I am constantly amazed by how selective your memory is Mark.

Bush linked Iraq and Al Qaeda together MANY times, as did Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice.

But its good for us, bad for you that your poorly thought out mis-information and propaganda can be so easily proven to be completely FALSE.

Just one example from 2004, can be found here:

Boston Globe 2004 Article

---------------

Bush backs Cheney on assertion linking Hussein, Al Qaeda

By Michael Kranish and Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | June 16, 2004

WASHINGTON -- President Bush yesterday defended Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion this week that Saddam Hussein had longstanding ties with Al Qaeda, even as critics charged that the White House had no new proof of a connection.

At a news conference with Afghan president Hamid Karzai, Bush stood by his vice president, saying Hussein ''had ties to terrorist organizations," though he did not specifically mention Al Qaeda.

''I look forward to the debates where people are saying, 'Oh gosh, the world would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power,' " Bush said.

Bush has previously said there was ''no evidence" linking Hussein to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but he and other members of his administration have continued to say they believe there were ties between Hussein and Al Qaeda. In a speech to the conservative Madison Institute in Orlando on Monday, Cheney called Hussein ''a patron of terrorism" and said ''he had long established ties with Al Qaeda."

An April poll by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes found that 57 percent of Americans surveyed believed that Iraq was helping Al Qaeda before the war, including 20 percent who believed Iraq was linked to the Sept. 11 attacks.

However, a former top weapons inspector said yesterday he and other investigators have not found evidence of a Hussein-Al Qaeda link.

''At various times Al Qaeda people came through Baghdad and in some cases resided there," said David Kay, former head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, which searched for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism. ''But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all."

''Cheney's speech is evidence-free," Kay said. ''It is an assertion, but doesn't say why we should be believe this now."

Cheney's comments Monday echoed a January interview with National Public Radio in which he said, ''There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there."

Cheney's continued assertions are stronger than a statement made earlier this year by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who said ''I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection," while adding that ''the possibility of such connections did exist."

Cheney's statement comes amid questions about whether the Bush administration used faulty or misleading intelligence in saying that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which was a justification for Bush's decision to go to war against Iraq.

In recent weeks, Powell has apologized for at least two lapses regarding information about Iraq and terrorism. In a recent appearance NBC-TV's ''Meet The Press," Powell said that he had relied on faulty intelligence when he told the United Nations in 2003 that Iraq had biological weapons labs. ''It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading," Powell said.

Separately, Powell on Sunday said that a State Department report was mistaken in saying that terrorism events had dropped in the past three years. Blaming faulty statistics, Powell said the report was ''very embarrassing."

Last September, Bush said there was no proven link between the Sept. 11 attacks and Hussein. ''We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said, responding to questions at the time about a statement by Cheney that ''we don't know" if there was such a link to the terror attacks.

Whether Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction at the time of the US-led invasion and whether he had ties to Al Qaeda have become issues in the presidential campaign.

Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Democratic presidential campaign of Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, said Cheney's comment Monday was the latest in a series of misleading statements.

''In just the last week, the Bush Administration claimed that terrorist attacks were at their lowest levels since 1969, only to reverse itself when independent researchers showed that attacks are at their highest levels in 20 years," Singer said. ''Now it's trying to link Saddam and Al Qaeda."

When Bush was asked by reporters yesterday about Cheney's allegation, the president responded that continuing terrorist attacks in Iraq provide the best evidence that Iraq supported Al Qaeda. He cited Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian described by administration officials before the war as an Al Qaeda facilitator who is believed to be responsible for killing hundreds in terrorist attacks in the last year.

A purported letter from Zarqawi to Al Qaeda leaders, intercepted earlier this year by the US military in Iraq, was viewed as a plea for more assistance from the international terrorist network.

''Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to Al Qaeda affiliates and Al Qaeda," Bush said. ''He's the person who's still killing. He's the person -- remember the e-mail exchange between Al Qaeda leadership and he himself about how to disrupt the progress toward freedom? Saddam Hussein also had ties to terrorist organizations as well."

Before the war, intelligence officials said, Zarqawi was operating with the Al Qaeda-linked terrorist group Ansar Al Islam in Kurdish-held northern Iraq, not in territory under the control of Hussein's regime. Thus, questions have been raised about whether Zarqawi was working in concert with Hussein before the US invaded Iraq.

Since the toppling of Hussein, however, debate over the Iraq-Al Qaeda relationship has not abated. A recent book, ''The Connection: How Al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America," by Stephen Hayes, has stirred the debate anew.

Hayes cites communications between Iraqi intelligence and Ansar Al Islam discussing possible financial support, as well as the discovery in February on a roster of the Fedayeen Saddam paramilitary force of a Lieutenant Colonel Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the same name as an Iraqi believed to have helped plan a key Al Qaeda meeting in Malaysia in 2000 that sketched out the 9/11 plot.

Wow Mark...
Keep spinning......

