad, but then don’t worry. Cowards always die first, when it comes time to be conquered.

Posted by: Ray at November 19, 2005 12:04 PM

Stephen Daugherty
blockquote>We wasted fifty thousand American lives for that war. And why? Because the leadership was never willing, for political or egotistical reasons to take the risk and come out and call a losing war a losing war.

That’s because Lame Brain Johnson didn’t have the brains God gave a soda cracker. He was too stupid to know that a ‘NO WIN’ policiy REALY means WE ARE GOING TO LOSE INTENIONALLY.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 19, 2005 12:15 PM

Hi Rinehold,

Bush said that the war with Iraq was started on 9/11. Seventy percent of the country thought that we were attacked by Iraq on 9/11 and the White House gets much of the blame.

Cheney said “now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” [NBC, “Meet The Press,” 9/14/03. This is an outright lie about Saddam attacking us on 9/11.
The last Republican convention was full of lies about how Saddam attacked us on 9/11.

“Ok, please show me a single bit of evidence, pre-2003, that shows that the Pakistani GOVERNMENT was involved in giving nuclear weapons to terrorists”

“ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) — The man who founded Pakistan’s nuclear program has confessed to transferring nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya, a government official told CNN Monday. Pakistani scientists were later implicated in a scheme to sell high-tech centrifuge technology to Libya. They also have been named in probes into North Korea’s nuclear program.

Pakistan has detained three former army officers and three people in the country’s nuclear program as part of an investigation into the possible spread of the country’s nuclear weapons technology, Pakistani intelligence sources said last month.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/02/pakistan.nuclear/

“Ok, show me the evidence that the ruling government of Saudia Arabia was funding al Qaeda knowingly.”

You’re kidding yourself if you don’t think Saudi Arabia funded al qaeda.

“Again, please provide evidence for your assertions, pre-2003, and again you are going to have to show that building a chemical weapon plant in the Sudan wasn�€™t a close tie between al-Qaeda and Saddam.”

Saddam’s ties with al qaeda were insignificant compared to the countries I mentioned. I assume that the Sudan bit is right wing propaganda as even the White House has admitted that there are no close ties (the White House also has done a considerable amount of lying about the ties of course).

“Great, and al-Qaeda before 9/11 was a bunch of guys in the desert hurling epithets at us.”

al Qaeda was considered by the Clinton administration to be an extremely serious threat to us before 9/11. Before 9/11 the Bush administration didn’t take the threat seriuosly.

“You committ a fallacy that only those terrorists involved in 9/11 are the ones we should be worried about.”

I do no such thing.

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 19, 2005 12:18 PM

Hi Ray,

“It does not matter how we got into Iraq.”

It matters that those who got us into Iraq are still in charge. Those who got us into Iraq are a bunch of dishonest idiots. Wolfowitz said “there is no history of ethnic conflict in Iraq”…..how stupid can you get!

“we have the opportunity to take the fight to the terrorists.”

We’ve taken the fight away from those who attacked us in order to occupy Iraq.

“You find them, and kill them. If it means wiping out a few villages, so be it. If it means killing every man, woman, and child who dares to confront you, then you do it.”

That is likely the best strategy for gaining control of Iraq. It’s a strategy that is completely incopatable with establishing Democracy and Freedom in Iraq though. If we’re to represent the cause of freedom we can’t go in like Attilla the Hun even though he had a very effective strategy.

“Oddly, the side with fewer resources may win, yet again.”

That’s because we’re in a situation where they have the advantage over us. Strategically speaking going into Iraq was a disaster.

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 19, 2005 12:26 PM

Rocky,

If surrendering is not the act of a coward, then what is it?

I said that I respected Mr. Murtha’s service record, and I meant it. The man volunteered for two tours in Vietnam, and that certainly is not the act of a coward. However, he has broken not only the unwritten code of honor by which all Marines live, he has also broken the Marine Corps Code of Conduct. In particular, Article Two, which states, “I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.” Note that the Code says “never surrender.” Not “gee, guys, people are getting killed. The war is unpopular. Let’s go home.”

Either Mr. Murtha has forgotten what being a Marine is all about, or he no longer has the requisite courage to wear an EGA. Either way, he no longer deserves to be called “Marine.” Is he entitled to his opinion? Certainly, as are you and I. But voicing the opinion that we should surrender can not be done in the capacity of being a Marine.

