The answers Cheney - and others - will not like.

"those who advocate a sudden withdrawal from Iraq should answer a few simple questions" (Cheney)

The supporters of the war had a lot to say about what they were going to do once they had control of Iraq. It was to become the shining example of democracy and free market principles that would be an example to the rest of the Middle East.

Those that are against the occupation however seem to me to have an equally fantastical and farcical idea of what will happen if they got their way and the coalition troops were removed. Iraq would settle down and become a free democratic country of peace and harmony.

Yes there are those that warn of the consequences of an impromptu withdrawal, but on the whole most are the gleeful ranting of right wingers, predicting everything from civil war to Osama Bin Laden being the next president of Iraq.

If there was one lesson that Americans should lean from their foreign policy history is that actions have consequences.

If the US had never fallen for the fantasy of the ‘domino effect’ and had therefore never become involved in Vietnam it is likely that a tragedy could have been diverted. If their had been debate and not hysteria maybe the situation could have been averted. In Vietnam the question wasn’t communism it was Vietnamese independence, it should not have been about ‘defeating’ communism but giving independence.

The US had worked with Ho Chi Minh to fight the Japanese and could have continued to do so but by going against him and Vietnamese independence by preferring to supporting the French and then puppet governments they lost the possibility of truly helping the Vietnamese people and pushed Ho into collaboration with the Soviets.

The consequences of their action caused tragedy. But for whom were the consequences worse? While the Vietnam war did have a great impact on the US, America didn’t have foreign troops in occupation, was never carpet bombed, it lost roughly only 60,000 people to Vietnamese deaths of around 1.5 million, and US farmers didn’t still lose limbs to unexploded bombs 20 years later.

Many Americans again fell for a fantasy about Iraq again without much of a debate. It would seem the Bush admin is intent on continuing the fantasy that somehow they went to Iraq to save the world from al qaeda by claiming that only the continued presence of US forces is stopping al qeada from ruling Iraq. To quote Cheney "those who advocate a sudden withdrawal from Iraq should answer a few simple questions: Would the United States and other free nations be better off, or worse off, with Zarqawi, bin Laden, and Zawahiri in control of Iraq? Would we be safer, or less safe, with Iraq ruled by men intent on the destruction of our country?"

What Mr Cheney is not saying here is that al qeada had no presence in Iraq until the US forces got there, in fact Saddam and Osama were hated enemies. So if the US hadn’t invaded or had gone about things differently they wouldn’t have had to worry about an al qeada controlled Iraq. But what the VP is involved in is a bit of misdirection, as in Afghanistan the jihadists are mainly foreign fighters drawn to the place to ‘defend’ Islam, they were in the main separate from the resident insurgents both physically and structurally. In Afghanistan they were drawn to defend Islam form the Soviets they are now drawn to Iraq to defend Islam from the ‘crusaders’. If the coalition troops had not been there they might never have come, they may in fact never have decided to fight against the ‘great Satan’.

By invading in they way they did for the reasons they did limited the US’s possibilities in acting on behave of the Iraqi people.

So on to the Cheney’s next point, would in fact al qaeda take over the control of Iraq if US forces were pulled out? Well it is unlikely, even in Afghanistan al qeada never took over the country the taliban did that and they only achieved it after the place had been well and truly screwed up by the Warlords to the point where I believe it was officially the poorest country in the world. In such a world Osama’s millions had a lot of pull.

Now it is possible that Iraq could descend into destructive factionalism and warlordism allowing al qaeda a place to operate in away from western interference. Cheney’s solution is to keep US forces in Iraq until US interests are secured. It didn’t work in Vietnam and it is not going to work in Iraq. In fact the US government and its forces on the ground increase the likelihood of an anarchic Iraq the longer they try to uphold what they see as their interests.

In Vietnam the question wasn’t communism it was Vietnamese independence, it should not have been about ‘defeating’ communism but giving independence. In Iraq it wasn’t about bring terrorists down or toppling Saddam or about setting Iraq up as a US base of operations but about what to do with a divided country in region with no great love for the US?