Do far left wing kooks like axis now deny the obvious facts that zarqawi was in Iraq before the invasion? Do they actually deny he was in Iraq when he planned the assassination of American diplomat Laurence Foley in Jordan? We can't let al Qaeda lovers like axis to revise history.

CJ,

The Bush boogieman Zarqawi was a nobody before the invasion. A simple henchman. Before he became the Bush posterboy for propping up the war on terror, no one in america had ever even heard of him before. It was the invasion and more importantly the occupation that gave him a name and any following. Anyway, where he was in Iraq was the important past, was he in Bagdad having tea with Saddam, plotting together to kill Americans?

Nope, rather an obscure and unimportant part of Iraq.

Nice try at a spin and attempt to deflect the fact that Mark published a claim that was easily disproven, but you have to do better. you can do better can't you?

Yup! It's all Bush's fault again, isn't it, Axis? Zarqawi was a nobody, and Bush made him an icon. Was that before or after Zarqawi separated Nick Berg's head from his body?

You surely did use up a lot of space here with that Boston Globe stuff.

What did you prove? NOTHING!

Having a tough time staying on point?

Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read:

Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.

Four days later, on January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden:

Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.

NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered this report:

Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. . . . Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets.

1996 indictment of Osama read:

Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

*** important to note..somehad to be willing to testify under oath to the above fact..
CIA director George Tenet echoed these sentiments in a letter to Congress on October 7, 2002:

--Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

--We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

--Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

--Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

--We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

--Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

Tenet has never backed away from these assessments.

Richard Clark to Post reporter Vernon Loeb, in an article published January 23, 1999. "But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."

Now had Bush ignored the above you position would be today..he's a bum for having ignored warnings..

drop the xi and add an s

We can't let al Qaeda lovers like axis to revise history.

I doubt that axass is an al Qaeda lover, CJ--he's just one of our resident DNC-bots, a Bush-hater whose mind is closed to reason.

The night the b/s cherry-picked report was released by DemoCRAPs in the Senate Intel Committee, Doctor Levin cited dozens of reports and columns that refuted the report, and the DNC talking points. Why do I say "cherry-picked?" Well, it appears that one of the staffers who helped write the report was a former Kerry '04 operative.

That report was just yet another in the barrage of drive-by hits on the administration. None of the hits have to be true--they just have to be loud enough to affect the dumbed-down kooks, and sway the fence-sitters. It's how the left has operated since the '60's.

drop the xi and add an s

Nah, just call him "asass." He knows he's an ass--he's part of our Canadian "axis of dumbassery--" along with his boyfriends CO and Canuckgay...

the desperation by you cons is really getting way past the point of pathetic..

Marks initial claim is completely false and Bush's quote proves it..

if you take CJ's line of reasoning, then Florida must be a sponsor of terrorism because Mohamed Atta went there...talk about al Qaeda lovers..
but that's ok, CJ still says "left wing kooks" enough said about him

finally the greatest, from the sheep:
"Now had Bush ignored the above you(sic) position would be today..he's a bum for having ignored warnings.."
what real warning was ignored by King George? Now what warning was that...it's slipping my mind..something about OBL, planes and attacking America...

but hey, neocon America haters such as yourselves can't be bogged down with facts, you have an afterlife to think of, besides, as the Pres says “It’s unacceptable to think" so go follow, go on..no no, don't think, just follow...there, that's a good little con.

keefer (reefer)

Our distrust of Bush is matched only by your cultish adoration of him. Regardless of what nonsense he spouts, you are all willing to look like ignorant fools in your defense of his absurd behavior. While more & more Republicans are slowly waking up (finally), you continue in your deep, deep slumber.

Just a small observation: Take the Presidents last line and change one letter.

I firmly believe the world is better off without Saddam in power, Martha.

I firmly believe the world is better off without Saddam in power, Murtha.

Still works.

This is hilarious. The left wing bots don't even calculate that the articles cited above came before Bush was in office, and since it doesn't jive with the left wing mantra that Bush lied about Iraq, they just ignore it. If Atta had a non-aggression treaty with Florida, and Atta was invloved in weapons development by Florida, then how would that not be a relationship?

Of course, we all know Saddam didn't develop any weapons, except all the ones he imported illegally from those countries whose income we thwarted by ousting Saddam (any wonder the world doesn't like us when we cut into their check, and any wonder why they don't want us to do the same thing in Iran and North Korea?), and those medium range missiles Iraq was developing itself in violation of UN resolutions. But I'm sure no harm could come from Al Queda having missiles with a thousand mile range capable of carrying WMDs, right?

I have been a long time reader of this Blog but first time commenting.

Has anyone else noticed this pattern: the first responders to Matt or Mark's comments are almost alway our friends from the left. It seems like they are just waiting for an opportunity to jump in with their usual arguments. Since they know there is little chance that they will be persuading anyone, it seems like they are counting on the psychological wearing down of those that oppose them. They seem to be so determined to keep up the attack that one wonders if their real purpose is to frustrate those who truly seek to have an honest diagolue and close down blogging. They will have silenced the opposition. This must not happen.

