so what your saying mark, and what you have been RELENTLESSLY pushing in three out of four of your most recent diaries is the notion that anything short of blind support for the president's policies of failure somehow equates to helping al qaeda, appeasing al qaeda, loving al qaeda, acquiescing to al qaeda? i mean, my god, what kind of country are we living in when one must stoop so low as to accuse the majority of the american public as being such? are we now living in a true tyranny? this is not a kingdom and george bush is NO king (even if he'd like to act as one). every american has every right to question his misguided, destructive, regressive, failed policies without being labelled as some kind of appeaser or supporter of terrorists. it just plain reeks of desperation and frankly no one buys it anymore...

Also,

There has been criticism about how Afghanistan has been managed--mainly that focus was taken away from it because of the Iraq invasion--but I don't know of any calls for pull-out. I don't see much division in how we're managing the situation there. It helps that we have UN support, as they are now in the country helping coalition forces bring stability to the region.

The problem with Iraq is that it never really had strong support of the American people, though it had support as do most military operations at their onset because Americans tend to get behind their military in times of initial action, and it certainly didn't have strong support from the rest of the world or the UN.

Again, Kerry summed it up best when he said Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time.

Getting back to bin Laden, if his strategy was to cause a divide in the American people on Afghanistan, he failed.

As far as Iraq goes, Bush did more to cause any divide than bin Laden did.

But, as orange already pointed out, nice attempt to equate Democrats as terrorist aiders. Truly shmucky.

sorry i guess i meant matt rather than mark...

So why did it take 4 years to translate and publish one letter?
Whatever my opinions on how the War(s) are being fought, the appearance of this letter right now is only playing into opposition hands.
It's as if people were supposed to think the document was phoney . . .

Matt, the left doesn't believe we're in a war. According to Michael Moore "there is no terrorist threat."

"[...] the notion that anything short of blind support for the president's policies of failure somehow equates to helping al qaeda [...]"

Do you frickin' moonbats *ever* change the damn tune?

Every time you are disagreed with, out comes the whine 'you're saying that we can't dissent at all!'

You can dissent all you damn please -- what you *can't* do is avoid having to live up to the dissent that you speak.

In this case... Al Qaeda's propaganda is harping on the theme that the war is something Bush lied us into, for the benefit of oil, Halliburton, and the Jews.

[b]All of these exact same things have shown up as talking points from prominent liberal pundits[/b].

If you want to use the same lines of reasoning as Al Qaeda, then shazam, you will be called on agreeing with Al Qaeda. If you don't want to be agreeing with Al Qaeda, find some form of dissent that doesn't sound so much like their own propaganda.

And quit whining.

chuckg -
Do you frickin' wingnuts *ever* change the damn tune?

-orange

Truth being internally consistent over time and all, no, we don't.

Chuck, very few people believe Afghanistan was invaded because of oil. Yes, there are some who have the theory that we went in so we could build that pipeline. But, most people supported the invasion for what it was... taking out the government that sheltered the group that attacked us on 9/11.

I don't know of any theory out there that we attacked because of Jewish interests.

Point being, bin Laden strategy has not worked in dividing our country over Afghanistan.

Now, Our country is divided over Iraq, not because of bin laden, but because we were forced into a unilateral invasion based on a trumped up threat, and to make matters worse, we fucked up the post-invasion rebuilding royally. The division on Iraq falls squarely on Bush and Co., not bin Laden.

chuckg -
Do you frickin' wingnuts *ever* change the damn tune?

-orange

"Chuck, very few people believe Afghanistan was invaded because of oil."

"Now, Our country is divided over Iraq, not because of bin laden[...]"

Oh, I'm entirely willing to agree that the so very close match between liberal anti-war propaganda and Al Qaeda propaganda is a result of independent parallel evolution, not of the liberals actually wanting to take dictation from Osama.

I just don't care. It doesn't matter whether they spout the same talking points he does because they work for him, work with him, or have entirely independently ended up in the same stupid end zone as him, it all ends up in the same place -- him and them are on the same rhetorical page. And if not the *exactly identical* rhetorical page, still *closely enough related* rhetorical pages that any remotely decent human being should, once the similarity is apparent, be horrified at where they are standing and move somewhere further away.

As to your other point...

"I don't know of any theory out there that we attacked because of Jewish interests."

Then you apparently don't get out much. The theory that America's Middle Eastern policy is dominated/controlled/manipulated by conspiratorial Jewish interests is all over the damn place. And not just from the usual suspects like Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Iranians, etc, etc., but also from MoveOn, Code Pink, ANSWER, Cindy Sheehan, and Cynthia McKinney, to name an *incomplete* list. (The first four off the top of my head, at that.)

Hell, go out and look at damn near any anti-war protest... or bop around the blogosphere until you find uncensored pictures of such. Blackfive in particular has some very nice sets. You'll see Zionist conspiracy theory signs all over the damn place. But you won't see them on the evening news!

"I wish Democrats cared more about the war on terror and less about winning the next election " is like saying " I wish GM cared more about people riding in luxury in an Edsel and less about competing with Ford . " C'mon guys, you must be running out of arguements for November.

Chuck,

Just because al qaeda makes a critcism of the US, does not mean it's not a valid criticism. Look at Afghanastan. As his letter said, bin laden wanted to help create a division in America by pushing the whole "war for oil, jews and what not" theory. Most Americans don't believe that.

Go to Iraq, where we were given incorrect information for justification for the war, and you will find Americans who believe we were lied to in order to invade Iraq. We basically were.

Is it any surprise that AQ jumps on that? And what's more divisive to this country, critizing our leaders for what they have done, or trying to connect those who make that criticism to terrorists who make the same criticism. That's divisive. Criticising our government over Iraq is perfectly warranted and we should not have to listen to moranic comparisons to terrorists for doing so. That's divisive. That's playing into bin Laden's hands.

Bush is the one who fucked up. He's got to take responsibility and not say those who call him out for fucking up are somehow on par with terrorists.

“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Göring during the Nuremberg Trials.

"Just because al qaeda makes a critcism of the US, does not mean it's not a valid criticism."