In both cases the presence of US troops was a provocation and a hindrance to any favourable outcome.

So should they just leave?

Well as hinted at that is where the difference between Vietnam and Iraq and the answers to their particular questions greatly differ.

In Vietnam there was an organised and popular independence movement dedicated to throwing out the ‘imperialists’ and their puppet government, once US forces were removed they had the power and organisation to bring unity. In Iraq because it is not made up of one ethical group and also due to the long years of Saddam’s rule there is no single organisation with the ability to bring unity. The invasion was the worse way to settle that situation and their continued presence is making the situation worse. But their removal is likely to lead to factionalism if not handled carefully.

In Vietnam US troops shouldn’t have been their but their withdrawal allowed the country to unite in Iraq US troops shouldn’t stay but their removal could lead to partition.

As pointed out the consequences of the Vietnam war were greater for the Vietnamese than the Americans and the dominoes never fell. The brunt of the consequences of the Iraq war is felt by Iraqis for every American who dies there are hundred even a thousand of Iraqis deaths. Those that supported the war caused that to happen, those that continue to support the occupation must share the guilt and those that support ‘cut and run’ willing have to accept the deaths that come about due to that policy.

 

Well Skip you should see the kind of crap arguments that are being produced on the other side like this from the former press secretary to Newt Gingrich and Washington Times pundit Tony Blankley


“Little good comes when Congress grabs control of American foreign policy and war-fighting strategies from the hands of a scandal-weakened White House. Of course it is always possible that there are 51 forward-leaning, shrewd, patriotic, non-partisan senators assembled to make the tough, unpopular call to push on for victory, no matter how hard and long the struggle. (Giggle.) But it is vastly more likely that less noble instincts beat in the breasts of the several senators assembled.
Monday, for the first time, the foul odor of the Vietnam War denouement wafted through the Senate Chamber during the debate on Iraq. The Democrats called for "estimated dates for the phased redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq … " Phased redeployment was the maneuver the French executed in June 1940, in the days preceding the German occupation of Paris. Phased redeployment is what the Vietnamese boat people did as they swam for their lives away from their homeland.
The Republican Senate leadership, sensing they might lose enough Republican senators (six or more) to let the Democratic amendment pass, decided to quibble with rather than oppose the infamous document.
So they scratched out the explicit timeline to desertion and added fine sounding phrases, such as calling for the president to provide more information and a schedule for reaching full Iraqi sovereignty.
No bureaucratic euphemism can cleanse the air of the stench of defeatism.
To figure out where this is all leading, look to the intents of the moving parties, not merely the malleable words being used by them. The Democratic senators, who are the vital, winning force in the Senate on this matter, are opposed to the Iraqi war for either principled or unprincipled reasons -- depending on the senator. Some, probably many, simply want to humiliate President Bush by denying him success -- and then reap the electoral bonanza that will likely follow. I'm sure there are some senators who sincerely believe retreat and defeat is in the best interest of our country. But principled or unprincipled, their objective is the same: Getting out of Iraq is more important to them, than staying and succeeding.
The Republican senators either no longer believe in the mission, or fear an unhappy electorate more than they fear the consequences of failure in Iraq. In all events -- whether disillusioned or cynical or principled, whether Republican or Democratic -- the majority of senators who are pushing for this want to get us out of Iraq more than they want us to succeed. Pay no attention to the words. Look to the character of the players. The infamous summer soldiers and sunshine patriots are forming a majority on the floor of the Senate -- and national defeat and disgrace may soon, and again, find its moment.
It was 30 years ago when Congress last took the reins of national war fighting. In August 1974, Nixon had been scandalized and left office. The November 1974 election brought forth the "Watergate babies" congress filled with young anti-war Democrats. One of the first actions of the Watergate Congress was to vote to deny an appropriation of $800 million to pay for South Vietnamese military aid, including ammunition and spare parts. Historical records now are known that reveal that five weeks after that vote, the North Vietnamese started planning their final offensive. The morale of the South Vietnamese was broken by that symbolic Congressional act of betrayal. The actual dollar cuts forced South Vietnamese President Thieu to abandon the Central Highland in March of 1975, leading to the collapse of our ally and the onset of genocide and police state brutalities that killed more Asians than all the thousand days of the war did.
Now the Watergate babies have grown old -- and age has not improved them. They plan to finish their careers as they started them -- in defeatism, betrayal and national dishonor. Oh, that America might see the last of these fish-eyed sacks of loathsome bile and infamy: Unwholesome in their birth; repugnant and stench-forming in their decline.
Now another Republican president has grown weak and struggles to hold on to his war-making powers. I am heartened that President Bush is finally fighting back. He should veto any bill that would grant Congress even a syllable of war-fighting strategy. Mr. President, don't believe a word of their legislative prose. They have defeat in their hearts, and they mean you ill. Stand and fight with veto pen and executive order in hand. Rally with defiant words those of us who would yet be your honored supporters. Let the long suffering people of Iraq know that you will fight furiously for their redemption, and will be deaf to the impleadings of the weak and defeatist here in America.
Two national betrayals in 20 years is too much for the heart of the nation to take. Send more troops, not less. Victory may yet be ours.”
Printed by the Washington times and townhall.com

