Opinion Talk

By norman

July 1, 2005 08:50 AM | Link to this

Before any action is taken to disengage from the Iraq war, we must begin with the impeachment of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Had Johnson, Nixon & Co. been impeached for the Vietnam war, we would never have made the same mistake in Iraq.

By Van

July 1, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

This is an easy one: When the Iraqis can defend themselves and protect their own people.

However, the War on Terror still goes on.

By E. Lewis

July 1, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

Get the U.N. in and the U.S. out. Some of our troops should remain, but only under the auspices of the United Nations. Establish no permanent bases. There should be a timetable established, even if it is established according to infrastructure upgrades, rather than a specific date.

By Van

July 1, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

Norman, You mean Kennedy and Johnson - Nixon got us out of the Vietnam war

By Dan

July 1, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

Hopefully we won’t make the same mistake as Nam and finish the job Things not to do Do not set a time table and give the terrorists hope. Ensure the Iraqi people are ensured that we will stand by them (unlike the 100,000 vietnamese who tried in every way possible to leave with us) by setting up permanent bases for protection not rule like we have in Japan, Germany, and any other country we have liberated Lastly do not let the UN have any significant part, the UN track record is one of perfect failure, maybe if they dump Kofi and restructure they can be of use.

By kimberly

July 1, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

Apologize first for violating the commandment “Thou shalt not bear false witness” when our lying leaders linked the people of Iraq to the September 11 attacks on our nation. Then apologize for violating the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” when our lying leaders ordered our good soldiers to bomb a city full of civilians. Then apologize to our good soldiers for sending them to war on a lie, for sending them in insufficient numbers and to complete their task, for sending ill-equipped, for cutting their benefits, for extending their service beyond their commitments, and for lying to cover up the true cost they suffer.

THEN bring everybody home and impeach these LIARS AND CROOKS who are making record profits while our soliers die and our national treasury is bankrupt. But that’s just my suggestion.

By Casey

July 1, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

Don’t you just love “patriotic” Americans who want to impeach every government official with whom they disagree? Do they really care about our military or do they want to sling accusations at Republicans?

Fortunately, Americans were smart enough to elect a strong president. He leads where others cringe.

Let us fight terrorism to extinction. To leave Iraq now would be like sending terrorists an invitation to America. Remember, embittered liberals, the terrorists are the enemy, not our government.

By Van

July 1, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

Casey, Your right, Norman and Kimerbly seem to forget that Pres. Bush used the same intelligence data that Clinton used - So I guess Clinton should be impeached also for lying to the American Public - oops, he was, wasn’t he.

Speaking of the lefts patriotism, At the age of 19, I enlisted in the US Marine Corps - 1967, What did Norman or Kimberly do - then or now?

The underlying problem with the VietNam war was Johnson wanted to micro-manage the war from DC and not let the field commanders wage a war.

By Ray

July 1, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

I concur in whole with Dan. This war is a small price to pay for the benefits that the world will recieve.

By Dan

July 1, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Kimberly questioning policies and actions or our government is a benefical and necessary part of democracy. doing so blindly without educating yourself as to the facts however can be dangerous. Here are a couple of quotes (there are pages more) from “esteemed democrats” indicating that that while we have yet to find significant WMDS (based on the kay report we did find some) the perception that saddam was in possesion of them was universal.

“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force â€â€? if necessary â€â€? to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

So going around yelling liar liar pants on fire makes you look foolish

By kimberly

July 1, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

Don’t you just love “patriotic Americans” who think lying about a war is okay as long as he swaggers and struts and tells the rest of the world to kiss our butts? Or is lying us into a war okay because big oil companies are enjoying RECORD profits as a direct result? Or is lying okay ALL the time if you’re President, unless you’re lying about sex, in which case, there’s no forgiveness. In 1967 I was a tot, and my Daddy was a fighter pilot. And he agrees with me that war should be a LAST resort, not a get-rich-quick scheme for the Vice President’s buddies. He agrees that soldiers should only be put in harm’s way when absolutely necessary. And my Daddy, the fighter pilot, also wants to know why Bush’s ol’ buddy BIN LADEN is still running around UNAFFECTED by this alleged war on terror! TRUTH, people!

By norman

July 1, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

Van: Kennedy and Johnson got us into Vietnam but Nixon spent six years of suffering and death before we got out. He could have done it much sooner. And we got out ignominiously.

By Jack Findlan

July 1, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

THe Time Magazine interview with a suicide bomber in training says it all. They will continue to bomb as long as the Americans remain. Praise Allah!! EXIT NOW !!!

By mikej

July 1, 2005 11:41 PM | Link to this

There’s a few things that liberals, especially Kimberly, and her daddy, need to explain. If Iraq and Al-Queda weren’t linked, why in 1998, 20 days after the embassy bombings in Africa, did Clinton order the strike of the Al-Shifa pharmacuetical plant in IRAQ? Clinton administration officials repeatedly cited Iraqi support for Sudan’s Military Industrial Corporation and al Shifa in their defense of the targeting.