So, you're agreeing that Al Qaeda is right about our foreign policy, and the US is wrong.

Am I allowed to question your patriotism *now*?

Hey, you know what REALLY is integral to Al-queda's strategy?

Not catching Osama. Using Matt's profound reasoning skills, I must surmise then that because Bush has a policy of not catching Osama (otherwise, he would have been caught by now, right?) and Osama has a policy of not being caught, they must be in league with each other. Ergo, Bush, his administration, and his supporters are terrorists and terrorist-supporters.

It's obvious to anyone who objectively looks at their rhetoric and propaganda that Democrats have been helping terrorists for the past six years, as I have said on many occasions. The question is, why has President Bush and Republicans allowed them to get away, basically unanswered, with their anti-American, pro-terrorist support for all that time? Why haven't President Bush and Republican not said that in plain English and explained it to the American people during that time and repeated it as often as the Democrats made their pro-terrorist statements? Why do the Republicans always wait until it is near the election and almost too late before they start telling the American people the facts?

The liberal Democratic propaganda has encouraged and emboldened the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan to kill our troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afghanistan families. One only has to look at what is being said and use a little common sense (lacking in liberals) to clearly see that fact.

The liberal Democrat's incessant 24/7 anti-Bush, anti-America, and anti-American-military rhetoric and propaganda are spread around the world every day through newspapers, television, radio, the Internet, word of mouth, and other printed media. That Democratic anti-American hate propaganda has hurt America in many ways including: providing and supporting propaganda for our enemies; encouraging others to fight against America -- politically, militarily, and through terrorism; a recruiting tool for terrorists; killing our troops; hurting and disclosing our efforts to protect America from terrorists; harming America's image and influence around the world; harming President Bush's and America's ability to deal with situations like Iran, North Korea, Hezbollah, and Syria; and on, and on, and on!

Of course the liberal Dimocrats will deny it -- they always do -- but that does not change the fact. America is fighting two fronts in our war on terror -- the terrorists and the liberal Dimocrats. President Bush and Republican should have been saying that to the American public long before now instead of saying there are other "brands" of patriotism. That may be true, but the liberal Democrats and their anti-American propaganda is not one of them!

Any person with common sense does not need a letter from Al Qaeda to tell them what is obvious to anyone who can see and comprehend the world around them.

And it is ludicrous for the American voters to reward Democrats with a position of power for all of their anti-American hatred, propaganda, and harm to this nation! But, as always the end justifies the means to a liberal Dimocrat -- no matter who it kills!!!

AAR

Tom

We were not lied to regarding Iraq. It would be correct to point out that the intellegence we had turned out to be wrong. Failure to challenge the various "Bush lied" statements have led to these being accepted as a fact by a large number of people. Instead of focusing on Bush lied diatribes a more productive use of resources would be to focus on fixing the intellegence failures that got us where we are now.

I agree that many mistakes have been made and people will need to be held accountable. Excellent places to start would be to fire Donald Rumsfeld and to commit more troops to Iraq.

I'm not aware that main stream Republican leaders have questioned the patriotism of those opposed to their policies, however, it does seem standard practice of many in the anti-war movement to claim their patriotism is being questioned. There thinking is that questioning someone's patriotism is bad. As such, if they can accuse those who oppose them of questioning their patriotism, it frees them up from having to argue a position on its merits.

Raker

In order for Bush to carry out a propaganda campaign, he would need to control the media. He does not. For the record, the Iraq war was probably not the best use of our resources. Unfortunately due to a series of mis steps, it has become a major front in the GWOT and the war of choice may have morphed into a war of necessity. As for course corrections, good places to start would be firing Donald Rumsfeld, increased border security, a moratorium on immigration from middle eastern countries, survellience of mosques in the US, and finally, if we have the available troops, greater troop commitments to Afghanistan and Iraq would be very helpful.

President Bush was in the midst of explaining how the attacks of 9/11 inspired his "freedom agenda" and the attacks on Iraq until a reporter, Ken Herman of Cox News, interrupted to ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11. "Nothing," Bush defiantly answered.

President Bush was in the midst of explaining how the attacks of 9/11 inspired his "freedom agenda" and the attacks on Iraq until a reporter, Ken Herman of Cox News, interrupted to ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11. "Nothing," Bush defiantly answered.

President Bush was in the midst of explaining how the attacks of 9/11 inspired his "freedom agenda" and the attacks on Iraq until a reporter, Ken Herman of Cox News, interrupted to ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11. "Nothing," Bush defiantly answered.

It's getting harder and harder to distinguish the Dem's from Al Queda. If you look at their press releases, they are completely interchangable. I'm starting to wonder if there isn't a "master source" for lib/terrorist talking points and they just put their own headers on it before photocopying them for distribution to their buddies in the Lame Stream Media.

B. Poster,

I haven't said anything about questioning one's patriotism... although I believe chuck did. And if elected republican officials have not made any shots at the patriotism of dissent (and you're right, at least most of them to their credit do not question the patriotism of those who dissent), there's a VAST contigent of the right-wing media (bloggers, writers, cable talk show hosts) who do.

The point I've been trying to make is that trying draw parrallels between terrorists and democrats based upon shared criticism is wrong and divisive.

Chuck, let me address you here as well, I'll make it simple:

Say Bush nuked Canada because they didn't help us invade Iraq. Now, would I somehow be helping terrorists or be somehow be like them if both myself and members of AQ used that action in criticism of Bush?

Should I not criticize Bush for nuking Canada because the terrorists are attacking him for doing so?

As I said before, just because a terrorist makes a criticism, doesn't mean it's not a valid criticism.

And, yes Chuck, you can question my patriotism if you want to look like an idiot.

B.Poster,

RE: "Failure to challenge the various "Bush lied" statements have led to these being accepted as a fact by a large number of people."

That's exactly right, and that's where I fault Republicans. President Bush and Republicans allowed the liberal propaganda lies to go unchallenged and uncorrected day after day, month after month. Maybe they believed that the American people could and would see through the liberal Democrat lies. Some do, but many don't. Others begin to spread the lies and as people hear them from more and more sources, those lies begin to take on believability and the perception of truth. Perceptions and repeated rhetoric become the truth.