 

Tony is disgorging a big heap of BS.

To begin it tries - yet again - to perpetuate that myth put around by right winger revisionists, that the US could have ‘won’ the Vietnam War if it just hadn’t been for the lilly livered ‘liberals’.

The thing is by November 1974 which Tony says was “when Congress last took the reins of national war fighting” the Vietnam War had been officially over for nearly TWO years, since January of 73 and by the March that year Nixon had already withdrawn all but a handful of US combat troops from South Vietnam.

The thing is by 70 virtually all the sane people who had studied the Vietnam War thought it unwinnable by the US or that the South Vietnamese government was viable or saveable in the long term. It should be remembered that President Thieu was not the head of a popular or democratic government. He had risen to power after being part of the US sponsored military coup that had toppled President Diem in 63 and he was widely seen by many Vietnamese as a US puppet.

As I’ve pointed out the US had lost the war from the virtual outset because they hadn’t understood the situation and were seeing it purely from the perspective of what they believed were US interests. They saw a country ‘turning communist’ and set out to ‘save’ it. However they didn’t take into account the aspirations of the Vietnamese people and their desire for Independence, they saw the US ‘saving’ as just another imperialist power wanting to tell them what to do. If the US had from the beginning negotiated with Ho (who greatly admired the US) and help with Vietnamese independence they would have been in a lot better position to help the Vietnamese people.

The neo-con faction within the US government saw the ‘incorporation’ of Iraq as advantageous to the US’s long term strategic interests. In other words they saw it as a perfect base from which to dominate the Middle East. But like the US anti-Communist strategists of yesteryear they forgot to take into account the aspirations of the people of the region they were invading.

**

Tony talks of “national dishonor” but to me it is the neo-cons that acted dishonourably, they cynically used the death of some 3000 of their fellow citizens murder to push their own personal agenda, the invasion of Iraq. Where most people saw tragedy they saw opportunity and they manipulated the American peoples anger to their own ends.

That is dishonor

**

So Tony’s argument is deeply flawed because it is based not on reality but a myth. I mean faced with the reality just what is Tony’s argument? That Bush should act like Nixon and withdraw the troops? That Bush shouldn’t act like a democratic leader and unconditionally commit the US to an unpopular policy that is so obviously not working?

 

Well written Skip and Balbus, very well written. I wonder if Bush is gonna make another surprise Thanksgiving visit (aka publicity stunt) like he did in '03. If I remember correctly Bush spent last Thanksgiving with King Juan Carlos of Spain while the Clintons carried on their Thanksgiving Tradition of helping serve dinner at a homeless shelter.