As far as our first un-named critic, he/she stated that Bush/Cheney have "linked" Hussein and al Qaeda "many times". The Boston Glove article they referenced was not that clear on this "connection". But I my mind, the clarity of the connection is not the issue. For our blame-America-for-all-worlds-problems friends, this lack of clarity is the gotcha they are looking for. But one has to be thinking beyond the battles of today to understand why this "connection" is of minimal importance. FDR had no problem connecting the dots and going after Germany first when it was Japan that attacked us.

The Left berates the use of military power, but power of political position and government can be just a threatening. Their constant changing of positions to try to gain political power demonstrates, to me, the Left is only interested in preserving this great experiment called the USA if it conforms to their way of thinking. They seem to be willing to take the risk that, by disengaging the enemy and waiting until the next 9/11 to hunt them down, in time many throughout the world could be dead and the rest willing to submit to Muslim rule.

I just hope and pray that the tone of the bantering back and forth does not cause sincere God-loving Americans to drop out of the discussion because they tire of the mean-spiritedness. This is not debate but public name calling from the comfort of our homes. One wonders if we can't discuss this in a half-way respectful manner, is there much of a democracy left to protect.

You know, the world is witnessing some amazing events. Islamist head of State, Iran's Ahmadinejad, calls for Islamic leaders to envision a world without the Zionists and America. Islamists are attacking worldwide with terror. Worldwide. The Pope voices historical comments and facts, and the Islamic world has a hissy fit. Get ready for more folks. IT IS COMING. Hatred is growing.

Bubba's Pravda
bubbaspravda.blogspot.com

Keefer Reefer said "he's(axis) part of our Canadian "axis of dumbassery--" along with his boyfriends CO and Canuckgay..."

Keefer, how many times I have to tell you , it is "Canuckguy", not "Canuckgay".

Right is right and left is left and never shall the twaine meet.
The poor moderates, the clear thinkers are still trying to talk sense to the Bush Republican Blockheads. The BRB's have no respect for the truth, they, as CO said, are embarrassing themselves with their blind devotion to Bush and the cronies who control him like a hand puppet.

Did anyone read the article?

The headline says "Bush backs Cheney on assertion linking Hussein, Al Qaeda"

BUSH BACKS CHENEY ON ASSERTION LINKING HUSSEIN, AL QUEDA.

Then the article, in the body, says: "Bush stood by his vice president, saying Hussein ''had ties to terrorist organizations," though he did not specifically mention Al Qaeda."

HAD TIES TO TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS THOUGH HE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION AL QUEDA"

So tell me, neorad BDS OJJSers, where does this say that Bush "back(s) Cheney on assertion linking Hussein, Al Queda"?

By not mentioning Al Queda?

Actually, that is exactly the way you "prove" the rest of your goofball assertions, too.

And you keep claiming that consrvatives are locked into what you call "... cultish adoration of (Bush)..." which is of course contradicted by the simple fact that we are constantly disagreeing with the President on all sorts of issues.

But the point here is that crucial word---"issues". You see, we are issue-oriented. We devlop a philosophy based on issues, and then base our politics on that philosophy and those issues. But you all, the Lefty Lemmings, start with politics (I HATE BUSH) and then work backward, holding every issue and philosophy up to that pre-ordained conclusion, and throwing it out if there is no match.

Which is why the Left has such a huge pile of discarded facts littering its landscape, while it slavishly dotes on the illusions that support its emotional and irrational basis for existence.

I think some of these lefties need vouchers for attendance at a Sylvan Learning Center to fine tune their reading comprehension skills and their insights into the processes of logical deduction and association.

You really do have an amazing grasp of how the right-wing works, Almy--endless recitation of talking points, starting with the conclusion then trying to work backward to justify it, ignoring facts that contradict you, etc.--and then you attribute it solely to the other side. Don't get me wrong, it's funny to watch the cognitive dissonance in action, but it's also sort of sad that an ostensibly reasonably intelligent person could be so blind and wrong. But hey, that's partisanship for ya.

If were as supercilious as you, I'd make up a stupid term and pretend it's what you are--something like Bush Groupie Syndrome--and make sure to constantly rant about how you BGSers are so blinded by your BGS that you can never rise above the level of a stupid BGSer. But I'm not so inane as to do such a childish thing, so I won't.

PS: where does this say that Bush "back(s) Cheney on assertion linking Hussein, Al Queda"?

Right here (emphases mine):
When Bush was asked by reporters yesterday about Cheney's allegation, the president responded that continuing terrorist attacks in Iraq provide the best evidence that Iraq supported Al Qaeda.
...

''Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to Al Qaeda affiliates and Al Qaeda,"

How's that reading comprehension coming along, Almy?