Plus, in Mogadishu when we cut and ran after the “BlackHawk Down” incident, OBL used the term “paper tigers” to describe the USA by telling his followers that if you resist long enough America can’t handle it. That was Al-Queda’s first major recruiting tool that resulted in the brazeness to go ahead and start the planning of 9/11 because they knew they could do pretty much whatever they wanted in the United States without interference.

If we cut and run in Iraq, then we are playing into Al-Queda’s hand’s, in which the left is already there.

By Carlton Wyatt

July 2, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this

If Clinton can be impeached for lying about sex in the oval office, surely Bush and others can, and should, be impeached for lying about a war that has cost the lives of over 1700 US soldiers and countless numbers of innocent Iraqis. Clinton’s lie didn’t get anyone killed. Bush, now a PROVEN and DOCUMENTED liar, has killed almost as many Americans as bin Laden.

Yet the right-wingers still support him like he is the second-coming. Amazing self-delusion you conservatives have.

By Brian Curtis

July 2, 2005 06:03 PM | Link to this

In the long run, we’ll learn the painful and costly lesson that you can’t simply invade and “impose” democracy on another culture… and that if you try, they won’t thank you for it.

For now, we need to admit our mistake and get our troops out of harm’s way ASAP. Maybe then they could go back to battling terrorism for a change.

By Van

July 3, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

Kimberly, Thank your dad for serving his country. At least some dads did return from war, mine didn’t return in 1951. Korea was not a good war, but it was a UN war, I guess that made it okay, right?

Norman, check your history, Nixon was the one that started the men coming home. As the areas of responsibility were turned over to the South’s Army, our folks came home. It is called a transition. He didn’t cut and run as you would have us do now.

By Van

July 3, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

Jack Findlan, suicide bombers, murderers, and baby killers are all the same. They kill the innocent, women, children, old people, those not associated with the military and people just trying to make a living to support their families, all are targets of the insane killers. That is the only bright spot of the suicide killers, one less nut job running around this planet. I can not imagine being told it is okay to kill innocent bystanders. I guess pizza stands and market places are military targets.

By jim

July 4, 2005 12:20 AM | Link to this

Kimberly,

You compare apples and oranges. Clinton did lie under oath, which last time I checked, was illegal for anyone to do.

Bush was using intelligence data that Clinton and our allies had relied upon in basing policy. Sadly, that intel appears to have been incorrect.

To say that Bin Laden has been unaffected by our War on Terror shows a lack of understanding of current events. He has lost his base in Afghanistan and his communications have been severly impacted. He has been unable to effect an attack on us since 9/11. Granted he has not been caught. But, your boy Clinton blew that chance in 96 when the Sudan offered him to us but Clinton could not find a legal reason to arrest him somehow forgetting the 93 attack on the WTC.

By norman

July 4, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this

I’d send Osama bin Laden and George Bush both to the International Court of Justice at the Hague on a charge of murder.

By Peter Cicero

July 4, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

Impeach President Bush for lying to the American public about his reasons for invading Iraq; send him to The Hague to stand trial for war crimes (with the likes of Slobodan Milosevic and Ratko Mladic); let the Iraquis and the U.N. sort out Iraq’s problems; pay billions of dollars in reparations to Iraq for the damage we’ve caused their citizenry and their sovereignty.

I am grateful to live in a nation which defends my right to express my views, however unpopular they may be.

Shoreline, Washington

By Lyrazel

July 5, 2005 07:17 AM | Link to this

We are not planning on leaving. We are planning on staying and establishing military/civilian bases in Iraq and surrounding areas to keep control of the region as American interests see fit. By securing Iraq we can have access to a large energy source and in this time when we are spending billions to fund this war—its ludicrous to think this is going to be over and the troops are heading home. The administration does not intend to leave and by the end of the Bush presidency the troops will be so entrenched in the region, like we were in Viet Nam we cant pull out for a long variety of reasons they will give.

Do you still keep up with the body counts? Wait until your son is over in Iraq in—5-11 years—you will.

By Van

July 5, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, okay, this explains our plan with our military/civilian(?) bases through out the world. We have military bases in Britain, Europe, and Asia “to keep control of the region as American interests see fit” - Wow, I did not think we were that good - We control the world!

By Mara

July 5, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

Hey Jim? Can you say “Downing Street Minutes”? Bush and his “Project for the New American Century” cabal had been gunning for Iraq long before 9/11. They just had to get the intel “fixed” around the premise that Iraq was a threat to our nation. Remember Cheney flat out saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and we knew where they were? Not only lying, but knowingly lying to advance the neo-con agenda of safety-by-aggression, or “pre-emptive war”, if you will. They knew Iraq wasn’t capable of WMD production since ‘98 when Clinton bombed them back to the stone age. Of course, all y’all criticized him for it at the time because he was simultaneously defending himself from right-wing witch hunters who hounded him until he made a mistake. To his critic, it was only to deflect form his domestic scandals. But, perhaps to some, a lie about having an affair is more egregious than a lie that sends young Americans to kill or die in the wrong country, against the wrong enemy.
As for Osama. Perhaps Clinton, unlike Bush, believes in the uniquely American ideal of innocent until proven guilty. To some it’s better to kill now and prove later. And if that “proof” turns out to be wrong…it was an “intel error”. Sorry. Personally, I think we should just stand up and say “We said we were going to depose Saddam. We did it. Here’s your country back along with a few billion dollars for repairs. Good luck to you. Adios.”