That Tony Blankley guy must be smoking some pretty strong crack.

One thing I'm thankful for this year is that I'm too old to get drafted.

 

Al Qaeda is NOT the enemy.

Al Qaeda is the reaction of a victimized people attempting to liberate themselves from the same foriegn policy that holds us and our children hostage.

Hostages to a foriegn policy that, from its very foundation, has been the exclusive policy of property, by property, and for property; of business, by business, and for business; of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

That's the only reason America exists.

That's the America Mr Bush says, will never retreat from the world.

That's the enemy.

The old Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Smedley Buttler once said; that for his entire Marine Corps career he was a paid thug and muscle for American overseas business.

He would know, he hunted-down and killed many a third-world freedom-fighter.

The people of the Middle East will never stop fighting Anglo-American domination.

They've been fighting us in Iraq since we replaced the Turks in 1918.

That's what brought Saddam's Bathist Party to power; their promise of liberating Iraq from Anglo-American domination.

The profiteers of Anglo-American domination created Al Qaeda; created today's militant Islam, just as it had created yesterday's Bathist Arab Nationalists.

As long as our government is a millionairs club, we, the Middle East and the whole world will remain hostage to this perverted foriegn policy.

 

their all crooks making dirty deals at night in the dark when no one can see them

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

 

“I have repeated this several times on the forums here but there is a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.”

This has been brought up several times on the forum but after reviewing the ‘evidence’ it seems to me (so far) to be even weaker and inconclusive as that put forward for Saddams WMD’s stockpiles. I came to the conclusion that it was a matter of belief based in bias, that some people wished to accept it uncritically because that is what they wanted to believe.

There are a couple of things that seem to back up my viewpoint, one is the relatively small amount of people that continue to believe in it and the other is the fact that the Bush admin has not been pointing to it at every opportunity.

So if someone has solid, verified and incontrovertible proof that Saddam and al qeada worked together I’d like to see it but please don’t embarrass us, and yourself, by trying to feed us yet another diet of hearsay, innuendo and supposition.

And please would you put it in a new threat, thanks.

 

One of the major problems with right wing revisionists like Tony is that they try to hide the true lessons of history from the American people.

To me what the Vietnamese and Iraqi conflicts have in common is a lack of true debate before the US became committed and an inability to understand what went wrong.

For example most Americans thought Ho Chin Minh was a hated communist and they were going to save grateful Vietnamese from his grasp. What they didn’t know was that the US didn’t hold the unification elections that would have united Southern and Northern Vietnam because they knew Ho would have won.

Come forward and at the time of the Iraqi invasion polls indicated that most Americans thought that Saddam was in someway behind 9/11.

On these forum supports of the neo-con invasion put forward their arguments and none really stood up to scrutiny. They were either damn right wrong, or based on false premises or overly optimistic scenarios.

In the end it came down to them telling us to wait and see, well time has passed and I see very, very few of them here.

The problem is that t think many of them think the purposeful misdirection of purpose and manipulation of evidence would not have had so much import if the war had gone well. In other words they think that they were not that important.

This is like saying that in the debate over the US’s Vietnam policy the Vietnamese desire for independence and Ho’s popularity wasn’t important and therefore could be lied about or dismissed. The thing is that that issue was the thing that lost the US the war.

I think the only way that the US is going to come out of this with any honour is by coming to terms with the fact they screwed up and examining why.

 

Read this description of an Al Qaeda statement:

How does the murder of a UN representative as punishment for allowing East Timor to become free have anything at all to do with "victimised people liberating themselves"? How was supporting the burkha clad women executing, ancient Buddha destroying, ethnic cleansing totalitarian Taliban regime "fighting Anglo-American occupation"?