The whole Iraq anti-war and Bush-lied beliefs started that way. Then there were the Democrat theories that President Bush blew up the New Orleans levies and was responsible for hurricane Katrina. Then there is the conspiracy theory that the government (President Bush) and not terrorists blew up the World Trade Center -- fueled by more of our anti-American professors. Then we have the pro-Hezbollah rhetoric from the Democrats. Then we have Democrats saying they will train Iraqi troops which is exactly what President Bush is doing. And the list goes on, and on, and on...

When the nation is filled daily by anti-American hate propaganda from the liberal left, then the Republicans, Conservatives, and the President better wake up and start fighting fire with even more fire. One doesn't stop political lies by ignoring them!

Start calling liberal Democrats what they are!!!

AAR

Raker

No one ever said Iraq was directly involved in 911. Maybe immediately after the attacks of 911 someone may have said so but I'm not aware of any recent statements to that effect. That said, Iraq was a major supporter of international terrorism including Al Qaeda. As such, it would be a legitmate target. Apparently 30 nations viewed the threat and thought it justified action so much that they were willing to offer asssitance in some way, however, as I pointed out previously I don't think Iraq was the best use of resources, at the time we launched the invasion.

Mel

If there is a "master source" it is probably from the Russian communists. I DO NOT think the media does it deliberately, however, I do find it interesting that the main stream media largely shields people from the fact that AQ talking points are simillar to their talking points. For an excellent primer on how anti American propaganda works, I suggest visiting www.jrnyquist.com and following some of the links.

Tom -- since your entire line of reasoning depends upon something that not only hasn't actually happened, but is completely farcical and hysterically overblown (Bush nuking Canada), why on Earth should I bother to give it a moment's consideration?

Dude, you said in exactly that many words that you believed Al Qaeda had valid points to make about America's foreign policy. At this point, there really is no defense whatsoever against mine and Matt's original point -- i.e., that Al Qaeda's propaganda has one hell of a harmonic convergence with certain Democratic talking points.

B.Poster;

You let them off too easy. So much of this crap is so absurd and demostrably false that you have to willfully shut your brain off to believe it.

What all of you are assuming is that 'the rest of the world' hears all about our protests and anti-bush rhetoric. This is such self-centered logic. Do you really think that American anti-bush news makes headlines around the world?

Coming from someone who travels frequently, the news is whatever bush is doing and not what the American people think of it. Read the foreign newspapers and you might find some small comments about protests and what not, but the opinion of most outsiders is that we are all 100% behind bush.

America's actions makes world headlines, debate doesn't.

"So much of this crap is so absurd and demostrably false that you have to willfully shut your brain off to believe it."

Oh really, what exactly?

That they said Hussein could be a year away from having a nuclear bomb when he didn't even have a working nuclear program?

That the aluminum tubes they bought could only be used for nuclear weapons (when in fact they could and were used for non-nuclear weapons)

That Hussein had mobile chemical labs (that were found a determined not to be mobile chemical labs)

That he had large stockpiles of WMDs (the president ended this debate a couple weeks ago)

That the post-war invasion would not be a drawn-out war as it is today.

That the invasion would pay for itself.

That we would not need large amounts of troops in Iraq for years.

And someone did mention that the intelligence was wrong, but what you fail to note is that intelligence that was not deemed strong was pushed to the American people by the administration. You cannot simply pin this on bad intelligence. Bush and Co. pushed shaky intell that turned out to be wrong to get support for the invasion.

Call it what you will, lying, misleading or just idiocy.

AAR - you will go down as the perhaps the most vociferous supporter of failure. for you and some others around, the bar does not need to be set very high for you to somehow proclaim the bush administration to be a success. but beyond your own fantasyland within which you reside, you cling to a desperate and reprobate set of robotic talking points that you continuously regurgitate all over everyone's shoes. you're like the drunk that everyone has to accommodate simply because you've become an institution around these parts.

Matt, good post. You can tell by the level of whining by the lefties.

Too bad they don't whine TO the Dems and those in the media whose actions SUPPORT the efforts of Al Qaida.

Tom

The right wing bloggers and right wing media types have no influence over public policy and they receive very little play within the American main stream news media. These right wing media types receive even less play in foreign markets. That is unless their quotes are taken out of context.

Please understand I'm not questioning anyone's sincerity or patriotism when I say that it is troubling that AQ talking points and "liberal" talking points look very simillar. Perhaps even more troubling is the main stream nedia largely shields its users from the fact that its talking points are so simillar to AQ's.

You discuss a scenario where Bush nukes Canada. With all due respect I don't think this is a good analogy. First of all Canada has helped us in many ways in the GWOT. They have been invaluable in Afghanistan. They have shared intellegence with us on terrorists and have been invaluable in the GWOT. They chose not to participate in Iraq either beause they felt it was not the correct use of resources or they didn't have the resources available. Overall Canada has been invaluable. Unless I missed it no Republican with any political clout personally attacked Canada in any way. Bush cannot "nuke" anyone. To engage in military attacks anywhere will require Congressional approval. Simply referring to the president as "King George" does not make it so. This is another of those lies that have gone largely unchallenged. I'm no fan of this administration but when lies go unchallenged they damage not just the Administration but America itself.

Mel

If there is a "master source," I suspect it originates within Russian communist circles. For an excellent primer on how anti-American propaganda works, check out www.jrnyquist.com and follow the links provided. Please understand, I DO NOT think the main stream media deliberately diseminates Communist talking points.

B. Poster,

My Canada analogy was not meant to be something that would ever happen.

It was meant to be a hypothetical that would be universally seen as a wrong or inappropriate act by our government.

If our government acts inappropriately, and terrorists use those actions to criticize us, am I supposed to support those inappropriate actions because terrorists attack those actions too?

No, I believe what I believe. I don't care if terrorists use the false premise for invading Iraq in their rhetoric or not.

Just as I would not change my support FOR our operations in afghanastan based on what AQ is saying.