By the way, Mr. Murtha’s call was for us to pull out within 6 months, regardless of whether victory had been achieved. Mr. Bush’s call is to win, then leave - quite a difference. My quarrel with the administraton is that they have not clearly defined what victory means.

Posted by: Ray at November 19, 2005 12:26 PM

sanger

None of these guys go around saying that everybody else should just shut up and listen to them because they have military service and only their opinions are valid.

That’s because one of the things they fought for is the right for EVERYONE to express their opinions.

Next time you see these guys tell them I said thanks for their service. And if you served, thanks for yours too.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 19, 2005 12:29 PM

Ray,
We’re fighting some of the same people who fought the USSR in Afghanistan, the Muhahideen. The Soviet Union did not share the same domestic consideratons as the US. They were absolutely brutal in their attempts to suppress the Afghans. They wiped out more than a few villages in the effort.

Without domestic opposition or criticism, they lacked a self-correcting process. The USSR lost in Afghanistan; but by the time they did, the loss was catastrophic, and directly contributed to their fall.

I think you’re right, in that a sufficient level of violence resembling genocide would solve the problem. Saddam Hussein stayed in power in Iraq for a long time. When he suppressed the internal revolts of the Shias and the Kurds, hundreds of thousands of people died.

For some time we have been fighting as proxies for the Shia in a war against the Sunnis. This next election will put the Shias in power, and democratically disenfranchise the Sunnis on an almost permanent basis.

Religious and ethnic strife are givens. Corruption and graft are givens.

It’s all about setting realistic goals. Set a goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power, and providing Iraqis with an opportunity for self-government, measure the achievement of steps, such as elections, publish honest metrics, and we can declare victory and withdraw soon.

Set open-ended, unrealistic goals, with no specific plan, and no realistic, measureable steps; falsify, ignore, or hide the metrics, and eventually, we will surrender and withdraw.

I see a Republican leadership which tells us we’ll ‘stay the course,’ ‘until the job’s done,’ and that there are already 170,000 security forces in place. Those are not realitic, achieveable goals, or plans, or measureable steps, or honest metrics.

We’re heading for disaster. We’re already well on the way, which most Americans realize, and polls support this. The latest WSJ/Harris poll shows Bush with a 34% approval rating, and other polls show similar numbers, validating the fact. A majority of Americans no longer support the war in Iraq. Again, polling evidence supports this fact.

We have incompetent leadership, and there will be a heavy price to pay.

Posted by: phx8 at November 19, 2005 12:35 PM

ElliottBay
There you go again with your list from a Bush bashing website.
There’s a saying that if you repeat a lie offten enough that people will start believing it.
Is this what your trying to do?
If so you have a long way to go. BOTH mainstream parties have a 200 year head start on you.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 19, 2005 12:45 PM

Louis,

“If we�€™re to represent the cause of freedom we can�€™t go in like Attilla the Hun even though he had a very effective strategy.”

This is where so many get things mixed up. I’m certain the people in Dresden or Hiroshima did not view us as potential liberators. (Historical revisionists, sorry. Nobody likes getting bombed off the face of the earth!) You cannot fight a war and worry about political considerations simultaneously, and this why I wonder if our Nation has the stomach for the type of war required to defeat fanatics.

The only possible strategy for defeating terrorism is total annihilation first, completely eradicating the threat. Is it possible? Certainly. There is a great amount of resolve in our enemy, but even fanatics have their breaking point. For the Japanese, it was when the second bomb dropped. For the Germans, it was when Berlin fell. For Napoleon, it was Waterloo.
After forcing them to capitulate, then we can begin the process of remediation. A sort of Marshall Plan for the 21st Century. But attempting to do both at once sends mixed messages to both our troops and our enemies. Our guys are told to kill, but only if you are certain your rifle is pointed at an enemy combatant. That is a little difficult when they don’t wear uniforms. Why? Because we don’t want to upset the locals. This is a tactic exploited by the terrorists, and almost always give them the first shot. A pretty lousy way to fight a war.

I do agree that I do not have much faith in the folks currently running the war. For all the talk about “Staying the course,” I would like to know what exactly the course is. There is very little in their actions that inspires confidence. Unfortunately, I do not see better alternatives anywhere on the horizon, other than perhaps Sen. McCain. At least he has called fro sending in enough troops to win this war.