It makes no sense, because that's not the real reason you grovel before terrorists. It is your LATENT HOMOSEXUALITY, your desire to BEND OVER for violent muslims whom you have a RACIST HOMOSEXUAL ETHNIC FETISH. This also explains why you are subconsciously compelled to spell Smedley Butler with two t's. And the shit logic you use to cover it up comes from reserves of excrement created by ANAL RETENTIVENESS.

 

Please Ina, stop trying to parade an already discredited notion as fact. There was no state link between Hussein's gov and Al Qaeda, no more than the other myths propagated by an administration repeatedly exposed for its lies have any basis in fact.

Pull your head out of the military propaganda machine and recognise the claims for the MIC lies they are. Time you actually bothered to study the Pentagon Papers rather than mocking them and their telling contents. The same modus operandi has continued to the present.

Only a total dupe refuses to see through it.

 

The intelligence community itself has long declared that the case was trumped up. Obviously you've not bothered to pay attention. Wishing it to be so to justify your militant beliefs is intellectually slothful and dishonest.

http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/111903.aspx

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/10/1055010937064.html

http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0402zarqawi_body.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12875384^1702,00.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EK21Ak01.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9831216/site/newsweek

One truly wonders how many more lies from exposed liars you will continue to cling to before you awaken to the fact that the real enemies of America are resident in Washington DC and running the nation into the ground.

Hint: Emmanuel Goldstein by any other name is still nothing more than war-justifying propaganda. Get a clue for crying out loud!

 

Sad child. You think I hang on your every word. LOL!

Off to bed, enough your tiresome gullibility. You truly are the perfect brainwashed soldier.

 

The insanity of the reactionary mind is symptomatic of a people under deep psychological stress.

As long as the foriegn policy of our Anglo-American Condominium continues to take advantage of their repressed Patriarchal culture, we should expect the peoples of the Middle East to continue to slide deeper into the insanity of the reactionary mind.

We can NOT help the peoples of the Middle East untill we cure the pathologies of our own repressed Patriarchal culture.

We are NOT part of the solution, we are unfortunately part of the problem.

Your are wise to seek the psycho-sexual roots that motivate human behavior.

Religion, race, class, are all sensitive channels for repressed psycho-sexual energy.

Belittle another's racial, class or religious culture and we belittle their sexual identity.

That's why sexually repressed Civilized Man compensates for the inadequacy of his male sexual identity by a preoccupation with dominating and belittling other men.

And why men, who feel threatened with domination, become extreme reactionaries.

The desire to dominate and control others is a symptom of latent homo-sexuality.

This perverse desire of our sexual inadequacy will continue to motivate our interactions until we conquer our effeminate fears, and cease to behave like women seeking the security and authority of a repressed Civilization.

 

Oviously, Ina, you live in a state of permanent denial and delusion clinging desperately to the propaganda of militant ideologues. Incapable of comrpehending "trumped up"? Seems so.

When numerous intelligence agencies have declared the claims to be politically motivated hogwash, its time for tiny minds such yours to let go and admit you were duped.

Once again, do yourself and our nation a real service and recognise that the real enemies of state are our own present leaders and their appointed Pentagon cronies.

No Zarqawi boogeyman involved.

 

Ina

I said that the evidence I’d seen so far to ‘prove’ that Saddam and al qeada worked together was in my opinion very weak and so inconclusive as to be no real proof at all, that for me it didn’t stand up to scrutiny. However if you have what you believe to be solid, verifiable and incontrovertible proof of such a link then I’m happy to look at it, but that doesn’t mean I’m just going to accept it uncritically.

However what you seem to be doing is demanding we accept you viewpoint on evidence that you are unwilling to produce because we might not believe it?

Does that seem a reasonable position to you?

I mean if someone stepped forward, and say, claimed to have discovered intelligent extraterrestrial life, would you accept his viewpoint without question or ask for his proof. If he refused to give the evidence because he thought “that you do not want to believe it” would that convince you he was right? What if he then said he “cannot provide it”, would that make you even more sure of his claims?


