Archive for Monday, October 2, 2006

Fuel for radicals

October 2, 2006


To the editor:

Gen. Richard Myers thinks it would be a disaster to pull out of Iraq because the extremists would see us as morally weak (Journal-World, Sept. 28). So, let's review. We wage war on a sovereign nation that is not a direct threat to us, not connected to 9/11 and has no weapons of mass destruction that can harm us or our allies. (Sure, Saddam is a bad guy, and the world would be better off without him in power, but really he can't touch the U.S.)

When the people of this country fight back, the ones that we don't kill, we torture or imprison indefinitely without charging them. When the news of this torture is not well received by the international community, we move these combatants to other countries where we can torture them covertly. So, Gen. Myers, do you see our country's actions as morally strong up to this point?

If we are trying to claim moral supremacy in the Iraqi war, we are kidding ourselves. Our actions in starting and conducting this war are manna to the Islamic extremists. No matter what our intentions were going in, this immoral war fuels radical Islam.

Joe Gant,



KsTwister 11 years, 7 months ago

Good time for bumper stickers -"Bush-I'm not with Stupid"

Richard Heckler 11 years, 7 months ago

It has been estimated that americans are paying $6-$12 per gallon for gas due to the military involvement insofar as oil pipeline security is concerned. The price could increase when or if the final tab is revealed for the Iraq escapade.

Jamesaust 11 years, 7 months ago

"So, let's review." Just not with facts.

  1. Iraq's sovereignty was diminished by the cease-fire agreement that it repeatedly broke. Nations cannot claim the protections of sovereignty and yet shrug off its obligations.
  2. Iraq was a threat to the U.S. and its allies (only the imminency is debateable). Even setting aside the pathetic "intelligence" produced with out taxpayer dollars, Iraq was capable and determined to regain its weapons when no longer under sanctions - a day that was imminent.
  3. Saddam was a "bad guy" - bad enough to contest any other for "worst guy." (No doubt the author favors intervention in other places more to his liking - perhaps Sudan?)
  4. People of the country "fight back" - against themselves? Iraq has a government that fully and fairly represents its people.
  5. The "torture or imprison indefinately" come from elsewhere - the well-documented torture in Iraq was never government policy, which is complicit only in the environment created. I believe the author is referring to terrorist suspects rounded up elsewhere (there weren't any terrorist in Iraq, were they? Let's keep our story straight.)
  6. How are "other countries" not the "international community"? The true international community policy is to publically deny but secretly to torture, including France, Spain, and the U.K.
  7. There aren't even allegations that the U.S. tortures people in other countries - only that the U.S. turns a blind eye to those countries' own torture (so-called "outsourcing" of torture).
  8. Fuel for radicals - I hadn't noticed they needed any fuel: any issue - real or imaginary - will do (perhaps, save the whales?).

Here we are, soon to close out 2006, and the radical left still can't get its story straight or focus on real threats versus Michael Moore's talking points, and so the incompetent Bushies continue to roll right along. I've given up on the left producing a clear-headed alternative policy to the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal. And we're all worse for that failure.

xenophonschild 11 years, 7 months ago

Who will be the last Bush supporter in Douglas County?

In a recently released book - "State of Denial: Bush at War Part III," by Washington Post editor Bob Woodward, he describes a July 10, 2001 meeting in which then-CIA director George Tenet and his top counterintelligence aide Cofer Black sought to impress on Condoleezza Rice their fears that an attack on the United States was likely.

According to Woodward, Tenet and Black, Rice gave the men a polite hearing and a "brush-off."

This is just the beginning, but the local contingent of troglodyte conservatives had better google themselves sick to answer their lies that William the Great was responsible for 9/11, and that the Present Occupant and his congerie of incompetents were blameless for the attack.

Jamesaust 11 years, 7 months ago

Ah logicsound: would that I had time to argue world affairs with you and the other vagrants at the public library.

"If you think Saddam had any desire for power outside of his corner of the world then you have no idea what you are talking about." Yeah, that "corner of the world". Hmmm....probably doesn't matter. What value could there possibily be in capturing control of Saddam's little "corner of the world"? Surely, none. The Middle East, Inner Mongolia, Patagonia - they're all pretty much irrelevant backwaters of no global concern.

"The majority of his audience is educated and informed on the issues."

That would seem self-evidently untrue. (And Howard Dean is befuddled why the American people don't trust Democrats on security matters given the screw-ups in place now. Jeez, I wonder why too.)

There's no throwing in the towel in Iraq - a little conflict brought to us by Republicans AND Democrats. That's the one approach guaranteed to be a disaster. I know what the GOP plan is (more of the same). What's the Democrat plan for victory? (Victory? What's victory?)