Posted by: Ray at November 19, 2005 12:49 PM

Either Mr. Murtha has forgotten what being a Marine is all about, or he no longer has the requisite courage to wear an EGA. Either way, he no longer deserves to be called �€œMarine.�€ Is he entitled to his opinion? Certainly, as are you and I. But voicing the opinion that we should surrender can not be done in the capacity of being a Marine.

Ray: His opinions have nothing to do with courage, being a marine.

I reiterate: I did not see the word “surrender” in his speech. Someone should really point it out to me.

�€œI will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.�€

This does not apply to him in his current position. If your commander in chief says to get out, you get out. And it is no shame to do so.

This was the whole point of using “surrender” in the title here, and you have fallen for it.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 19, 2005 12:53 PM

Cowards will get more men killed than any enemy barrage ever will.

Ray Rothfeldt
SSgt, USMC 1983-1994

Aint that the truth. When I was in Vietnam the three things I didn’t want around me was a coward, a stoner, or a hero. All three will get you killed.

THANKYOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE AND GREAT PERSONAL SACRIFICE TO OUR GREAT NATION!

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 19, 2005 12:57 PM

Hi Ray,

“You cannot fight a war and worry about political considerations simultaneously”

Our strategy is currently just that….fighting while worrying about Irqaqi politics. It’s a really bad strategy.

“The only possible strategy for defeating terrorism is total annihilation first”

I think it’s a real good idea to go after those who attacked us. I don’t understand why we went after Iraq instead of going after the terrorists who attacked us.

“For the Germans, it was when Berlin fell. For Napoleon, it was Waterloo.”

Those are bad examples. Iraq isn’t/wasn’t a country like Germany or France. Iraq was a few waring tribes held together by a brutal dicator. Now that the government is dissolved they revert to being waring tribes…..they have no status as a nation to revert to as France and Germany did.

“we don�€™t want to upset the locals. This is a tactic exploited by the terrorists, and almost always give them the first shot. A pretty lousy way to fight a war.”

I agree. We’ve put ourselves in the middle of a strategic disaster. Just because we think it would be nice for Iraq to be a democracy (I certainly think it would be nice) doesn’t mean our strategy is a good one.

I don’t see us giving up on our stated goal of liberating the Iraqi people. None of the war planners are talking about good old fashioned conquering in order to win hearts and minds.

Posted by: l at November 19, 2005 01:04 PM

Rhinehold
Don’t let me down Aldous challenged you buddy.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 19, 2005 01:12 PM

Craig-
For me, I prefer solutions to problem that don’t create additional problems of similar strength. Bush was warned by friend and rival alike in this country that his course of action was extraordinarily risky, and not just in the way that all wars are risky.

I think most Americans agree that we don’t want to pull out until the Iraqis can stand on their own. I don’t think the Democrats, especially Murtha (whose bill calls for the withdrawal when “practicable”) are blind to that. I’m certainly not.

The thing to watch out for is dependence My fear is that dependence could be more than just laziness. This long, destructive insurgence, and the failure to successfully reconstruct Iraq’s infrastructure could come together to create a rather high threshold for cohesion in Iraq that the government there is not prepared to reach.

Bush has shown no effort to effect the intensive training of the Iraqis, to get these people moving. He can’t wait forever to get this and everything else cleaned up. This is what makes me fear that we are so far from victory

What I wonder is what pushed Murtha to call for this. What has convinced him that we can no longer stick around? Until we learn that, I think those calling Murtha a coward are doing so from ignorance and prejudice.

SE-
For once, I agree with you. Simply casting his vitriol at us and the press will not convince people that Bush’s got his act together. Quite the opposite What Bush needs to do is lay down what he’s going to do, and by God get it done. Any other approach confirms the Democratic view of him as an ineffectual leader who savages critics rather than deal with the problems they are pointing out.

Chris-
Get a sense of proportion:
2100 168000
—— ———
140000 280000000

One to seventy as opposed to Six out of 10000. The roads are safer than Iraq.

The deadlines he has met, he has met without making improvements in the conditions on the ground. In fact, things got steadily worse. There’s a term you should learn: nominal. It means in name only. For example, Iraq’s Sovereignty is nominal, as is it’s army’s presence as an effective fighting force.