**

Actually Ina I’m so glad for your reply because it seems to exemplify one of the major points raised in this thread.

It seems to me that many Americans are unwilling to put forward their viewpoints so they can be openly debated and put under scrutiny and when they do some seem to have a total inability to learn form the process.

This can lead to a chevalier disregard for rational thought. The strength or weakness of an argument or evidence becomes virtually irrelevant next to the belief in the conclusion they believe in.

For example those that believe al qeada and Saddam worked together seems to be putting forward the argument that it doesn’t matter if the evidence for a collaborative link doesn’t seem to stand up to scrutiny (pending Ina’s new revelations). To them it still stands because anyone that finds it weak and inconclusive is by the very fact they find in weak and inconclusive most likely biased against the conclusion that there was such a link.

This can lead people to begin using an arguments conclusions as evidence in support of the argument or to claim that any lack of evidence of something is somehow evidence of it’s existence.

For example many Americans look at the ‘evil’ and anti-American Saddam and the ‘evil’ and anti-American Osama and conclude that since they both were evil and anti-American they must have collaborated. For many of these people it doesn’t matter how weak the evidence is the conclusion seems to prove the link.

To go back to US feelings about Vietnam and the dangers of such thinking. To many Americans communism was ‘evil’ and since Ho Chin Minh was communist the Vietnamese people could not really want him as their leader, it didn’t matter what evidence contradicted that conclusion the conclusion was evidence enough to prove any contradictory evidence wrong.

Many Americans believed that Saddam had WMD’s it didn’t matter that the evidence was weak and seem to point to the claim being right that they had been destroyed. In fact the inability of the Iraqi regime to hand over weapons that the Iraqis said they had already destroyed was at several points put forward as proof that they must still have them.

**

A great example of this thinking comes from the earlier exploits of the neo-cons and shows an equal contempt for the evidence in favour of a chosen conclusion.

The neo-cons wished for a policy of confrontation with regard to the communists. The problem was that the intelligence agencies did not see the threat from the Soviet Union as being that great. So the neo-cons used their political leverage to set up a more co-operative inquiry called ‘Team B’. What followed is set out in this section of transcript from ‘The power of nightmares’

Voice Over: Team B began examining all the CIA data on the Soviet Union. But however closely they looked, there was little evidence of the dangerous weapons or defense systems they claimed the Soviets were developing. Rather than accept that this meant that the systems didn’t exist, Team B made an assumption that the Soviets had developed systems that were so sophisticated, they were undetectable. For example, they could find no evidence that the Soviet submarine fleet had an acoustic defense system. What this meant, Team B said, was that the Soviets had actually invented a new non-acoustic system, which was impossible to detect. And this meant that the whole of the American submarine fleet was at risk from an invisible threat that was there, even though there was no evidence for it.
Dr ANNE CAHN, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1977-80: They couldn’t say that the Soviets had acoustic means of picking up American submarines, because they couldn’t find it. So they said, well maybe they have a non-acoustic means of making our submarine fleet vulnerable. But there was no evidence that they had a non-acoustic system. They’re saying, “we can’t find evidence that they’re doing it the way that everyone thinks they’re doing it, so they must be doing it a different way. We don’t know what that different way is, but they must be doing it.”
INTERVIEWER (off-camera): Even though there was no evidence.
CAHN: Even though there was no evidence.
INTERVIEWER: So they’re saying there, that the fact that the weapon doesn’t exist…
CAHN: Doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. It just means that we haven’t found it.
PIPES: Now, that’s important, yes. If something is not there, that’s significant.
INTERVIEWER: By its absence.
PIPES: By its absence. If you believe that they share your view of strategic weapons, and they don’t talk about it, then there’s something missing. Something is wrong. And the CIA wasn’t aware of that.
VO: What Team B accused the CIA of missing was a hidden and sinister reality in the Soviet Union. Not only were there many secret weapons the CIA hadn’t found, but they were wrong about many of those they could observe, such as the Soviet air defenses. The CIA were convinced that these were in a state of collapse, reflecting the growing economic chaos in the Soviet Union. Team B said that this was actually a cunning deception by the Soviet régime. The air-defense system worked perfectly. But the only evidence they produced to prove this was the official Soviet training manual, which proudly asserted that their air-defense system was fully integrated and functioned flawlessly. The CIA accused Team B of moving into a fantasy world.
PIPES: The CIA was very loath to deal with issues which could not be demonstrated in a kind of mathematical form. I said they could consider the soft evidence. They deal with realities, whereas this was a fantasy. That’s how it was perceived. And there were battles all the time on this subject.
INTERVIEWER: Did you think it was a fantasy?
PIPES: No! I thought it was absolute reality.
CAHN: I would say that all of it was fantasy. I mean, they looked at radars out in Krasnoyarsk and said, “This is a laser beam weapon,” when in fact it was nothing of the sort. They even took a Russian military manual, which the correct translation of it is “The Art of Winning.” And when they translated it and put it into Team B, they called it “The Art of Conquest.” Well, there’s a difference between “conquest” and “winning.” And if you go through most of Team B’s specific allegations about weapons systems, and you just examine them one by one, they were all wrong.
INTERVIEWER: All of them?
CAHN: All of them.
INTERVIEWER: Nothing true?
CAHN: I don’t believe anything in Team B was really true.
VO: The neoconservatives set up a lobby group to publicize the findings of Team B. It was called the Committee on the Present Danger, and a growing number of politicians joined, including a Presidential hopeful, Ronald Reagan.
http://www.daanspeak.com/TranscriptPowerOfNightmares1.html