You do realize your hypothetical argument works to support your real actions *only* if the US' actions are on the same moral level as the hypothetical ones you set up?

Which, you know, they're not, not even remotely.

You still have not addressed the point where, if you really do agree that Al Qaeda is right about US foreign policy and Bush is wrong, how and why you can still claim to be patriotic.

You agree with the enemy about what we should be doing, and not doing, in a war. That's just plain *fucked up*.

Tom

The "false premise" for the Iraq invasion was not a deliberate attempt to mislead. Thirty nations viewed the threat posed by Iraq and thought the invasion worthy of their support in some way. The intellegence was wrong. Clearly the WMD are not "there." At least they are not where we thought they would be and we underestimated the strength of the insurgency.

The appropiate response by both Republicans, Democrats, and our coalition allies would be to figure out what went wrong with the intellegence, not to engage in partisian politics. The troubling thing is no one has been held accountable either for these failures or for the military planning.

Finally, Iraq began as a war of choice. The choice was do we confront Hueesin now or do we wait until after the sanctions have collapsed and he is far stronger. In other words a day of reckoning with Iraq was coming whether any one wanted it or not. We chose to confront him in March 2003. Unofortunately horrific mistakes have been made and they were not corrected. What began as a war of choice now may morphed into a war of necessity. The job of the Democrats or the Republicans will be to figure out to win.

Unfortunately I'm not sure we have the national will any longer. We played a large role in forcing Israel to capitulate to Hezbollah. It now seems Pakistan is trying to surrender to the Taliban. If we do not have the will to see this through, we should redeploy to fortress America.

Orange

If we fail in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else, we all fail. Not just the Bush administration. We have not failed yet. The final results are not in yet. With that said I think we do need to make some policy changes to increase our chances of success. I have laid out some of my suggestions elsewhere on this blog.

"You do realize your hypothetical argument works to support your real actions *only* if the US' actions are on the same moral level as the hypothetical ones you set up?"

Actually Chuck, that is not true.

If you allow it is possible to hold the same view as a terrorist and be right, then any argument that says your view is wrong because it is the same as a terrorists falls completely apart.

It's simple logic.

Wouldn't it be nice if we caught bin Laden and the rest of his boys so we wouldn't have to listen to their BS anymore.

But alas, it appears that's more unlikely to happen than ever: the Pakistan government has arranged a peace deal with the warlords in the North Waziristan area -- the pro-Taliban area which abuts Afghanistan, and the area where bin Laden is presumed to be hiding. I'm sure everyone's heard about the truce by now, so I won't bother providing a link. But in a followup, ABC News interviewed Pakistani Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan (is everyone named Khan over there?) who said that if bin Laden is in Pakistan, he "would not be taken into custody as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen."

THIS IS NUTS!! THE WHOLE DEAL IS NUTS! How can we allow this? It seems to me that Bush has one heck of a lot of moxy to allow this to happen while at the same time present a speech telling us how bin Laden is trying to twist the dialog. It's almost as if he wants the jerk to stay out there and on-line. Pardon me, but I am VERY angry about all this. THIS IS NUTS!!

"If you allow it is possible to hold the same view as a terrorist and be right [...]"

Not on American military & foreign policy, you won't.

I'm sure Osama and I can agree that the Earth is round, the Sun rises in the East, and two plus two equals four in base ten, but when it comes to the alleged lack of morality and/or wisdom in US foreign policy, I cannot agree with him *and call myself a patriot at the same time*.

That's what we're saying, Tom. That to agree that Al Qaeda is more right about US foreign policy than the US government is /and/ to wrap yourself in the flag at the same time is an act of hypocrisy. You can do one, or the other -- not both.

Lefties,

Why is it that liberals have such a difficult time accepting facts? Is your BDS so severe that you are incapable of understanding plain and simple truths?

Everyone agrees that Iraq possessed and used WMD against its own people and against the Iranians. Everyone knows that Saddam threatened to use his WMD against US forces.

Following the First Gulf War, UNSCOM was given the mission to document and destroy Saddam's remaining WMD. Here's what they destroyed:

27,000 chemical bombs, artillery shells and rockets, including 30 Scud missile warheads, 500 tons of mustard and nerve agents, thousands of tons of precursor chemicals, and thousands of gallons of biological weapons growth materials.

Sounds like an active WMD program to me.

They also reported that the following were still unaccounted for:

Over 30,000 WMD munitions, (less the 500+ we have found) 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals, 300 tons of VX nerve agent precursors, 360 tons of bulk CW agent, including 1.5 tons of VX (Since only 10 mg of VX is enough to kill a human, 1.5 tons is enough to kill 1/2 of the population of the US, or the combined population of Canada, Great Britian, and France), and thousands of gallons of Bio growth media.

The question is not that we were lied to, or misled, or decieved. The question is "What happened to the missing WMD?" This is where the intelligence failed. We, the UN, and every other intelligence agency, believed that Saddam possessed the WMD in one of his hundreds of military bases. Unfortunately, they were not found in the ammo dumps in the quantities we expected. They were either destroyed, buried in the desert, or moved out of the country. The case is not closed on the missing WMD.

Similarily, there is no question that Saddam had direct ties to various terrorist groups. He harbored them. He trained them. He financed them ($25,000 to each family that conducted a suicide bombing).

Saddam had the means, motive, and opportunity to provide his WMD to terrorist organizations for use against Americans. This was a threat that could not be allowed to continue.

Yet, you continue to maintain that Saddam didn't possess WMD. He did. You claim that he had no ties to terrorism. He did. You claim that Iraq was not a threat to world security. It was. It isn't anymore.

To a casual observer, if one was to listen to the propaganda of al Qaeda and that of the Democrat Party, you would be shocked with the similarities. Then you have the media wing of the Democrat Party, the Main Stream Media, spreading the terrorist's propaganda and undermining our national defense.

To a rational person, if a group of individuals were to release classified information concerning programs we are using to detect terrorists and their plans, you would consider them to be traitors. Time and time again, the MSM has sought to hinder our efforts and help the terrorists. You can write off one instance to over-zealous reporting, but when the MSM discloses the existance of our Terrorist Surveilance Program, then the Data-mining program, then the Financial Tracking Program, all over the objections of the Administration, you can only deduce that they are acting to undermine our security efforts and are helping the terrorists.