Porter 11 years, 7 months ago

TJ- You can't talk about revisionist history if you learn yours from a "docu-drama".

damnocracy 11 years, 7 months ago

The first fault of our government was the failure to prevent 9/11.

However, our government had little chance to do anything to avert such a disaster because of the rise of political correctness and political red-tape between "competing" agencies such as local police, the FBI, and the CIA.

The second fault, and the blame here has to go to the Bush Admin., is that they wasted time trying to pacify the left to bring in the wimpy countries to "help."

Too much time was wasted. WE were attacked. We should have only made a courtesy gesture to see if anyone wanted to "help." Say, a max of 5 minutes after the moment when it was clear Osama's boys did this.

Then, bombs away. No mercy.

See, you can't have it both ways. You can't whine and say "don't fight" the cry we didn't have enough troops.

If idiot Rumsfeld would have put enough forces and used appropriate weapons to wipe out everything and everyone in the mountains, the left would cry how evil we are.

I wanted us to use small nuclear weapons to destroy the mountains range used as hiding places by Osama and friends. I wanted us to hold nothing back. But...well, that might have put us down to "their" level.

Ask yourself these questions.

When bombs go off here because our political leaders of both sides failed to stop the illegal flow of people into our country, what will you do?

When the nice Islamic Center on 19th street that has an 18-wheeler from Canada parked in its parking lot from time to time (the one our police department said was only parked there because the driver was awaiting his license?!?) because a base for a terrorist cell (like one down in Columbia, MO by the way), what will we do?

I'm afraid the answer is that a few of us will fight, a few of us will delight in seeing us kicked in the face again, and most of us will spend more time blaming those who oppose our views for allowing it to happen than in being vengeful against those who want to kill ALL OF US regardles of our views.

Where are the CNN and FOX reporters with enough guts to ask what we will do WHEN a worse attack(s) happen here? Of course, there is not a single politician willing to give an answer to that question.

I'm curious. What will you do when all hell breaks loose and the casualties of 9/11 are dwarfed by something else?

davisnin 11 years, 7 months ago

Its Bush's arrogance that keeps us from garnering support in the war? Is it US that the rest of the world is punishing for not doing a thing in Darfur? No, the UN is a worthless organization, completely corrupt and heartless. France was funnelling money into Saddam's coffers for cheap oil with no regard whatsoever to the condition of the people. They, along with most of the security council had more to gain from the continuing oppression of the Iraqis than they do from it being a democracy. THAT is why they didn't join the coalition.

BTW I love how "we should have gone in with more troops in the beginning" is a Dem talking point for what they WILL do differently in coming terms. Their only plan for victory is losing now or a time machine(to lose earlier), which are bad plans. So please, please, PLEASE, nominate Hillary.

Terry Jacobsen 11 years, 7 months ago

What did you all expect from Tenet. The recent showing of "The Path to 9/11" made it very clear that he was as much to blame as anyone for not taking Bin Laden out when he had the chance. Now, let's write a book and say that it's Condi's fault. What a load of crap. Talk about revisionist history.

bjamnjm 11 years, 7 months ago

There is much to be gained from a thorough investigation into 9/11. If honest mistakes were made by past or present administrations they need to be acknowledged and fixed. If criminal intent was involved it needs to be prosecuted. Frankly, all this should have been done already. All that is happening now is one party refusing to accept responsibility and blaming the problems on the other party. This is accomplishing nothing but making it easier for another 9/11 or worse.

We are self-governing. We only need to look to ourselves as to why there are so many crooked politicians. Voter apathy, people voting party lines come hell or high water w/o a single bit of research regarding the candidate they just elected and candidate preference based on one issue are some of the reasons we have this problem. A very few in our population control the government b/c there are no grass-roots PACs. A few control everything b/c nobody else cares. Things will keep getting worse until everyone decides to get involved in the political process. Hopefully, we won't be to late.

When people are viewing events through hindsight they would do well to consider the context for which decisions were made. For example, there was no political will for invading, nuking or whatever Afganistan in the 1990's. We all thought the world was a safer place after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Remember how the military was downsizing? This isn't to blame anyone it's just that it didn't seem like we'd need a huge army again. Also, if anyone remembers Clinton firing a round of cruise missiles into Afganistan all the polls suggested he did it to divert attention from the Monica scandal. I tend to agree that after 9/11 we should have hit Afganistan really hard. The world was with us and everyone would have known we play hard ball. Iraq invasion? In the spring of 2004, the CIA said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. However, irregardless of faulty intelligence, Iraq was telling everyone they had WMDs. I don't know what to think of that. No matter when we pull out of Iraq, Iran will annex it.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.