**

 

Ina I should explain to you at this point that I had nothing against the removal of Saddam Hussein, even by force. I’ve been supporting campaigns against that bloody handed tyrant for well over twenty years even during the days when the US thought have him a friend and Rummy would shake his hand.

What I do object to are the goals and methods of the neo-con faction in instigating, and conducting this war because I never believed they had the best interests of the Iraqi as one of their concerns.

What I’m trying to say here is that the American people support such ill fated adventures because it seems to me that they do not question their leaders motives enough and seem incapable of a free and fair debate which could dispel many of their misconceptions.

The Iraqi occupation is not going badly because of unforeseen circumstances but because those circumstances were not discussed in favour of the smearing of the unpatriotic ‘terrorist lovers’ who brought them up.

Just as the Vietnam War went badly not because of unforeseen circumstances but because those circumstances were not discussed in favour of the smearing of the unpatriotic ‘communist lovers’ who brought them up.

 

I know for a fact Bush does'nt give a shit about terrorists. hell I dont even think he gives a shit about his own people. You honestly think he and his gang of criminals wake up in the morning to make the world a better place? these pigs are driven by greed and only care about their own pockets. its people like you that allow them to do it.

This page contains a list of some of the lies from Bush & co about Iraq aswell as links to to all the news sources.
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/27_lies.html

 

Incorrect allegation again Ina. I have spoken particularly of individual pundits such as Barone, Krauthammer, Kristol et al who are neo-con mouthpieces.

Media outlets themselves are often guilty of truncated and selective sanitised reporting, but when numerous intelligence agencies have admitted that those "intel" reports were based on unreliable sources (and undoubtedly in many cases torture extracted confessions) then rational minds must be ready to acknowledge the politicisation of such info and reject it as spurious.

Unfortunately those who desperately cling to the fraud of this war on terror have neither the rationality nor intellectual honesty to admit to themselves that they fell for the war justifying propaganda hook line and sinker.

Persons entering Iraq are no more a sign of official collusion than is the presence of supposed Al Qaeda operatives in the US a sign of the same with Washington (although being a CIA creation the latter is far more likely than the former).

Keep trying son, its a difficult task to shake off MIC lies but i have faith youll one day come to your senses and see through it all to the true enemies of our nation.