If Democrats were so concerned about our security, rather that attacking the Administration to make political gains, they would denounce the traitors who disclosed these classified programs. But they didn't. They jumped on the bandwagon in condemning our efforts to combat terrorism.

B. Poster,

I do agree that the problem of figuring out the best policy today in Iraq is different than criticizing how we went to war... but they are certainly connected.

I don't believe because we invaded on a false premise that we should withdraw our troops. But, that fact does come into play.

More importantly, what comes into play is the fact that this was a unnecessary, unilateral invasion that did not adequately consider the ramifications of its actions. The fact that our main justification for the war turned out to be false, is a direct blow to the legitimacy of the entire operation, as is the US' poor post-war planning and actions.

If we had played our cards right and waited six months, a year, two years and made sure we had UN and world backing before the invasion and adequately planned for the aftermath, we would not be in the situation we are today in Iraq, which is very much in danger of seeing the country dissolve into civil war. Not to mention not having the black eye of invading on an incorrect premise.

But we insisted on invading NOW... based on shaky intel... this falls squarely on Bush and co.

And I believe that's very important to note because that directly led to the tenuous situation we have today in Iraq. Their past performance weigh into our opinion as to whether we should follow their current strategy. As far as I see it, they lack credibility and we need to hear other voices beside their own when figuring out how to handle Iraq.

"That to agree that Al Qaeda is more right about US foreign policy than the US government is /and/ to wrap yourself in the flag at the same time is an act of hypocrisy. You can do one, or the other -- not both."

So I cannot hold the view that we should not have invaded Iraq and be patriotic?

Pretty much, yup.

We're at war, dude. And the patriotic things you do when your country is at war is root for your country to win. Not to that the entire war is unjust and illegal and wrong. And *especially* not when are repeating your enemy's propaganda in so doing!

Please note, I acknowledge that the right to free speech in the US includes the right to be unpatriotic. (It doesn't include the right to be treasonous, but actual treason takes something more than merely disagreeing and saying so, natch. So if you come back claiming that I called you a traitor, you can't fucking read.)

When I say you're being unpatriotic, I am *not* saying that you don't have the right to have that opinion. The First Amendment gives you the right to have that opinion.

It does not, however, give you the right to call that opinion something that it ain't. The right to have an opinion comes hand in hand with the obligation to be honest about what kind of opinion you're having. To do otherwise is hypocrisy.

I will agree with you that I wouldn't necessarily call the act of not agreeing with a war your country is in being patriotic, but I also would not call it unpatriotic. And I think one can be a "patriot" while disagreeing with a current aspect of his or her countries foreign policy.

The notion that I have to agree with and support all of our foreign policy endeavors is wrong to me. The idea that you can voice your opposition, strongly at that, is a very American ideal.

Was just wodering how many of the loony left are planning on converting to Islam? When the liberal mantra is: Better Islamofascist Than Dead, I figured Kennedy and Durbin, Reid, and Schummer would be leading the stampede to the local mosques. Do they make designer terrorist outfits for the loony left?

Was just wodering how many of the loony left are planning on converting to Islam? When the liberal mantra is: Better Islamofascist Than Dead, I figured Kennedy and Durbin, Reid, and Schummer would be leading the stampede to the local mosques. Do they make designer terrorist outfits for the loony left?

Tom

Thank you for your responses to my posts. Clearly our intellegence was wrong, as was the intellegence of our allies. As A-10 correctly points out, there a number unanswered questions about Iraqi WMD. If they were moved out of the country, this does not vindicate the Bush administration. One of the main goals of the invasion was to eliminate WMD. If they were moved, that aspect of the mission failed. From reading the Congressional resoultion authorizng the use of force, the reasons for invading went beyond WMD.

While it is true we did not have as big of a coalition as we would have liked to have had, the invasion was not "unilateral." Britian and Australia made large contributions. Also, a total of 30 nations assisted in some way. We are greatful for whatever help, no matter how small, that they could provide. They took enormous risks in standing with us. The appropiate response to them is "thank you." To label the invasion as unilateral comes across as disrespectful to allies who took an enormous risk to help us. This is another of those lies the American gvoernment has not challenged. When lies are not challenged people begin to believe them.

I agree wtih you, in retrospect, we did not plan adequately and this was made worse by being slow to adjust. If we have the troops, I think the best course correction would be to commit more troops to Iraq. By doing this we would have the resources to engage the insurgency and the militias. This would give us a better chance of achieving a stable and allied Iraq. If we are unable or unwilling to commit more troops, we could redepoly a large number of them to Kurdish areas and have the remainder focus on securing Baghdad and the borders. Once this is done,we allow the milias to fight it out and we decide which ones we want to support. This can probably be done with fewer troops than we currently have in the country. In other words, we scale back our prescense and have proxies do much of the fighting. In other words, take some pages from the Russian and Chinese playbook. Get proxies to do some your heavy lifting. In any event, having the Iranians or the Baathists gain complete control of the country is not an acceptable option. That is unless we want to pull completely back to fortress America. Finally, if the democratic government of Iraq becomes a terrorist supporting state we need to be prepared for the very real possibility that we may need to take it down. I'm concerned that the Bush administration has to much invested in this democracy thing.

To play our cards right implies we had good cards to play. We really did not. Whether we waited two years or more would not have mattered. Russia, China, France, and others had been bought off by oil for food program. The sanctions were failing. Had we have waited two years I think it highly likely we would have been facing a much stronger and even more threatening Iraq, which would have made it even harder to get coalition partners. Iraq was a war of choice. The choice was do you take care of it now or do you take care of it later when the threat is even greater. In other words, the day of reckoning was probably coming. We decided take care of the problem sooner rather than later but we did not use enough troops nor did we make the adjustment and we failed to properly understand the tribal nature of Iraq. As such, we find ourselves where we are now. Having said all of this I' not sure how much time we had to deal with the Iraqi problem but it was not as pressing as the situation in Afghanistan. In retrospect, finishing Afghanistan before moving on to Iraq or elsewhere may have been the best course of action. I just assumed, if we wanted to, we could fight wars on multiple fronts. It has been done before.