By E. Lewis

July 5, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this

Unfortunately, we have turned what was a despotic disciplined secular dictatorship, at one time backed and armed by the US, which was of NO immediate threat to us into a breeding ground for terrorists. Unfortunately, I don’t see us leaving until it becomes a political liability and the financial rewards are no longer there.

By Mark

July 5, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

You conserves are so ridiculous. I spent 21 years in the Air Force and believe me, one of the reasons I decided to retire was because I didn’t want any part of this mess in Iraq. I joined the military to defend our country in case of legitimate attacks. The war in Afganistan was legitimate, which I would have proudly served in. The war in Iraq is the biggest blunder this country has ever made.

To answer the question, we should slowly start pulling out right now. Insurgent attacks will decrease immediately. Bring home the boys at a rate of 1000 a month until they’re all home. The idiot-in-chief said there were 169,000 trained Iraqi security forces? Let them take over.

By Van

July 5, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

Mara, Why is it that the lefties believe the Downing Street Memos, but disbeleive the British report that Iraq may have been in the market for yellow cake from Africa. It seems the left will believe anything that paints the US in a bad light, but something that makes the US look good is discounted as fiction.

By Rick

July 5, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

We should track down and eliminate (kill or imprison) as many of the “insurgents” as we possibly can. We need to help Iraq secure its own borders, to keep as many terrorists & homicide bombers out as possible. We train Iraqi troops to take over for our troops so they can defend themselves.

Then - and not a moment sooner - should we pull our troops out to a hearty “well done.”

By Mara

July 5, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Van, we disbelieve the yellowcake story because it’s been discredited! You don’t see administration hacks on the morning shows pushing it anymore, do you? Of course not, because everyone knows it was bogus! While there are still questions about the Downing Street Minutes, remember that these only recently became public knowlege. Investigations continue to verify the facts, but so far they support what many of us contended from the beginning, that the “facts” were being manipulated, with Bushs’ War being the desired end. Like most of the Rabid Right, you seem to equate a servile pandering to Dear Leader as the epitome of patriotism. You ask why we believe bad things about American policy but discount the reports of the good? Y’know, your so good at parroting the Republican talking points that you could probably get a job a Fox News. Tell me, is it more important that the public knows we built 2 schools in Basra, or that several Iraqis, who may merely have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, were beaten while in American custody? Is it more important to know that we delivered 15000 gallons of water to thirsty Kurds, or that there are NO WMD’s? We have no difficulty believing that America has done a lot of good things, but neither do we have a hard time believing that Americans have also done some very bad things. It’s this reality based outlook that seems to offend you conservatives so much. If someone doesn’t see America and all-things-American as pure, shining, goodness then obviously they hate America. If someone can believe that an American soldier is a human being who, under stress, may act in an abusive manner toward those they see as “the enemy”, then obviously they don’t “support the troops”. It’s so hypocritical of you on the right demeaning those of us on the left who truly believe that the US should be held to a higher standard than terrorists and despots. We are supposed to be the shining example to the world.
Just because the left looks at our mistakes as intensly as our victories doesn’t mean that we “blame America first” as your partisan talking points put it. It just means that our views are based in reality, not whatever glowy diffused-light fantasy land that the Republicans live in.

By Scooter

July 5, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Mark,

You being retired military, I find it odd that you don’t feel that Saddam should have been required to live up to the cease-fire agreement his country signed after invading Kuwait. Help me to understand why you feel that Saddam should have been allowed to slide for more than twelve years, while in violation of some 14 U.N. (+/-, I lost track after ten) Resolutions? Perhaps I am ridiculious as you say but help me to see the light… please

By Van

July 5, 2005 05:27 PM | Link to this

Mara , Actually, those are not new and have been investigated by the 9/11 Committee, and others. Whether or not the yellow cake story is bogus or not, you must remember the President did say, the British believed it, not whether we did or not. As to the WMD question, I must repeat that Clintons intelligence data showed the same thing, He had WMD’s, not to mention the Sarin and Mustard gas artillery shells, long range rockets and questionable “dual use” items. Since the UN and Bill Vlinton thought there were WMD’s we can not hold the President lied to us, norw can we.

As for the rabid lefties out there, I keep hearing how bad the American soldier is, all the while the left is saying “We support the troops”. Make up your mind. I saw the same thing when I landed in Los Angeles, when I was discharged in ‘71. By demonizing the grunt, you are giving aid to the murdering scum in Iraq, the ones that bomb women and children because “We are there”. I guess it is okay to attack the civilians when you know you will wind up as road kill if you attack a military target. Where is YOUR outrage when a terrorist kills civilians? Where is your praise when an Iraqii helps stop a road side bomber. If a terrorist kills the villiage police, are you shocked? When a terrorist blows up a police station are you outraged? Or is it okay by you to stay silent and only berate the MP guarding these innocent young kids, picked up on the field of battle, armed and firing at the US troops.