Uh, Almiranta, did YOU read the article?

"When Bush was asked by reporters yesterday about Cheney's allegation, the president responded that continuing terrorist attacks in Iraq provide the best evidence that Iraq supported Al Qaeda. He cited Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian described by administration officials before the war as an Al Qaeda facilitator who is believed to be responsible for killing hundreds in terrorist attacks in the last year.

A purported letter from Zarqawi to Al Qaeda leaders, intercepted earlier this year by the US military in Iraq, was viewed as a plea for more assistance from the international terrorist network.

''Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to Al Qaeda affiliates and Al Qaeda," Bush said. ''He's the person who's still killing. He's the person -- remember the e-mail exchange between Al Qaeda leadership and he himself about how to disrupt the progress toward freedom? Saddam Hussein also had ties to terrorist organizations as well."

Guys, it helps to read the ENTIRE article. I know it's hard, but I have faith you guys can do it.

"FDR had no problem connecting the dots and going after Germany first when it was Japan that attacked us."

The US declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. On December 11, Germany declared war on the US. The Doolittle raid occured in April 1942. US military did not establish operations for entering the European theatre until June 1942.

How did FDR go after Germany first?

Tom - Read up on the covert war Roosevelt was waging against Germany PRIOR to December 1941 and post again - OK?

Lend-Lease? Wasn't so covert. Beside, the point John was trying to make was that FDR "connected the dots" and went after Germany first, despite the fact that it was Japan that attacked us.

That's just not true. And even if we did go after Germany first after being attacked by Japan, they A) declared war on us B) were engaged in a war against our closest ally and c) was actively trying to take over Europe.

And what you lefties keep doing is trying to read in to the remarks of President Bush a definitive event of connected Saddam and al-Qaeda ... we know why: because you believe the conspiracy theories about 9/11, but you just won't admit to such adherence here on a conservative blog...sometimes you guys stray close to admission, like when you bring up PNAC, but mostly you just assert the main underpinnings of the conspiracy theories without allowing yourselves to carry on your argument to the conclusion.

Right, when you realize you've lost the argument, bring out the straw man...

Tom,

The plain fact of the matter is that in very egregious violations of international law, the United States under FDR deliberately provoked Germany again and again in the hope that Hitler would prove fool enough to declare war on us - after more than two years of refusing to be drawn, Hitler obliged us shortly after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor at a time when, had Hitler remained nuetral in the Pacific War, the fight against Japan would have absorbed the majority of our military efforts. We can see, in my view, the finger of God in that - He wanted Hitler destroyed, and the means He choose was Hitler's own madness.

How are we to judge the dishonest trickery by which FDR tried to get Hitler to declare war on us, and eventually succeeded in tricking Japan in to declaring war on us? To me, it is still something we shouldn't have done - on September 1, 1939, FDR should have marched down to Congress and asked for a declaration of war against Hitler...it was the right thing to do, but FDR refused to do it because his narrow political calculations (ie, his impending run for a third term in 1940), made him plain and simple afraid to do the right thing vis a vis Hitler.

We must always do the right thing - and President Bush has been doing that since 9/11/01. It has been hard, and it has been risky, but all has come out right and will continue to come out right as long as President Bush does the right thing.

I know you and the rest of the left think President Bush has been using dishonest trickery to get his way - but he really hasn't. It has all been laid clearly on the table - the precise reasons for everything that has been done, and all of those reasons in accordance with proper morality.

No Tom - NOT lend-lease.

There were close connections between the intelligence services. In fact, we had no intelligence service and Roosevelt started one (put a Republican in charge of it) and we drew heavily on the British knowledge base and techniques. They helped us form and train what became the O.S.S. during the war. The O.S.S. became the CIA after the war.

Lend-lease went further than acknowledged (for example it was actually an American flyer who called in the position of the Bismark), and the Brit's moved most of their Top Secret scientific work to the United Staes. This included the cavity magnatron (which made airborne RADARs possible), codebraeking expertise, and their very advanced nuclear work. The British nuclear program was the seed for our own. Ever wonder how the Brits ended up with the Bomb after the war?

But - to the original post you replied to... When the war DID break out Roosevelt put the priority on the European front with secondary status going to the Pacific. I think thats what the original poster meant. But of course, as usual we have to educate you ignorant liberals to get you up to speed enough to argue with. I DID ask you nicely to read up on it. I honestly didn't want to have to embarass you by ONCE AGAIN publically educating you.

Don't kid yourself Mark, you aren't fooling anyone of us. You would have been a staunch supporter of Charles Lindbergh and America First. Your stab at FDR revealed your true nature.

Willem,

No - what we learned from the late, unlamented 20th century is that we must strike at evil at the earliest possible moment. Had Hitler been struck when he re-militarized the Rhineland, then there would not have been a WWII and its horrific aftermath.