The "shaky intel" is just that, in retrospect. At the time, we thought it was a "slam dunk." Also, I'm assuming we share intellegence with our coalition partners and they with us. We all messed up. It is disturbing that no one was held accountable for this mix up. It is also disturbing that no one has been held accountable for the short comings in the war plan. We judge leaders by what they actually accomplish rather than by what they intend to accomplish.

I agree with you that the past performance of this administration is questionable at best. There have been some ups and downs. As of late, they have mostly been downs. Frankly I'm having trouble trusting them. Quite frankly the Repbulicans deserve to lose both the House and the Senate. Looking at both major parties I think it is a real pity they both can't lose. We are hearing other voices on the Iraq issue, as well others. The Democrats have had some good things to offer. A Democratic Congressman, I don't remember his name, suggested cutting off all aid to Lebanon, as long as Hezbollah plays a role in the political process. This is the correct response. Kudos to him for having that kind of courage.

Ricorun

The General is now denying that he made those claims about Bin Laden. There are multiple takes on this so called arrangement. I think we need to wait and see how it plays out before we pass judgement. With that said, this looks VERY BAD!! Based on how it looks to me I agree with you this is nuts!!!

I understand Pakistan is a soverign country and every thing but this is ridiculous. To be blunt, if this proxy won't fight, we need to replace it with one that will fight. Right now I see no way to put a happy face on this.

Btw, you're right about the name Khan. That must be like John in the US.

Small town dick

These files were all released in the last year and they are being translated ongoing. Every day more and more are translated. Thousands and thousands of documents.

"I will agree with you that I wouldn't necessarily call the act of not agreeing with a war your country is in being patriotic, but I also would not call it unpatriotic."

What would you call having essentially the same opinion about a war that your country is in that the enemy does, then?

Chuckg,

That is called being a Liberal Democrat.

Mel

I'm trying to be diplomatic. Accusing someone of deliberately trying to mislead is a serious charge. That said it is troubling that the media spent the Clinton years hyping up the threat posed by Iraq only to change course, after the invasion and say Bush "lied." According to one poll fifty percent of Americans believe Iraq had WMD at the time of the invasion. This is not becuase the administration has done a good job of pushing back. This is because the media is having trouble undoing years of conditioning. Btw, when we searched some of the WMD sites we found allot of insect repelant. This stuff is a precursor to some WMD. A-10 discusses a great deal about what we found and did not find earlier in the thread. Also, reports that don't fit the talking points seem to get ignored or downplayed.

Again I don't think it is deliberate. Its just a bias they seem to have. I have my own biases. This is why I try to look at all news sources.

KJ, Chuck, & Tom

It is important to try and understand why Iraq is so important to the enemy. The terrorists are probably getting their talking points from their Russian and Chinese allies. These same talking points are being fed to the media in the US and Western Europe.

Russia was the biggest supporter of Saddam's Iraq. Russia's economy consists of three primary exports. They are: 1.) oil, 2.)weapons, and 3.) terrorism. They use oil sales to finance 2 and 3. I have read that the lift cost for Iraqi oil is less than it is for Russian oil. A stable Iraq that is allied with the US has the potential to check mate Russia. Frankly, I don't think the Bush administration understands all of this.

We don't want to own Iraq's oil nor do we want a confrontation with Russia. The Russians may not grasp this. Understanding the what the enemy wants presents us with a great opportunity for negotiations. A starting point would be we agree to leave Iraq and we agree to end all agreements with former Soviet Republics. In return, they agree to stop all support of the terrorist supporting states. Without Russia's support the terrorist supporting states become much easier to neutralize.

Tom,

Why are you such an unpatriotic Saddam/Al-Qaeda apologist?

While we waste our time debating the war on terror with libs who can't even win a 40-year war on poverty, I'm enduring the Senate Appeasement Committee on (DN)C-Span2. Harkin is up right now--all I can think of is his chant "Let's do it for Paul!!!"

I listened to Hillary, Kennedrunk, and my own "esteemed" Babs Mikulski. It was painful; it was theater; it was bullshit. It reminded me of Tom Shipley.

We're set to lose the House in November; God help us if these kooks ever get a filibuster/veto-proof majority in the Senate.

BTW, Harkin can't pronounce Rumsfeld, and Mikulski can't pronounce sectarian. I mentioned this because you asshat libs take great pleasure in criticizing the way my president speaks...

Lautenberg's speaking now--he must've hit happy hour with Kennedrunk. This guy speaks like axass writes...

Sessions is up now, and he's pissed! Finally, someone with some brains is speaking.

You ought to watch this, Tom Shipley--you might learn how smart people handle life...

Tom Shipley,

Do you want America to win the Iraq war? Yes or No. (No equivocating. Equivocating will be taken to mean that you want America to lose the Iraq War.)

Freedom

How would you define victory? I would define victory in Iraq as a situation where the militias and the insurgents have been rendered incapable of attacks, the government is allied with the US, and the country is capable of defending itself without a significant amount of American troops.

If the country ultimately splits along its ethnic lines, this is no problem, as long as the new governments pose no threat to the US. To give ourselves the best chance of achieving victory we should work to seal the countries borders between Iran and Syria.

He wants us to lose, Freedom1, so his sorry-ass appeasement party can get in and "fix" things.

He wants us to lose, Freedom1, so his sorry-ass appeasement party can get in and "fix" things.

Freedom, define "win the war." Do I want a functioning democracy in Iraq? Yes. Do I want stability in Iraq? Yes.

Do I think we are on the path to either of those things? No. Do I think that keeping troops in Iraq for years to come will help create a real democracy? No. Do I think the US has to leave for Iraqis to figure out what they want to do with their country? Yes. Do I think it will be bloody? Yes.

"What would you call having essentially the same opinion about a war that your country is in that the enemy does, then?"

I would call it unfortunate, but I don't define my beliefs by what other people believe.