It doesn’t how positive we get, if our success in Iraq stays merely nominal. We’re just getting happier without making further gains. If you like getting happier about not being all that effective, be my guest. I prefer to feel better about these things when they are going well not only in the words of our president, but in the way events are actually moving in the war itself. I want an Iraq that’s truly sovereign, which can truly take care of itself. Bush’s plan, so far, has them remaining dependent on us.

In the Vietnam war, one of our mistakes was that we took over fighting the civil war on behalf of the people who really should have been motivated to fight for their country. By doing this, and not making it clear that it was their war to win, we made it more unlikely that we could leave without letting South Vietnam collapse, which it did.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 19, 2005 01:12 PM

Ray,
Earlier you mentioned Beirut. We withdrew, or ‘surrendered,’ shortly after many marines died. But withdrawing was not the mistake. Going into Lebanon in the first place was a mistake. Reagan deserves credit for having recognized the mistake, and correcting it immediately.

The Murtha Resolution did not set a specific date for withdrawal. The language said as “early as practicable.” The House Republican changed the term, replacing it with language only a pacifist would support. Don’t get me wrong- I have tremendous respect for pacifism- but using the Republican language poisoned the debate. It made for great viewing on C-Span, but did a great disservice to the country.

It leaves us in the terrible position where any talk of disengagement from Iraq as “surrender.” A minority of the Republican party is putting its fear of admitting mistakes ahead of what is good for the country. We find outselves in a position where, having achieved a goal Americans generally perceive as a postive, the removal Saddam Hussein, we now feel like we have lost.

To make a somewhat specious analogy, an NBA season record of 75 - 7 would be fantastic if the goal is the best record ever. But if the goal is to never lose a game, 75 - 7 becomes a disaster.

Posted by: phx8 at November 19, 2005 01:18 PM

Um, Rhinhold,

There were UN blue hats in the Bosnia conflict…or do you not hear your own advice? I was in Ireland after that conflict and actually MET some of the European blue hats involved. Don’t be rediculous.

The only blue hats involved in Iraq were asked to leave from the thousands of pounds of explosives they were guarding. We let months go by before we even sent anybody to investigate the cache. Now the IED’s killing our soldiers are made of the same stuff! In fact, the Madrid bombings were with the same stuff. YOU are the one in need of a fact lesson.

Why is it that the Republicans are so willing to think hyper critically of any point of view they don’t agree with, but adhere to the obvious lies and propaganda of there own side? How many times do I have to listen to rediculous assertions made accodring to garbage spewed by Hannity, Savage, Limbagh et al while simultaneously hearing the rediculous claim that American mainstream media is Liberally biased? do you have to be a so called ‘liberal elitist’ to have the ability to THINK?

RGF

Posted by: RGF at November 19, 2005 01:18 PM

Ray,

“Note that the Code says �€œnever surrender.�€ Not �€œgee, guys, people are getting killed. The war is unpopular. Let�€™s go home.�€”

Note, where in Mr. Murtha’s statement does he mention the word surrender?

The American people haven’t been asked to sacrifice. They have been given tax cuts in the middle of a “war”. The “war” is over. I distinctly remember Mr. Bush standing on that flight deck, in that silly ass flight suit, and saying “Mission Accomplished”.
The American people have been sold this as if it were a pair of sneakers, and the adds for the military continue this trend.

Nobody wins a war of attrition. There is no castle to seige, no supply lines to cut.
We haven’t taken this “war” seriously from the beginning why do you think that we would start now?

I was against going into Iraq, I thought it was dumb as a box of rocks, but I also felt that if we actually were there, we might as well do it right and not fiddle fart around. I have stated this many times here.
Well, we’re still there and our folks and Iraqi civilians, are still dying, and other than Saddam being gone, not a lot has changed.

It’s time we shit or get off the pot, and I’m pretty sure which course we’re going to take, and it ain’t going to be the hard road.

Posted by: Rocky at November 19, 2005 01:33 PM

Womanmarine,

Here are two quotes culled from the transcript of Rep. Mutha’s speech (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html)

“To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq”

“Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.”