There is room for dissent, there is room for protest, but, do it with the knowledge and conviction that you are in a small minority. Show your real support by donating time or money to the USO at the Atlanta airport, pick up a servicemans check at a restruant - Yes, be kind to a loney kid passing through or home for a two week visit with his family. It did not happen 30 years ago, so try and make a difference.

By mikej

July 5, 2005 09:11 PM | Link to this

The fact that the left can’t get around is that they were the ones that crucified Bush for supposedly ignoring intelligence about 9/11 and not acting on it, then crucifying him for acting upon much more available intel, not only from the CIA but other countries intel as well. Which is transparent to everyone that whatever Bush does, the left will complain and criticize, but only their own detriment. Their CNN Kool-Aid mustaches are revealed for all to see.

By Mara

July 6, 2005 07:14 AM | Link to this

Van, as usual, you totally twist the point. The difference is that Clinton looked at the same information and saw the caveats of “may”, “might” and “theoretically”. These same qualifiers were redacted by BushCo so that the “evidence” looked more certain than it was. As for the UN knowing that Hussein had WMDs…Hans Blix, who was the weapons inspector on the ground in Iraq, said that he was doubtful about the certainty of Iraqs WMDs. Mohamad ElBaradai, the director general of the IAEA found no evidence that Iraq had resumed it’s nuclear weapons production. Had Bush had the patience to wait out the inspections instead of arbitrarily choosing a day to invade, we would’ve known that before the war. Clinton looked at the evidence and, like the rest of the world, saw reasonable doubt. Bush looked at it and cherry-picked, if not outright manipulated, the facts to fit his needs. Actions which the 9/11 commission didn’t even deign to address. As for American soldiers,other than those leashing and stacking naked Iraqis, I haven’t heard anyone of my aquaintance give anything but praise to them. We reserve our best material for those responsible. Like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, oh yeah. Sanchez, Condi, Karpinksi…sure, we’ll dis ‘em. What you are missing is the point. We expect terrorists to behave atrociously. When they murder civilians, or set roadside bombs, or kidnap and behead mercenaries hired to protect the oil ministry…that’s what makes them terrorist and not freedom fighters! That doesn’t mean that we should look the other way when Americans act badly. There is no excuse for abuse, even if your side says the behavior was “no worse than fraternity hazing” (which is also frowned upon, by the way). Conservatives are fond of saying “love the sinner, hate the sin”. That’s what it’s all about. We respect the sacrifices that soldiers and their families have made, even as we mourn that those hardships have been unnecessary and pointless.
By the by…I do give to charities that help military families including Any Soldier, Inc. and Armed Forces Relief Trust. I also give to the IVAW (Iraq Vetrans Against the War) and Code Pink. The best way to support our soldiers is NOT to ask them to die for a lie. Bring ‘em home NOW!

By Scooter

July 6, 2005 08:12 AM | Link to this

The best way to support the cohesive unit of a fighting force (who largely support the president) is to tell them that their buddies died for a lie concocted in Texas. You anybody but Bush people do remember that Usama said America was a paper tiger and that is why we could be destroyed… right? Who do you think is playing to Usama’s advantage, the right or the left? Do you think an exit strategy plays to the hand of Usama? Do you know that Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat (not even in the Cincinnatti speech like Bookman purported)? You do know that under the “mission Accomplished” banner Bush said that we still had a hard struggle ahead of us, right… certainly you all read the transcripts rather than trust what the republicrat media machine told you? Certainly you know that Brittan still stands behind their yellow cake intelligence report? Further more, I know that you all know Unical’s pipeline was cancelled long before the invasion of Aghganistan. I absolutely believe that lies, disinformation, exaggerations and opinions have been fed to the public, it is the sources that we disagree on. It really doesn’t matter because I hope you continue to call conservatives stupid and using your little loaded phrases like BushCo and Blood for Oil etc… it has been working wonders since 1994 yeah. Maybe then we can have two legitimate parties in the libertarians and republicrats and the democrats can become the socialist party.

If we are seen in the Middle-East to have liberated a country from a vicious dictator and established a stable self sustaining bastion of freedom (by Middle-East standards) in the center of the region, do you think that will eventualy dry up the recruitment pool for the madrasas? Of course you don’t, because by know you and the media are to heavily vested in the return to the status-qou of “whacking moles”? Even though terrorism progressively got worse while we “whacked moles” you still feel that it is a valid and righteous strategy… don’t you?

After being a hard core punk rocker my entire life and leaning far far left I can no longer support a party who offers no plan except the same tired old depend on us for financial and economic equality. It took me a while but I finally realized the power that is associated with dependency and the party that seems so desperate to attain that power, through their expoitation of jealousy and animosity. This dog will never be a hater of the game that affords all individuals an opportunity to better their financial outlook.

See you in the pits!

By taboga

July 6, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this

To answer the question, we should slowly start pulling out right now. Insurgent attacks will decrease immediately

Hmmm…

So, in other words, if our soldiers were to leave and there be no U.S. soldiers left to be attacked - attacks on U.S. soldiers would decrease?