Now, if you really think that me believing Iraq was a mistake and that we were misled into the war somehow equates me to terrosists, or shows I think like a terrorist, or means I'm aiding terrorists, then go ahead and believe that, I can't do anything to change your mind.

Fact is, many people believe Iraq was a mistake... not just "liberals." It's no surprise that AQ uses Iraq in it's rhetoric when attacking america... it's an obvious target.

Also, if you look back at the topic of this thread, bin Laden planned this media campaign to divide america on Afghanastan... well guess what, we're not divided on Afghanastan. We are on Iraq, and it has to do with the policies of our administration, NOT any media campaign.

B. Poster,

I will try and address some of your points tomorrow... it's been a long day and don't really have the mind or the energy for it at the moment...

B.Poster;

I certainly didn't intend to offend you. My point goes back to something I remember from my childhood days watching Star Trek. in one episode the bad guys use the same trick twice to try and get the Enterprise out of the area and Scotty says "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me". My questions is how may times do they have to be fooled into spouting enemy propaganda before we conclude that they are either useful idiots or enemy sympathizers? I'm getting cynical about it all.

Tom

I think the best way to achieve stability in Iraq will be to increase troop levels. As Dan Senor, formerly of the CPA, recently admited we do not have enough resources in the country to effectively tackle the insurgency and the militias. The ssoner we tackle these groups, the sooner we can defeat them, which means the sooner we can leave. Also, with better security democracy has has a better chance to flourish.

I share your lack of optimism with the current strategy. The optimal solution would be to commit more troops, at least in the short run. We may be unable or unwilling to implement the optimal solution. In this case, we should scale back the mission to something that requires less resources. A possiblity would be to focus on border security and securing Baghdad. Once the borders are secured, we can allow the militias to fight it out and decide which ones we wish to support. In any event, Iran or the former regime must not be allowed to gain control of the country.

Btw, overall Afghanistan has gone better than Iraq has. This is partly why Al Qaeda's campaign to divide America over it has not been as successful as it has concerning Iraq. That said, lately we have had some set backs in Afghanistan. The problem has been that terrorists have been allowed sanctuary and we have not had enough resources in either Afghanistan or Iraq. We will need to make a bigger commitment and we need to get more serious about denying these people sanctuaries.

We need a larger military. Whether we use it in Afghanistan or Iraq we need to be ready for any possibilities. Also, we STILL have not secureed our borders. This should have been done long ago.

Mel

You did not offend me.:) I agree with you that this is a problem for the main srream news media and "leftists." Their talking points and the talking points of the enemy are often times very simillar. What is even more troubling is that the msm generally either does not present their talking points and those of the enemy side by side or they gloss over the similarities. Unless you are looking at alternative meida sources, you would be less aware that their talking points have eerie similarities to those of the enemy. I think they are useful idiots. At this time, I don't think it is deliberate. Earlier in the thread I provided a link that discusses how anti-American propaganda works. That was www.jrnyquist.com

Most media sources have inherent biases. If we read them enough, we determine what they are. Becuase they are all biased this is why I read sources that cover all levels of the political spectrum.

While it is an issue for those whose talking points are simillar to the enemy, the Bush administration and its supporters may have an even bigger problem. The Iraq that began as a war of choice may have morphed into a war of neccessity due to mismanagement. Folks will have to be held accountable. As you can probably tell, from my posts here, I am not a fan of this administration.

B. Poster,

Tenent’s “slam dunk” comment does not let Bush off the hook. He was not misled by our intelligence community into thinking we needed to invade Iraq. He wanted to invade Iraq and asked the intelligence community to make the case for him. The conclusion had already been reached, he just needed the motive. In this atmosphere, shaky intelligence was boosted (see Curveball) and intel that turned out to be true was brushed aside.

Tenent was certainly wrong with his statement, but that doesn’t mean Bush misled us into war, doesn’t mean he’s behind the false threat painted to the world in order to justify the invasion. I have no problem saying unequivocally that we were misled into thinking the Iraqi invasion needed to happen in March 2003 because of the threat of WMDs and nuclear weapons. And I can see how people think they were lied to, because when you’re told something that’s not true in order to get your support behind something, you tend to believe you were lied to. Either that, or it was a massive fuck-up. Pick your poison, I guess.

"I would call it unfortunate [...]"

And most everybody else would call it, and is calling it, a hell of a lot worse.

If you want to agree with the enemy rather than your own country, you have the right. But if you want to call that anything other than unpatriotic, you don't have that right. Because *that* would be a lie.

B. Poster,

Tenent’s “slam dunk” comment does not let Bush off the hook. He was not misled by our intelligence community into thinking we needed to invade Iraq. He wanted to invade Iraq and asked the intelligence community to make the case for him. The conclusion had already been reached, he just needed the motive. In this atmosphere, shaky intelligence was boosted (see Curveball) and intel that turned out to be true was brushed aside.

Tenent was certainly wrong with his statement, but that doesn’t mean Bush misled us into war, doesn’t mean he’s behind the false threat painted to the world in order to justify the invasion. I have no problem saying unequivocally that we were misled into thinking the Iraqi invasion needed to happen in March 2003 because of the threat of WMDs and nuclear weapons. And I can see how people think they were lied to, because when you’re told something that’s not true in order to get your support behind something, you tend to believe you were lied to. Either that, or it was a massive fuck-up. Pick your poison, I guess.

"He wanted to invade Iraq and asked the intelligence community to make the case for him. The conclusion had already been reached, he just needed the motive."

And, of course, the fact that repeated bipartisan Congressional investigations have turned up no evidence that intel analysts were pressured by the White House to shade their analyses doesn't matter, does it?

Tom, yesterday I was at least halfway willing to believe you were misguided. Today, that half is dead. You are deliberately spreading misinformation for propaganda purposes.

The truth hurts, chuck. Don't really blame you that much for attacking the messanger.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

Tom

My previous reply to your post has not shown up yet. The article you link to is from 2002. The official reports came out later. These are the reports such as the Silberman-Robb Commission and others. According to the offical records their was no pressure to manipulate intellegence. There was no need to manipulate the intellegence even if the Administration wanted to. It was the same intellegence that we had during the Clinton years. In any event, there is to much over sight for the Administration to manipulate intellegence any way.