What we also learned - or, at least, should have learned - is that there must be strict adherence to Judeo-Christian morality as we conduct our public affairs. We were quite sly and devious in the manner we provoked our enemies in to attacking us - and this has been horrendously excused because people absurdly think that war requires national unanimity. We should have just been forthright - stating what we would find unacceptable, and then going to war when the tyrants stepped over the line drawn. Honesty and courage are the tickets to peace, justice, freedom and security.

What did we get for our unwillingless to face things squarely?

Well, we got war crimes trials in Nuremberg where we officially pinned the Katyn Massacre on the Nazis - hows that for justice? Why did we do this? Because in our fall in to dishonesty, we allied ourselves with the equally horrific Stalinist regime, and in a desire to keep on good terms with that anti-human dictator, we agreed to spread muck on ourselves so his depravity wouldn't be in such sharp relief.

But that was just the start - we also agreed to allow that horrible tryant to take over half of Europe...we called what he did a "liberation" of Europe, when basic honesty demanded we call it a "re-enslavement". We patted ourselves on the back for fighting Nazis, and ignored the fact that we ushered in a tyranny at least as bad.

Then, get this, in order to get ourselves out of the jam we placed ourselves in, we allied ourselves with all manner of tyrants around the globe, provided they would sign on to an anti-communist banner. Oh, what glorious days - rather than just admit our WWII error and strike Stalin down directly, we dishonestly went around calling tyrants "democrats" ... to be sure, we had to fight the Stalinist regime...but had we done it honestly as we should have, it wouldn't have taken a 50 year cold war to do it.

And here it is, 2006 - in President Bush we've got a man who understands the hard-learned lessons of the past, and people like you condemn him for doing the right thing...you'd prefer if we just lie a little bit...pretend that the terrorists can be negotiated with, pretend that they have at least some justification for their actions - and, most importantly, pretend that it isn't a war...this would allow you to go around feeling good about yourself because you wouldn't be called upon to choose between good and evil.

Forget it, Willem - some of us have both our eyes open and know what is going on.

WVO - Once the war did start COLONEL Lindbergh went to the pacific were he taught our P-38 pilots how to get the most out of their fuel nearly doubling their range. He went on combat missions and even shot down a Jap - that's when the Pentagon pulled him out of the area for fear of losing him. Later, he developed fuel saving techniques and tactics for other aircraft.

At least when the baloon went up - he helped. Unlike you liberals.

The decision to invade Iraq and the execution of the ivasion are separate. As such, they should be evaluated separately.

Iraq's ties to terrorists and its attempts to acquire WMD were well known long before Bush came to office. The events of 911 caused some people to evaluate national security differently. In a post 911 world, Iraq becaem a legitmate target. Congress agreed with this assessment and authorized the war. Also over twenty countries agreed and chose to help in some way.

The execution of the war has left much to be desired. Specifically it seems we have never had enough troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. Also, we have yet to correct this and add more troops. Personally I would like to commit more troops to Iraq to try and get security under control, if such a troop commitment is consistent with American national security. If we are not going to commit more troops or if we can't, then we need to scale back the missions in Iraq. If we can't or won't contribute more troops to Iraq, then it is time to withdraw to Kurdish areas. From these areas, we can monitor the civil war and intervene, if we need to, to make sure terrorist bases are not established in the areas we vacate. This can probably be done with a smaller troop commitment. The troops who are freed up from the scaled back Iraqi mission can be used in Afghainstan or elsewhere in the GWOT.

"deliberately falsely tied Saddam and al-Qaeda together in order to gin up support for the liberation of Iraq. Of course, no such thing ever happened"

No such thing "ever happened", Mark?
Then why do you see all these quotes I am about to post?:

Rice, Sept. 25, 2002: "There clearly are contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship here. ... And there are some al-Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad."

Bush, Oct. 7, 2006: "We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade" and "we've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28, 2003: "And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."

Bush, Feb. 6, 2003: "Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al-Qaeda" and "Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training."

Cheney, Jan. 21, 2004: "I continue to believe — I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there."

Cheney, Jun. 16, 2004: Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with al-Qaeda."

"In a post 911 world, Iraq becaem a legitmate target."

Nope. No threat to the United States.

WOW, Mark and Kahn, you guys really are not that smart. OK, so there was intelligence work by the US done aside from Lend Lease. It's no secret that FDR wanted into the war in europe. If I was taught about the program Kahn is talking about, it wasn't available off the top of my head.

BUT

Getting back to the topic at hand. John said FDR connected the dots and went after germany even though Japan attacked us first. I refer you to my first post on the subject:

"FDR had no problem connecting the dots and going after Germany first when it was Japan that attacked us."

The US declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. On December 11, Germany declared war on the US. The Doolittle raid occured in April 1942. US military did not establish operations for entering the European theatre until June 1942.

How did FDR go after Germany first?

So Mark and Kahn, are you guys COMPLETE IDIOTS or do you just don't know how to read?