By Mara

July 6, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this

And Scooter…do you remember that Osama (or Usama, if you prefer) was centered in Afghanistan? A military action that ALL of us supported? Do you remember that? Too bad Osama bin Forgotten, eh? What was that phrase? Dead or Alive? And not too long after, what’d we hear? “I don’t know where he is. Nor â€â€? you know, I just don’t spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I….I truly am not that concerned about him.” to quote your hero, George Dubya. Had we invested our time, treasure and determination on Afghanistan instead of wasting it on a tin-plate dictator that we had contained for years and in no way threatened us, we’d likely have Bin Laden in custody and his terrorist network disabled. Instead he recruits in the dusty streets of Iraq.

By Antyler

July 6, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

So Jim, are you implying that Bush is exonerated from any wrong doing that took place in deciding to use pre-emptive force to invade Iraq because of faulty Intel? If so then I totally disagree.

Let’s recall the “document flap” that occured at CBS last year. The decision by CBS News to fire four staffers over the document flap is appropriate. And if CBS President Andrew Heyward was as involved in the story as Dan Rather seemed to suggest last fall, Heyward should resign as well.

But as concerned as I am about the integrity and credibility of any news organization, I am far more concerned about the credibility of the United States. And to that end, CBS seems to have shown far more courage and accountability than our own government.

You see, a group of defense department policy makers had their own sort of “document flap” in the case for war with Iraq.

Remember Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi opposition leader in exile who was paid millions of dollars by the Pentagon? He gave the civilian leaders at the Pentagon some documents that were allegedly from Iraqi scientists… documents that allegedly proved Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States. Chalabi also provided written testimony from Iraqis who claimed Saddam was close to completing a nuclear bomb.

Were the documents authenticated? Were the claims confirmed? The answer is “no.” Because to do that kind of fact checking might have undermined the story line. Sound familiar?

Unfortunately, the Pentagon’s document flap contributed to decisions that led to the loss of life… not just the loss of somebody’s reputation. But guess how many people in this administration have been fired, reprimanded, or forced to resign because of any of the mistakes made before, during, or after the invasion of Iraq? Try “zero.”

Again, when mistakes are made in collecting, analyzing, or reporting information… the people responsible should be held accountable. But that should apply across the board to everybody who speaks to the American public… and not just at CBS News.

Also, to Dan, what point are you trying to make in trotting out quotes from Bill Clinton and Al Gore concerning Saddam and WMD’s? If you are trying to preserve or protect Bush’s crediblity then you’re going about it in the wrong direction. Remember, Clinton was impeached for lying and it was reported in many right-wing news outlets that Al Gore claimed that he invented the Internet. So how is lumping Bush with the two of them helping your case?

By taboga

July 6, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

Was 9/11 just another Convenience Store robbery? All we have to do is catch OBL and bring him to justice for his crime? Wipe our hands clean, sit back and wait for the next terrorist group to kill or injure thousands – then search the world over for that culprit?

Why not take a comprehensive approach to combating terrorism as a whole – rather than responding to each incident as if someone just shot a store clerk?

Come to think of it – President Bush is taking that comprehensive approach. Maybe because terrorism does not begin and end with Osama Bin Laden?

By Van

July 6, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

Mara, So you did support the several Clinton bombings/cruise missle attacks of Iraq, Afganistan and Sudan, based on the same information that President Bush had. While these attacks were done by large area type weapons that produced more civilian casuallties, instead of armed forces against armed terrorist, I guess you were okay with that?

By Scooter

July 6, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

Mara and/or anybody else,

Well absolutely I remember that Usama been forgotten (gotta good ring to it, where did you get it, cause we know) was in Afghanistan and most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia but moved away. I further understand that all of the “anybody but Bush� crowd agrees with whacking moles, I think I said something like that. The Usama been forgotten catch phrase came out during the presidential elections, I know because I was objectively listening to both sides and reading transcripts. The only problem with that argument was that we arrested Khalid Sheik Muhammad (remember the stretched out T-shirt in the photo) while our troops were fighting their way to Baghdad and have continuously captured one after the other of, Al-Quieda while also busting up the A Q Kahn network and Libya hopefully is now honest. Computer systems captured and full of info, Al-Quieda members captured one after the other and all you want to do is turn Usama into a Martyr, doesn’t make much sense to the objective mind.

To another interesting argument of yours, here I’ll cut and paste; “Had we invested our time, treasure and determination on Afghanistan instead of wasting it on a tin-plate dictator that we had contained for years and in no way threatened us, we’d likely have Bin Laden in custody and his terrorist network disabled.� So your argument is that we could have done more in incapacitating Al-Quieda had we not been so tied up in Iraq and that Saddam was no threat because the U.N. Oil for Food program had him confined. Just in case you can read through this link and itemize all of the points that make you feel so secure that Saddam was contained. Further more, you say that we should not have wasted our time on a tin-pot dictator, well that means that we should have let that same dictator continue to spit in the face of U.N. Resolutions. Sorry but I think that U.N. Resolutions have to mean something if we are to win this war on terrorism, call me ridiculous if you want. Answer me this one simple question; if we capture or kill Usama tomorrow, would that be along term solution to terrorism?