There have been plans on the table regarding Iraq for some time. This goes back to the Clinton administration. The choice was do we tackle the Iraq problem now or do we put it off. If we put it off, Iraq will probably be stronger. Sanctions were unlikely to hold for much longer. We probably could have waited, how much longer I'm not sure. It probably did not have to be done when it was.

After an attack like 911, especially with Iraq a known Al Qaeda supporter and bitter enemy of the US, as Senator Clinton and the Congressional Resolution authorizing the use of force testify to, it would make sense to start planning for the possibility of having to attack Iraq. Also, some reports indicate that Iraq had a role in sheltering some of the terrorists involved in the 1993 WTC bombing. This made it all the more prudent to have a plan for Iraq in place. Working on a plan for Iraq was prudent in a post 911 environment. About thirty nations saw this the same way and thought, based on what we all thought we knew, that Iraq was worthy of regime change.

This does not excuse the failure to commit enough troops to the invasion. The Republicans running interference for Rumsfeld is unacceptable. The Democrats running interference for the CIA is unacceptable. I think it could it be that Rumsfeld has an (R) by his affiliation and the much of the CIA has a (D) by their affiliations. The Democrats could allow Rumsfeld to step down with dignity the way Tenet was allowed to step down. The Republicans could show that they are serious by giving Rumsfeld the same option. Step down with dignity. If this happens, we get the changes that seem to be needed at the Department of Defense.

To be blunt both major political parties are playing politics with this and it needs to stop. The Communist/Islamic Extremist alliance we face is an existential threat to the US and needs to be treated as such by Republicans and Democrats. If we are unserious about fighting this enemy abroad, we should pull back to Fortress America without delay.

Tom

I think Chuck is referring to the official Congressional reports. I put more weight behind these than I do a CBS news article. The msm often glosses over the bipartisan reports becuase it does not fit their agenda. Other media outlets often gloss over the failures of Rumsfeld becuase it does not fit its agenda either.

Prior to 911 Iraq was viewed by many people, incorrectly in my opinion, as the biggest national security threat to the US. In this environment, urgently planning for a possible invasion of Iraq is understandable and even prudent. This does NOT excuse the failure to commit the proper resources or failing to invest the proper resources into understanding the sectarian nature of Iraq. People including the Secretary of Defense will need to be held accountable.

The Republcians can demonstrate they are serious by getting out in front on this issue. The Democrats are on this right now, as they should be.

The Democrats can show they are serious by shining a bright light on the intellegence failures. Right now Republicans and Democrats are being mighty selective in who they are trying to hold to account. They seem to be playing partisan politics. This needs to stop.

B. Poster,

Actually, the official report has yet to come out... the investigation into the official report has yet to even begin... Congress investigated the intelligence failure, but has not followed up with it's long-promised investigation into whether intelligence was cherry-picked, manipulated, exaggerated, etc...

That has been promised but never given.

Fact is, there is intelligence that turned out to be correct that was buried while almost all the incorrect intell was trumpeted to the American people. How does that happen?

To me, it's no coincidence that many prominent members of the Project for the New American Century are involved in the Bush white house. Iraq was their Syriana...

The fact that they were looking for a reason to attack Iraq from the get go; the fact that the intell they pushed to get the war was false while intell that would have hurt their objective but turned out to be true was buried stinks to high hell.

No, the investigation into all this has not taken place. And there's a ton of evidence to show that the WMD threat was overplayed in order to get Americans behind their "experiment" in bringing freedom to Iraq (and thus the Middle East).

Tom

"The investigation into the investigation," this could be helpful. Trying to prove Bush lied or cherry picked the intellegence has been an ongoing investigation and keeps coming up dry. While we are doing this we can ivestigate the Syrian angle to Saddam's WMD program. Frankly that aspect has not received any thing close to the resources that the attempts to prove intellegece was cherry picked has received.

"Fact is, there is intellegence that turned out to be correct that was buried while almost all the incorrect intell was trumped to the American people. How does that happen?" The intellegence seems to have been the same intellegence we had prior to 911. It seems neither Democrats, nor Republicans, nor their various mouth pieces in the media believed the intellegence that said WMD would not be there. We and our coaliton partners were wrong. The WMD was not "there." The appropiate response is for us to work together to fix the intellegence.

"To me, it's no coincidence that many prominent members of Project for the New American Century are involved in the Bush White House. Iraq was their Syriana..." Iraq was identified before 911 as a major threat to Aemrican national security. As such, there will be plans in place to deal with the threat. People are going to write papers about it, as the people you mention apparently did. We can probably find Government officials who write papers criticizing America as the "imperial bully."

"The fact they were looking to attack Iraq from the get go..." It has long been offical American policy to support the overthrow of the Iraqi regime since long before the Bush Administration came in. After the 911 attacks, some people thought it more urgent. The intell that was pushed was the intell that Republicans, Democrats, their media mouth pieces, and our Coalition allies believed to be correct. This does NOT excuse the planning over sights that were made.

Overplaying intellegece, cherry picking it, etc is much the same as saying the analyists were pressured. So far, the offical investigations have not revealed that. In any event, Congressional oversight commitees exist to hold groups like the CIA and others accountable. If these intell was cherry picked this would mean the bipartisan over sight committees agreed with the intell that was used to make the case.

In our political environment, overplaying the intellegence would be extremely difficult and virtually impossible, especially for a group like "neo conservatives" or the folks with the New American Century who have very little influence within the main stream news media. For someone like moveon.org it would be very difficult but not impossible, as they have more support in the main stream news media that can be used to run interference for them.

Finallly, prior to 911 many people understood that the situation in the broader middle east posed a major national security threat to the US and that it was in our national interest to seek to change this. The attacks of 911 made this more urgent.

The notion of bringing democracy to Iraq existed prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Iraq Liberation Act was passed in 1998. Two primary mistakes were made, in trying to bring Democracy to Iraq. We allowed Islamic extremists into the political process and we did not commit enough troops to secur