Kahn,

I'm sure Roosevelt did put a priority on Europe, because that's where the entire world was going to hell... he'd been itching to going the war for years, and when Germany declared war on us, he had his green light.

John was trying to say that FDR used Pearl Harbor to go after Germany; that he "connected the dots" and used Pearl Harbor as a an excuse to join the war in Europe. That's simply NOT the case. After Pearl Harbor, the US was at war with Japan. It was not until Germany declared war on us that we put we fully entered the European theatre. It's just a fact. You guys just missed the point entirely... which is not very surprising.

Tom,

He named Germany as the priority taget and shifted the bulk of the resources to it. It didn't happen in December.

I don't exactly understand your point. This is well known isn't it? The plan was Europe first and then Japan. It's also well known that even before the war Roosevelt was working to support Britain with intelligence help, weapons (lend lease, just because you have a name for it doesn't lessen its significance). We absorbed Britain’s scientific programs to develop some major weapons.

The ties between Roosevelt and England were pretty substantial. Do yourself a favor and find a copy of "A Man Called Intrepid". It's about England’s intelligence boss in World War two. It's worth reading. I won't even make the crack about needing to educate you. Though.... your first paragraph you call Mark and I stupid for knowing stuff you don't? That's really your point? What - are you really Jean-Paule Satre?

Guys, it helps to read the ENTIRE article. I know it's hard, but I have faith you guys can do it.

Reading comprehension helps, too--Shitley should go get herself some...

Keefer, how many times I have to tell you , it is "Canuckguy", not "Canuckgay".

You can stop telling me anytime, Canuckgay. Now run along; your boyfriends axass and Co miss you...

Kahn, I called you guys idiots for not knowing what this entire discussion is about... which apparantly, you still haven't grasped.

Here's what I origanlly replied to:

"FDR had no problem connecting the dots and going after Germany first when it was Japan that attacked us."

I never said that roosevelt didn't want to join the war in europe, and i fact am fully aware that he was held back from doing so by domestic politics. But John's assertation that FDR somehow "connected the dots" and "went after germany" becaues Japan attacked us is entirely false. What got us fully invovled in the european theatre was Germany's declaration of war against us. After Pearl Harbor, we physically went after Japan first. We had for years (before pearl harbor) been preparing for war in europe. To say that we used Pearl Harbor to get fully involved in the european theatre is false. It's debated by historians whether pearl harbor would have led us to war in europe without germany's declaration. Maybe it would have. Maybe not. But to say, as John said, FDR connected the dots after Japans invasion and went after germany first is so utterly ignorant of the reality of the situation, that it's laughable that you two don't even know what position you're defending... and if you do know, it's laughable that you're defending it. FDR was fully ready to go after germany regardless of what anything that Japan did. There's was no "connecting the dots" needed. What was needed was a trigger. And that trigger was Germany's declaration of war against the US, NOT pearl harbor.

Kahn, I called you guys idiots for not knowing what this entire discussion is about... which apparantly, you still haven't grasped.

Here's what I origanlly replied to:

"FDR had no problem connecting the dots and going after Germany first when it was Japan that attacked us."

I never said that roosevelt didn't want to join the war in europe, and i fact am fully aware that he was held back from doing so by domestic politics. But John's assertation that FDR somehow "connected the dots" and "went after germany" becaues Japan attacked us is entirely false. What got us fully invovled in the european theatre was Germany's declaration of war against us. After Pearl Harbor, we physically went after Japan first. We had for years (before pearl harbor) been preparing for war in europe. To say that we used Pearl Harbor to get fully involved in the european theatre is false. It's debated by historians whether pearl harbor would have led us to war in europe without germany's declaration. Maybe it would have. Maybe not. But to say, as John said, FDR connected the dots after Japans invasion and went after germany first is so utterly ignorant of the reality of the situation, that it's laughable that you two don't even know what position you're defending... and if you do know, it's laughable that you're defending it. FDR was fully ready to go after germany regardless of what anything that Japan did. There's was no "connecting the dots" needed. What was needed was a trigger. And that trigger was Germany's declaration of war against the US, NOT pearl harbor.

Tom - I'm afraid your post is a little incoherent. Also, I'm afraid you don't know nearly as much as you think you do. Did you get the Sarte reference? I thought not.

You're right - I don't get your point. Does that make me an idiot? Well, since I seem to know a whole lot more than you..... probably not. You may want to ask someone outside the commune for an opinion of your intelligence.

I think the point here is...

1. just as Japan attacked us and Germany declared war: Al Queada attacked us and other Islaofascists declared war.
2. just as Japan was attacked right back, but seen as the lesser threat: Al Queada and the Taliban were attacked but seen as the lesser threat compared to the middle-eastern nations sponsoring terror groups as a way to attack us with deniability.