And please for the love of your god would you refrain from saying that this republicrat is my hero, this war and economic/financial liberty are the main things that I agree with him on.

By Scooter

July 6, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

Tobago, you beat me to it, but just barely. I think that terrorists are bread in the hopelessness and despair that is brought on by the tyranical dictators of the region. Then the Madrasas of the region convert that despair into hope of a better life in martyrdom, by killing infidels or Jews in the case of Saddam’s payouts to Palestinians (you are either with us or with the terrorists, remember Mara).

But really it is almost a waist of time to go through this circular argument with people who don’t want to objectively research and think for themselves. People on both sides have become too vested in their positions, but fortunately the Commander and chief is on the right track for a long term war, rather that whackin moles.

By Antyler

July 6, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

Taboga, I agree terrorism is a serious security threat that demands a long-term and comprehensive response.

However, Bush’s global war on terror is ill-conceived, poorly executed and lacking in balance and perspective. Ending that war is the first step toward building a more effective response to terrorism. In August 2004, President Bush made a revealing comment, arguing that “we can’t win the war on terrorism.”

His instincts were right - but for the wrong reasons. A “global war on terror” is, by its nature, unwinnable.

We must understand that terrorism is a strategy, a tactic, used by states and non-state groups alike to advance political goals and objectives. Declaring a war on terrorism is as if President Franklin Roosevelt had declared a war on blitzkrieg.

Thus, if terrorism is a tactic in the service of political objectives, a successful strategy must address its political roots.

The White House has yet to define clearly what constitutes a terrorist organization. The failure to do so has increasingly contributed to the administration’s limited success in making America and the world a safer place. Filling the gap, individuals and groups are adopting their own definitions of terrorism with worrying, potentially disastrous results.

The most recent report from the administration’s report on the Patterns of Global Terrorism lists 76 organizations as either “Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations� or “Other Terrorist Groups.� Of the total, only 36, less than half, are Islamic in orientation and membership. The remaining 40 groups, 53% of the total, have nothing to do with Islam. Examples of the latter are the Cambodian Freedom Fighters, Irish Republican Army, and Peru’s Sendero Luminoso.

Equally important, of the 36 organizations that are Islamic in orientation and membership, 29 of them—or 80%—are country-specific. Examples are the Abu Sayyaf Group, Muslim separatists long active in the Philippines, and the Armed Islamic Group, seeking to establish a Muslim state in Algeria. At least six of the organizations in this category are focused on the India-Pakistan struggle for Kashmir, and another three are Chechen separatist groups. Five of the organizations are trying to coerce the Israeli government into changing its policies and vacating Palestinian territories.

In short, while most of the 29 country-specific Islamic groups employ religion in support of their agenda, their goal is to persuade established governments to make significant political and territorial concessions. Moreover, while many of these groups sympathize with al-Qaida, area specialists agree that almost none of them appear to have command-and-control ties with the Osama bin Laden organization.

By Scooter

July 6, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Antyler,

Terrorist offer no political startegy other than conquer and rule theocratically with an iron fist while favoring the secular few and dominating the rest. In order for them to do this I think they have to have a common enemy, like Germany and the Jews, and that enemy is the western infidels. Because we subtly manipulated the Middle-East while we were trying to stop the violent spread of communism. So, we are seen as the imperialistic occupiers and this view is aided by Bush’s Crusade comment and many people’s comments in this country. However, i can’t help but think that if we can change the “view on the Middle-Easten street” to one of liberators rather than imperialist, that can only help dry up the recruitment pool for terorist. Obviously this is long term adn certainly the Iraqi elections helped the cause. Further American sacrifice and security actions will help to solidify a new view of America in the Middle-Eastern mind.

Bush’s statement about not being able to officialy win the war on terrorism was in the context of these people will never sign some sort of peace accord or cease-fire agreement (like they mean anything to some people). Kerry agreed, but really reading the transcripts of stuff that the media cherry picks will certainly help this nation become less divided.

By Van

July 6, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Antyler, you said “Declaring a war on terrorism is as if President Franklin Roosevelt had declared a war on blitzkrieg.” Close but no cigar, I like the use of Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates. The Pirates were a no-state group of thugs that preyed on shipping in the Mediteranean, and were based in several countries in that region.

As to what is a terrorist, is that so hard to define. For myself, a terrorist is someone that doesn’t care if civilians are killed to make their point. It also has the threat of dictatorship.

The old myth that one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter is just that a myth with no bases in fact or truth.

Using this logic, one might make the case that FDR was a terrorist with the mass bombing of Germany and Japan - or maybe not -

By taboga

July 7, 2005 08:18 AM | Link to this

The war is being fought on the other side of the world.

The war is being fought only by those who volunteer to do so.

No American citizen is required to participate in the war.

No American citizen is required to sacrifice anything for the war.

U.S. Troops don’t have to comb thousands of miles of terrain looking for Jihadists - they are coming to us in Iraq.

A brutal regime has been removed from power in Afghanistan.

A brutal regime has been removed from power in Iraq.

And…

There has been no terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11.

And yet somehow, there are people bound and determined that the Bush Administration has gone about this the wrong way? This effort is a failure…?

