Archive for Monday, September 11, 2006
Iraq strategy
September 11, 2006
Advertisement
To the editor:
President Bush has a clear plan for victory in Iraq that begins with training Iraqi forces so they can defend their country and fight the terrorists. We are making tremendous progress toward this objective. Earlier this year, Iraqi forces led the fight in clearing out terrorists during the crucial battle of Talafar, with U.S. troops in a supporting role, and every day, Iraqis are taking more control of the situation on the ground. Withdrawing from Iraq, as some Democrats in Washington propose, would send a dangerous signal to our enemies that we cut and run when the going gets tough. President Bush is offering a clear strategy to win, not a political quick fix.
Burwyn Bender,
Lawrence
More like this
- White House to outline strategy for 'Victory in Iraq' today 1 comment / November 30, 2005
- Price of pride 14 comments / October 28, 2006
- GOP senators call for changes in Iraq strategy, including withdrawal July 14, 2007
- Exit strategy is best solution 4 comments / February 17, 2007
- Fruitless fight 5 comments / July 13, 2005
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Nation has right to ask ‘why?’ November 21, 2009 · 55 comments
- Palin stirs feminist ambivalence November 21, 2009 · 26 comments
- Lawrence man charged in hit-and-run accident that killed bicyclist November 19, 2009 · 115 comments
- Mangino's contract outlines probe November 21, 2009 · 68 comments
- KU's Wright didn't approach Perkins November 21, 2009 · 13 comments
- Blog: Palin Book Could Be Your Cheapest Source For Winter Fuel November 20, 2009 · 81 comments
- Blog: Why Do People Repeat Falsehoods? November 20, 2009 · 58 comments
- New, legal, drug has law enforcement concerned — and it's already on a Lawrence store's shelves November 4, 2009 · 116 comments
- Blog: Oh Good Grief... November 18, 2009 · 27 comments
- Mangino denies validity of former player allegations November 19, 2009 · 158 comments
- Four decades in crisis mode November 21, 2009
- Winter sports officially begin for city schools November 17, 2009
- The cowboy way: Williamstown church ministry draws unique following November 21, 2009
- Lawrence couple excel in triathlons November 21, 2009
- Health and stress affect grades November 10, 2008
- Americans save more but earn less as interest rates fall November 21, 2009
- Obesity activist crossing country to urge American Indians to embrace healthier diet November 20, 2009
- Mangino's contract outlines probe November 21, 2009
- Leaders offer tips for chancellor’s successful tenure November 21, 2009
- On target November 21, 2009
11 September 2006
at 6:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
questionable ties
Tracking bin Laden's money flow leads back to Midland, Texas
by Wayne Madsen
On September 24, President George W. Bush appeared at a press conference in the White House Rose Garden to announce a crackdown on the financial networks of terrorists and those who support them. “U.S. banks that have assets of these groups or individuals must freeze their accounts,” Bush declared. “And U.S. citizens or businesses are prohibited from doing business with them.”
But the president hasn't always practiced what he is now preaching: Bush's own businesses were once tied to financial figures in Saudi Arabia who currently support bin Laden.
In 1979, Bush's first business, Arbusto Energy, obtained financing from James Bath, a Houstonian and close family friend. One of many investors, Bath gave Bush $50,000 for a 5 percent stake in Arbusto. At the time, Bath was the sole U.S. business representative for Salem bin Laden, head of the wealthy Saudi Arabian family and a brother (one of 17) to Osama bin Laden. It has long been suspected, but never proven, that the Arbusto money came directly from Salem bin Laden. In a statement issued shortly after the September 11 attacks, the White House vehemently denied the connection, insisting that Bath invested his own money, not Salem bin Laden's, in Arbusto.