By the way, once before I indulged myself with an insult war - and well even my conservative (not you other Marines, I know) were shocked. Mark - maybe we could have a no-holds-barred, no insults to inappropriate thread just to get it out of our systems?

Aw, never mind. The best ones I've read come from other conservatives. Most of the liberal ones are in the caca poopoo category.

Mark, here you go again with your sloppy use of facts and creating a fictitious historical reality.
It's probably best illustrated with your assertion that the Katyn Massacre was blamed on the Nazi's at the Nuremberg Trials. Wrong.
The Soviet prosecutor tried to indict Germany for the Katyn killings but that was as far as it got.

Comparing pre-war Germany with it's vast amount of military power is in no way comparable with pre-war Iraq that had been subjected to economic sanctions on no-fly-zones over the northern and southern parts of the country. In contrast to Hitler, Saddam was not able to re-militarized his country and certainly not to the scale Hitler had been able to do.

Honesty and courage are the tickets to peace, justice, freedom and security.

Courage in your paranoid and feverish mind can probably only found on the battefield. Remember this picture?

Once the war did start COLONEL Lindbergh went to the pacific

Good for him. Nice to see you acknowledge he was wrong before WWII but redeemed himself afterwards. How many of his conservative friends from America First did that?

Annoying isn't it, that history proofed the liberal FDR right because he had the honesty and the courage to stand for what was right. That it were the Social Democrats who dared to oppose Hitler in March 1933 when Hitler rammed his ‘Enabling Act’ and the ‘Reichstag Fire Decree’ (which rescinded habeas corpus and civil liberties, sounds familiar?) through the Reichstag.
Annyoing, isn't it, that it were liberals who organized the February Strike in Amsterdam in February 1941. The first direct action undertaken against the anti-Jewish measures of the Nazis in occupied Europe, and performed by non-Jewish citizens.

Tom,

While American troops were exhausted and running out of supplies on Bataan, Roosevelt wan't to re-route a supply convoy from them to the USSR...only domestic political considerations moved Roosevelt to, gee whiz, actually let American troops have those supplies - that is FDR choosing Europe over Japan at the start of WWII.

Willem,

You are correct about Nuremberg - but not about anything else.

The main thing is that the US government officially suppressed two WWII-era reports which clearly showed that the USSR had massacred the Poles...and we only dropped the Katyn charges against the Germans at Nuremberg because the German defense attorneys were having a field day with it.

Bush still hasn't caught the leader of the 9/11 attack. He chose to end that mission to go into Iraq where there were no direct ties to 9/11. Until bin Laden is brought to justice, and the US remains in Iraq this will not go away. Bush and Cheney, etc. have repeatedly tried to link Iraq and al-Quaeda and bin Laden and Hussein--and it's just not there (and Bush recently said that).

There were (and are) plenty of other dictators and warlords hurting their citizens, watching genecide, andn countries that could threaten the US. Bush hasn't taken a stand against them. Perhpas they are the wrong color or perhaps there's no way to win. However, to use the excuse that the world is better off without Hussein in power is not enough with so many others of similar effect out there about which nothing is being done.

Bush needs to capture bin Laden first and then clean up, as best as possible, the mess that's been made of Iraq.

Guys,

The US was engaged in the war in the pacific prior the being involved in Europe. It's fact. We did not "go after germany first."

We did go after him with more resources, because, gee whiz, he was a greater and more immediate threat considering England was holding on for dear life.

You can't compare Iraq to Germany because A) Germany had invaded multiple countries and was actively trying to take over europe (and asia for that matter). B) engaged in a war with our closest ally and C) actually DECLARED WAR ON US.

There was no "connecting the dots" needed. Anyway you looked at it we had legal and moral cause to join the war, even before Germany declared war on us. But we didn't, not even after Japan bombed us.

John's statement is just incorrect. And making the connection between Iraq and Germany is incorrect as well... even if you make the case that the real threat is terror sponsoring states. Iraq did not work with, support or even turn a blind eye toward AQ. They did not have the WMDs or nuclear capabilities to aid terror groups looking to attack the US even if he was working with them (even though there is no evidence he was).

If Bush connected the dots and went after Iraq because of 9/11, then he connected the wrong dots. If terror-sponsoring states are the real threat, he should have gone after Saudia Arabia or Iran, not Iraq.

Regardless, Pearl Harbor did not get us involved in the european theatre the way 9/11 got us involved with Iraq. It just didn't. FDR did not use 12/7 as an excuse to go after germany. There were no "dots" connected. Bush did use 9/11 as an excuse to go after Iraq.

(and if I was a little incoherent and surely last night, it's because I had a few too many celebrating the Irish loss. i apologize for the insults.)

And even if FDR declared war on Germany on Dec 8, even if he did use Pearl Harbor as an excuse to enter the European theatre, it would still not be comparable to Bush using 9/11 to invade Iraq.