There are many ways to say something, and you do not always have to say it in an abrupt manner. What Mr. Murtha did, was give a speech that said “we have lost. We cannot win. It is not the fault of our soldiers, Marines, and airmen. We simply came up against a more resilient opponent than we bargained for. It is time to admit defeat, and go home. Maybe the diplomats can sort out the mess.”

I do not personally believe that the enemy is more resilient than our troops in the field. I do not think that Iraq is hopeless, nor do I believe that we have done all we can.

Mr. Murtha is entitled to his opinion, as I’ve said before. Does his opinion lack courage and conviction? Is it befitting a Marine? Is it in violation of the Code of Conduct? The answer to all three is an unequivocal YES.

As a Marine, you are bound by the Code for life. You do not stop being a Marine simply because you take off the uniform. It is not that I disagree with Mr. Murtha in his view that this war is being mismanged. What I disagree with is his idea that we must pull out, that the war is unwinnable, and that my brothers have died for nothing. I strongly oppose his cowardice in the face of the enemy, because that is what it is. He is afraid, and his fear permeates his speech like bad perfume on a summer night.

Posted by: Ray at November 19, 2005 01:50 PM

Eric, your quote “surrender is the official Democratic position on the Iraq war” is incredibly disengenuous. The “War” to remove Saddam Hussein and install a democratic government is over. It’s done and has been “won”. To say Democrats are in favor of surrender is egregious. The insurgency must be what you are referring to. This will not be won by a foreign occupier. History has shown time and again that foreign invaders do not “win” insurgencies unless there is a wholescale eradication of culture and people. Vietnam was not winnable nor is the cessation of the insurgency in Iraq by military means. Unless you plan on killing everyone the only solution is political. Congressman Murtha is correct when he says that the removal of American and coalition forces will dramatically reduce the insurgency. Open your eyes, this is turning into Vietnam all over again. It’s time for a draw-down and removal of foreign troops. The Iraqi people by an 60% margin do not want the US there. Perhaps we should listen to them.

Posted by: Dennis at November 19, 2005 01:53 PM

What should we think of a party that disdains the liberation of 50 million people from under a fascist regime by saying, “The main reason for going to war has been discredited,”

Posted by Eric Simonson at November 18, 2005 09:26 PM

Eric, if you can’t even get something as basic as the population of Iraq, right, it tends to stretch your credibility on more weighty issues. In fact, the population of Iraq is about 50% of what you say.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 19, 2005 01:57 PM

At this point I think the American people prefer the former. This administration is going down, and it certainly wasn�€™t the Democrats and the Left that did it to them�€”they did it to themselves, through lying, incompetence, and a ruthless disregard for the rule of international law.
Posted by: Tim Crow at November 18, 2005 10:02 PM

Amen and praise Jesus to that, Tim!!!

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 19, 2005 01:59 PM

Ray,

Out of the mouths of babes.

From CNN;

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/31/bush.terror/

“Asked whether the United States can win the war, Bush told NBC’s “Today” show, “I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world. Let’s put it that way.”

So, which is it?

Posted by: Rocky at November 19, 2005 02:03 PM

Ray:

Bull!! You are reading things into Murtha’s speech. None of what he says (and I read the speech over and over before I ever posted) says surrender. Give it up.

Who the heck are you to decide whether or not he can still call himself a Marine? Does the code of conduct include putting words in someone else’s mouth to justify your opinion?

Try reading what Murtha proposed and then read the bogus proposal that was actually voted on.

Give up the “surrender” crap. It isn’t there.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 19, 2005 02:09 PM

Rocky,

As I’ve mentioned a few times, I have virtually no confidence in our political leadership. That goes for the opposition party, as well. I personally think they’re all bereft of a spinal column.

Regardless of what Mr. Bush might think, the war is winnable. It’s simply a matter of scale and determination. If a few of our political leaders (?) would stop worrying about upsetting the UN and God knows who else, and go in and take the reins off the military, this war would be over inside of a year.

It’ll never happen. I know. Which is why I’m brushing up on my arabic.

Posted by: Ray at November 19, 2005 02:12 PM

Ray,

“If a few of our political leaders (?) would stop worrying about upsetting the UN and God knows who else, and go in and take the reins off the military, this war would be over inside of a year.”

For too long, the American military leadership has become dependent on technology instead of our manpower.