By kimberly

July 7, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

What do those magnets that say “support the troops” really mean? We should all applaud whatever the President says without question? How does that help? How do the magnets help? If you have loved ones over there, you support them in personal ways. The rest of us can either put magnets on our cars and applaud like sheep, or we can send letters and cards, and collect stuff for the care packages that the VFW and other approved groups can send to non-specific soldiers. I cried and prayed over the BB King Christmas CD and other stuff I sent for the holidays. I prayed for their safety, and that my tiny, stupid little gifts, like small picture calendars, playing cards and CDs, might lift a heart, and let them know the people back home DO care. But what good does that do them really, when they are under-equipped and have no exit strategy? I write my congressmen, and am ingored. How ELSE can I support the troops? I’m sorry, but I think putting pressure on the government to BRING THEM HOME and back to their lives and loved ones is the best thing I can do FOR THE TROOPS!

I’m not interested in supporting Halliburton’s corporate initiatives. Why are YOU?

By taboga

July 8, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this

Kimberly,

Our troops are not under-equipped. They are the most heavily equipped military force in the history of the world.

We have an exit strategy. The exit strategy was around even before Julius Caesar employed it: Win the war and come home when the job is done. No victorious army has ever had a different one.

And why are you determined to bring the troops home? They volunteered to be over there. They believe in what they are doing. They don’t want to pull out and leave the job unfinished. They don’t want the lives of their fellow soldiers to have meant nothing by abandoning the cause that they gave their lives for.

If you really want to “support the troops” — quit trying to impede everything they are trying to do!

They are not even asking for your help, but would be satisifed if you would just stay out of the way so that they can ultimately defeat the very people who want nothing more than to destroy you, your family and your whole way of life!

SUPPORT THE TROOPS!

By Mark

July 8, 2005 09:31 AM | Link to this

Taboga

We military veterans don’t volunteer to be sent anywhere. We get sent where we’re told to go. We volunteered to protect our country from legitimate enemies who threaten us, not paper tigers like Saddam.

You know what the sad part about all this is, England stood side-by side with us and look what happened ANYWAY. We can’t stop them!

The barometer for measuring the correct decision is to see what happens in Spain for the next decade. They got out, no more terrorist attacks.

The Repubs like to make the point that there have been no attacks on our soil since Sept 11. Big deal! They’re coming, you just wait and see. It may take five or ten years but we’ll get hit again.

By Antyler

July 8, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

Van, but unlike today’s “terrorists” there was/is no disbuting exactly who the “Barbary Pirates” were.

In defining what a terrorist is, the answer is definitely a difficult task. An example of this can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listofterrorist_groups

If the goal of the Gloabal War on Terrorism is to eradicate all terrorist organizations across the globe, will the US use military force as the means to do so? If so then how can anyone rationally conclude that we can win the war against terrorism?

You make an excellent point by bringing up the FDR mass bombing of Japan and Germany. As to whether it was an act of state terrorism depends on who you ask. Here is a link that address the controversial concept of “state terrorism.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism

It’s irrelevant as to whether “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is on truth or simply a myth. It’s the fact that many people believe it to be true that gives it it’s accord and to those who believe in it, it’s validation.

By Antyler

July 8, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

Taboga, So the success of the global war on terrorism is based on there being no more attacks on US soil? The fact that al Queda has planned successful attacks outside of the US since 9/11 in various other countries and are the leading suspects in this weeks horrific bombings in London actually proves the case — war does not eradicate terrorism. We should reasonably ask for an inquiry into why two colossally expensive and destructive wars were fought by the West yet left unscathed the architect of all this woe. But instead you base success on the fact that there have been no new attacks on US soil. I don’t see the logic here.

By Scooter

July 8, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

I am absolutely sure that you support the troops in your way, which is to keep them out of harms way and that is admirable. But, I hope that you understand that the soldiers have to believe in the mission even if you do not. A narrow majority of America Supports the mission and the large majority of the troops do as well. So I wish that you, the media and some Democrats, would understand that people are dying for what they believe in. Furthermore, it is counterproductive to tell them that their buddy’s and comrades are dying for a mistake, oil, Halliburton, “the wrong war wrong place wrong time” or any of the other criticisms that have been thrown lately.

We also need to take into account our past with the Iraqi’s and the Middle-East as a whole. However, when doing this accounting we cannot loose track of our past efforts to stop the violent spread of communism and dependency. But to our past with Iraq, Bush’s dady told the Kurds in 1991 that if they invaded Baghdad we would sopport them from the air, this was all after Desert Storm. Then Pappa Bush got “wobbly” and let the Kurds get slaughtered in the northern mountains of Iraq.

Now if we set an exit strategy what would prevent the terrorists from waiting out and slaughtering more Iraqi’s after another failed promise from the U.S. and how would that effect terrorost recruitments? We have to stick this out together to gain some sort of credibility in the region and help the Middle-East understand that we are liberators not imperialist. We have our land and don’t need anymore. Also, combat is largely about the art of surprise and to offer any plan to the enemy is an act of self defeatism, those politicians that are calling for one know this, but politics rules the day for them.