Japan and Germany were allies. Germany was trying to take over Europe and was fighting our closest ally. It would have been acceptable to join the war against Germany because their ally attacked us and there was a true, immediate NEED to fight Germany.

Iraq was not an ally of the Taliban and AQ. They had not invaded anyone. They were not even the threat Bush made them out to be. Comparing FDR actions in getting us into the war in Europe and Bush's in getting us into Iraq is a false attempt to paint what's going on in Iraq as something that it's not. In advertising, it's called "borrowed attention." Dan Quayle tried it when he compared himself to JFK. Same kind of thing here. Bush is no FDR (and no, I did not know FDR and he was not a friend).

Look, Shitley, we're all impressed--you're a WWII scholar. Now work on your perception of current events, and your sorry arse may gain some validity around here. I seriously doubt it.

Now don't go gettin' all pissed off, Tammy...

There were (and are) plenty of other dictators and warlords hurting their citizens, watching genecide, andn countries that could threaten the US. Bush hasn't taken a stand against them.

Mark, does this blog have a spell-checker? I could use it myself sometimes, and these kooks really need it. Anyway, Gnat, you libs were bitchin' and moanin' about us "being the world's police" before we liberated Iraq. Now that we've gone there and established a central front, you libs want us to be the world's police. What the hell?

Also, Gnat, your beloved Slick Willie had a wife; why did he have to go to Monica for a hummer?

Perhpas they are the wrong color or perhaps there's no way to win.

Yeah, just like in New Orleans, right. No way to win? Sounds like a Republican running in California, Washington, or New York.

However, to use the excuse that the world is better off without Hussein in power is not enough with so many others of similar effect out there about which nothing is being done.

It's not an excuse, Gnat--it's a fact. Sorry, Howard Dean says we're not better off. You must be right then. And to say nothing is being done elsewhere is just not true. Your heroes at the U.N. are on the job, Gnat. they're in Somalia, the Sudan, Rwanda, and many other hotbeds of despotism. You see, we're not the only world's police.

You writing skills are non-existent, Gnat. You either attended public school in Baltimore, or you're a recent college graduate. Which is it?

I was born and raised a conservative. My family has a long military history, and I actually lost my father to Vietnam.

With that said... When we send our troops into battle it must be with the UTMOST care, and absolute certainty we are doing not only the right thing for the right reasons, but it is worth the blood and money we are prepared to put into it...

This administration had my backing. I remember shuddering when our President uttered those now famous words "Saddam Hussein is seeking uranium from Africa"... Those were the words that made me realize we HAD to got to war, and it was an unstoppable conclusion.

Through time I have come to believe that we were mislead. Whether through misinformation or flatout lies it does not matter. This administration rushed into war blindly without am escape strategy, and now men have died. And soldiers like my dad will leave behind children like me that will never know their father, and they will carry that with them til the day they die.

I am not only disappointed, but disgusted how blindly we are following these suited politicians. I know the military. They are filled with nothing but unquestioned loyalty to our nation and our government. Our soldiers take orders and follow them. Period. End of statement. Politics do not enter into the equation. For that reason WE the people are the ones to make sure that OUR government is held accountable for THEIR misjudgements.

You arm chair conservatives have forgotten your party. We are the party of LESS government in your life. We are the party of fiscal responsibility. And most of all we are supposed to be the party of moral and values.

What values can we say we have when we cannot take responsibility for our own bad decisions, and costly mistakes?

I support our troops. I love our country. Our President does not take an oath to protect us, but our constitution. And this is one loyal American who believes these suits have ran on fear mongering and mistruths for too long.

I never thought I'd say this... but it's time for democrats to take congress. We held Bill Clinton to checks and balances (a large reason he balanced the budget). And it's time this administration was held responsible for taking us for granted.

To the Nate that posted above, saying,

"Bush still hasn't caught the leader of the 9/11 attack..."

Please be aware that there is aleady a Nate on this forum. There may be room here for two Nates, but please, for Nate's sake, if you're going to use the name, don't say anything too stupid. And yes, accusing Bush of racism counts as Too Stupid.

Keefer - I understand the your primary mode of debate is name-calling, and that doesn't bother me so much. I deal with little kids all day, so I'm used to it.

If you click on my (and Other Nate's) typekey thingy, it may help you to decide whether to say, "screw you nate", or "screw you, nate, you left wing kook".

"Which is why the has such a huge pile of discarded facts littering its landscape, while it slavishly dotes on the illusions that support its emotional and irrational basis for existence."

Yes, the Republicans are a huge problem. And you have a problem with Psychological Projection.

Go look at my post with the many quotes Bush and the adminstration have given linking the two parties in question. I'll wait for your apology.

A huge percetage of the Congressional Report was censored. Sometimes, the paragraph in front of, and just after senteences used in the press ar blacked out. How can anyone take it seriously?

I deal with little kids all day, so I'm used to it.

Hmmm, this sounds suspicious--should I lock up my kids?