It’s not just what is going on in Iraq. We need to mend fences with the rest of the world, in order to end this sort of terrorism forever. We can’t do this alone, and that is not to denigrate our military.
Diplomacy also has to play a part if we are to get the rest of the world back with us.

Posted by: Rocky at November 19, 2005 02:26 PM

May God Grant Us The Wisdom
To Never Vote Repulsive Again.
The Courage To Take Back
What They Have Stolen.
And The Wisdom To Beg
The Forgiveness Of Every
American Man,Women,and Child.

Posted by: Honey P at November 19, 2005 02:29 PM

Womanmarine,

What do you think “immediately redeploy US troops” and “bring them home NOW” is, if not a call for surrender? How do you reconcile the defeatist tone of his speech? He makes numerous references to the number of killed and wounded, and uses those as an excuse for pulling out of an unpopular war. It is cowardice. It is inexcusable. It is shameful. It debases the very ideals that I and my brothers have believed in for 230 years.

As for requesting that Mr. Murtha be held accountable for his actions, vis a vis the Code of Conduct, I am carrying out my duty as outlined by the UCMJ. He would not be the first Marine to be so dishonored (check your history), even after leaving uniform.

Posted by: Ray at November 19, 2005 02:32 PM

Regardless of what Mr. Bush might think, the war is winnable. It�€™s simply a matter of scale and determination. If a few of our political leaders (?) would stop worrying about upsetting the UN and God knows who else, and go in and take the reins off the military, this war would be over inside of a year.

It�€™ll never happen. I know. Which is why I�€™m brushing up on my arabic.
Posted by: Ray at November 19, 2005 02:12 PM

Right on man, we gotta destroy the vill, to save it - “riders on the storm……..pass the grass man….

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 19, 2005 02:37 PM

What a huge argument. It’s just as I said, “Murtha broke the dam.”

The Republicans are fighting fiercely, and are using emotional words like “far left,” “cowards” and “surrender.”

John Murtha is not “far left.” He is a conservative hawk. He is anything but a “coward.” He knew what would happen if he spoke out, but he did it anyway. This took a lot of courage.

And who spoke of “surrender”? It’s really digging low to say that Murtha is in favor of “surrendering.” He thinks that since we accomplished “regime change” and soon Iraqis will vote for their representatives, this is a good time to begin to remove troops from Iraq.

The Republican leadership acted as “cowards” when they substituted their motion to leave Iraq immediately for Murtha’s measured approach in order to make false and misleading propaganda points about the “far left.”

Posted by: Paul Siegel at November 19, 2005 02:37 PM

PHX8,

Mr. Murtha’s speech called for “immediate redployment of US forces.” I agree that there isn’t a specific date. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, “immediate” means “Occurring at once; instant.” I don’t need a specific date to understand that what Mr. Murtha wants is for us to pull out as of yesterday.

Posted by: Ray at November 19, 2005 02:39 PM

I love the smell of napalm in the morning………..

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 19, 2005 02:42 PM

Eric,
Bad news. Rumsfeld is preparing to surrender. He has already ordered General Casey to submit a plan for the surrender.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/18/iraq.plan/index.html

Actually it is a plan for withdrawal, but since withdrawal = surrender, you will no doubt want to excorciate the Bush administration for surrending.

By the way, these Watchblog articles are achived. It’s worth remembering this one, in which Eric gives us the formula:

withdrawal = surrender

Indeed, the title will make this one easy to find. November 2005. Let’s make a point of coming back to this, shall we?

Meanwhile, CNN reports this portion of Bush’s most recent speech:

“So long as I am commander-in-chief, our strategy in Iraq will be driven by the sober judgment of our military commanders on the ground,” he said, adding that U.S. troops are “making steady progress” in training Iraqi forces to defend their country.

“As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down,” he said.

Sounds great? The fact is, the Kurds & Shias & Sunnis are already standing. Roughly 50,000 Peshmerga stand ready to defend Kurdistan. Thousands of loyal followers in the Shia Mahdi Army and Badr Brigades stand ready to fight. Sunni insurgents- number unknown, somewhere between 5,000 - 20,000 or more- are already fighting.

The problem is, none of them are willing to be integrated into the Iraqi national army. Few will fight for Iraq.