Please research the Halliburton issue for yourself, don’t simply rely on what anybody tells you. How many companies in the world are equiped to handle such a large task in a combat zone and which one of those would you rather have had do the work? Hopefully your research will lead you to the discovery that Dyncorp Corporation is really the only service large enough to handle such a difficult contract. What contractors have been hired in the past under the LOGCAP contract awarding from the military? Unfortunately this is not a perfect world and people generally have their best interest in mind, for whatever reason

By taboga

July 8, 2005 05:19 PM | Link to this

Antyler,

A man has made a financial mess of his life. He’s in debt to the fullest. Many of his credit cards and other bills are delinquent and he has little to no money in savings. His terrible financial situation is an accumulation of total neglect for a good number of years.

He goes to dinner with friends one evening. He tries to pay his bill and his credit card is rejected. He has no other money and his friends have to bail him out. His fiancial neglect has come home to roost and he is now totally embarrassed and humiliated.

He gets home and decides that that was his wakeup call - and he’s now going to get his financial situation straightened out…

…Would you suggest that he only focus on the one credit card that caused him the embarrassment, or would you suggest that he come up with a comprehensive plan to get his entire financial situation in order? He could just focus on the one thing that caused him the one problem on that one particular night, but if he doesn’t resolve the overall problem - he’ll be right back in the same mess over and over again.

After decades of neglecting the ever-increasing problems with terrorism in the Middle East - 9/11 brought it all home to us. We now have to deal with the threat of terrorism in its entirety. We are not going to just go after the one man, the one terrorist organization that was responsible for one event. We have set out to deal with the overall problem of terrorism in the Middle East. We are not going to go around and around like a cat chasing its tail, trying to hunt down terrorists after every attack - only to wait until the next one and start all over again.

The “link” to 9/11 that President Bush continually cites as a reason for our actions in Iraq, is NOT the link between Saddam and Al Qaeada. He is NOT saying that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 either. He is simply saying, that as a result of 9/11, we have now set out to combat the overall threat of terrorism. And Iraq is but just a part of that. OBL is not THE war on terror. Iraq is not THE war on terror. Afghanistan is not THE war on terror. They are ALL a part of the overall war on terror.

By mikej

July 8, 2005 11:40 PM | Link to this

Mark, You seem to think that if we do nothing then we won’t be attacked? If that is so, why were we attacked on 9/11? The planning for it started in 1996, were we at war with anyone at that time or viewed by other countries and Democrats as “bullies”? No we weren’t. These people hate us and want to destroy us, regardless of political affiliation, and whether we are trying to stop terrorism by going to war or not, they will still come after us, and nothing will stop them from trying.

By Carlton Wyatt

July 9, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

It is NOT unpatriotic to dissent. It is NOT a “slap in the face” to the troops to question the Bush administration. It is NOT “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” to hold the Bush administration accountable for all its actions. It is NOT “treasonous” to ponder the remarkable coincidences that have benefited Bush and his supporters.

By Antyler

July 9, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

Taboga,

So it seems that you are working from the stand-point that the global war on terror is about confronting terrorist groups and the nations that harbor them. With terrorist states and groups in countries like Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine, the Philippines, North Africa and Saudi Arabia (just to name a few), will the US use military force in all of the countries that harbor terrorist organizations?

IF so, then we will be involved in an unending war fighting a poorly defined enemy and spending billions and billions of dollars and to date we have seen no real progress in eradicating terrorism. What we have is a recipe for failure.

Of course you have only mentioned Middle Eastern terrorist groups and countries which doesn’t represent what you defined as the “overall” threat of terrorism.

Combating terrorism requires looking beyond any one terrorist event�or g;obal region�to address the broader socioeconomic, political, and military contexts from which international terrorism emerges. Because terrorism is a particular kind of violent act aimed at achieving a political objective, a preventive strategy must address its political roots. However it is true that the US policy must recognize a distinction between international terrorism in general and the specific threat posed by al-Qaida and other extremist Islamist movements, so as not to be perceived as waging a war on Islam. Addressing root causes is one way of insuring that terrorist group efforts to mobilize support meet as inhospitable a social, economic, and political climate as possible.

As long as al-Qaeda is on the loose � with half the Islamic world regarding bin Laden as a liberation hero � the West is at risk of continued attack as this weeks bmbings in London suggests. All the bombs and missiles in the world have not lifted that threat, and apparently not even diminished it.

By taboga

July 11, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

Antyler,

We’ve looked at the “socio-economic” conditions for decades. Terrorists kept multiplying. We’ve looked into Military “contexts” as well as numerous others. Terrorists continued to grow.

We’ve done more studies, written more papers, held more summits, meetings and conferences - than anyone would care to remember. And after that, politicians and diplomats posed for pictures, shook hands, made speeches and patted each other on the back for all their so-called accomplishments. The terrorists though - never skipped a beat. They steadily increased in size and number.

And so now, post 9/11 - you suggest we do more studies? And what would our “socio-economic” findings be, ya think? You must obviously have an opinion, otherwise you wouldn’t blame all of this on “socio-economic” conditions, right?

So what are the conditions and what is the solution? A precise solution.