It gets worse. Between January and August of this year, over half of the Iraqi Defense Ministry budget, somewhere between $500 to $800 million, was squandered or completely lost due to corruption and graft. The Defense Minister skipped the country, along with many others.

In recent testimony before Congress, a general informed the us there is one Iraqi combat battalion which can stand on its own.

One.

The Iraqis will stand up, all right. Bush got that right. They’re waiting to settle scores, old scores. Amid the religious & ethnic divisions, there are many clan & tribal acts of vengeance which await fulfillment.

But remember. You heard it from Eric.

Withdrawal = Surrender

Posted by: phx8 at November 19, 2005 03:17 PM

Bush said that the war with Iraq was started on 9/11.

No, he said the war on Terror, of which Iraq is a part, was started on 9/11. Again, it’s simple english. If you are a english as a second language individual, fine, I’m attempting to point the difference to you. If you aren’t and are just being purposely obtuse, you need to do better with the evidence.

Seventy percent of the country thought that we were attacked by Iraq on 9/11 and the White House gets much of the blame.

Really? There was a poll done on 9/12 that shows that over 80% of the people in the US believed it was Iraq that directly or indirectly attacked us on 9/11 and wanted an immediate response on Saddam. How did Bush and the White House help ensure that 1 day after 9/11 the entire country was ready to go to war in Iraq? And why not take the opportunity THEN to go, he had the political backing to do it and members of his staff that WANTED him to go. In fact, by waiting and going after the real perpetrators of 9/11 in Afghanistan once we knew who was responsible, he lost his opportunity to remove Saddam as the terrorist threat he was without the type of accusations of oil and personal interest that he had. He only got one free shot. And I think he did the right thing. And I think he did the right thing going into Iraq. I think he has bungled the running the the Iraq war, we should have been out of there a year ago. But hindsight and ineptitude now does not give us the right to rewrite history, which you are trying to do.

Cheney said “now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” [NBC, “Meet The Press,” 9/14/03. This is an outright lie about Saddam attacking us on 9/11.

OK, let’s get the full statement, not the ‘cherrypicked’ statement you have provided.

This is not just about Iraq or just about the difficulties we might encounter in any one part of the country in terms of restoring security and stability. This is about a continuing operation on the war on terror. And it�€™s very, very important we get it right. If we�€™re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it�€™s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it�€™s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. They understand what�€™s at stake here. That�€™s one of the reasons they�€™re putting up as much of a struggle as they have, is because they know if we succeed here, that that�€™s going to strike a major blow at their capabilities.

I know you aren’t going to accept the reality of the situation here, but this not a quote detailing that Iraq was behing 9/11. It is about terrorism and those who will use terror as a means of political control. It’s an easy concept, but for some reason, I suspect political partisanship, you just simply refuse to get it.

The last Republican convention was full of lies about how Saddam attacked us on 9/11.

Ok, then it shouldn’t be hard to provide one of those ‘lies about how Saddam attacked us on 9/11’ then?

“Ok, please show me a single bit of evidence, pre-2003, that shows that the Pakistani GOVERNMENT was involved in giving nuclear weapons to terrorists”

“ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) — The man who founded Pakistan’s nuclear program has confessed to transferring nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya, a government official told CNN Monday. Pakistani scientists were later implicated in a scheme to sell high-tech centrifuge technology to Libya. They also have been named in probes into North Korea’s nuclear program.

Pakistan has detained three former army officers and three people in the country’s nuclear program as part of an investigation into the possible spread of the country’s nuclear weapons technology, Pakistani intelligence sources said last month.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/02/pakistan.nuclear/

Oh, see I thought you said terrorists. AND I thought you were going to provide information we had BEFORE we invaded Iraq to show how that country was a greater terrorist threat than Iraq.

I didn’t know you were going to go after anything with the word pakistan and nuclear in it and try to twist it to mean what you originally said.

I’m still waiting for you to show me evidence, pre-2003, that Pakistan was providing nuclear materials to terrorist.

“Ok, show me the evidence that the ruling government of Saudia Arabia was funding al Qaeda knowingly.”

You’re kidding yourself if you don’t think Saudi Arabia funded al qaeda.

In other words, you can’t provide any evidence. Pity, I have no love lost for Saudia Arabia, but I’m not going to make the leap and accuse them of ‘setting up al Qaeda’ without evidence.