In conflicting statements, Bush at first denied ever knowing Bath, then acknowledged his stake in Arbusto and that he was aware Bath represented Saudi interests. In fact, Bath has extensive ties, both to the bin Laden family and major players in the scandal-ridden Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) who have gone on to fund Osama bin Laden. BCCI defrauded depositors of $10 billion in the '80s in what has been called the “largest bank fraud in world financial history” by former Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. During the '80s, BCCI also acted as a main conduit for laundering money intended for clandestine CIA activities, ranging from financial support to the Afghan mujahedin to paying intermediaries in the Iran-Contra affair.
Complete Story:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/…
11 September 2006
at 6:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
62,006 - the number killed in the 'war on terror
By David Randall and Emily Gosden
Published: 10 September 2006
The “war on terror” - and by terrorists - has directly killed a minimum of 62,006 people, created 4.5 million refugees and cost the US more than the sum needed to pay off the debts of every poor nation on earth.
If estimates of other, unquantified, deaths - of insurgents, the Iraq military during the 2003 invasion, those not recorded individually by Western media, and those dying from wounds - are included, then the toll could reach as high as 180,000.
The extraordinary scale of the conflict's impact, claiming lives from New York to Bali and London to Lahore, and the extent of the death tolls in Iraq and Afghanistan, has emerged from an Independent on Sunday survey to mark the fifth anniversary of 11 September. It used new, unpublished data supplied by academics and organisations such as Iraq Body Count and Professor Marc Herold of the University of New Hampshire, plus estimates given by other official studies.
Entire story:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/poli…
11 September 2006
at 7:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
paladin (Anonymous) says…
Bull-hockey. Who's “we”? You got a mouse in your pocket? There is quite often a great divide between what is real and true and what “we” want to be real and true, due to the nature of the intentionality of perception. One sees what one wants and needs to see. You are seeing a fantasy or a hallucination. Absolutely no reality to your vision. The U.S. must get out, “cut and run” if you will, of Iraq and the Middle East ASAP, at least in terms of its visible presence, anyway, anyhow. If not, the subsequent reality will be disaster and ruin, the likes of which no American has ever seen.
11 September 2006
at 7:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
paladin (Anonymous) says…
And, just who is the “enemy”, anyway? Does anone know for sure?
11 September 2006
at 7:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
The enemy is, and should be, “Radical religious extremists who choose to use violence and terror against innocent people, in hopes of forcing their rigid, narrow, totalitarian views on others.”
The enemy should *not* be, at this time, “Playboy dictators with overblown egos and a penchant for blondes and Courvoisier.”
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
11 September 2006
at 7:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
paladin (Anonymous) says…
Maybe the enemy is us.
11 September 2006
at 8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
The president has not offered a clear strategy to win. How can you have a “clear strategy” against a stated enemy, when you ignore the enemy altogether?
Five years after the war began, our most obvious enemy has just this day released another episode of “Total Jihad Live!” to American media. Why does our commander-in-chief allow this? Why does he consistently turn his back on the commander-in-chief, the spiritual leader of radical Islamic jihadists all over the world?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/11/zawa…
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
11 September 2006
at 8:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Speakout (Anonymous) says…
I think you are right, Paladin. When we took the “war on terror” to Iraq, we invited every hot head and adventurer to join the fray and join they did. Not we have a mess, thousands killed and no end in sight. Bushco mishandled it as we knew he would and here we are and no end in sight. Iraq will never be able to fight alone because there are too many to fight, thanks to US.
11 September 2006
at 8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
whistlestop75 (Anonymous) says…
There has been “no end in sight” since attacks of terroists began in 1979 and the United States took no action…regardless of who was President as a country WE did nothing to stop the bombings of embassys in foreign countries killing American military…the encouragement of killing 17 U.S. Navy sailors without retaliation only enhanced the terroist movement…If I am not mistaken that was the Clinton administration…both parties…Republican AND Democrat paid attention only to political concerns in the U.S.A. and ignored what was happening outside our country…it took 9/11 to get our attention…get real with the big picture…at least NOW we are trying to get a handle on security and only because John Q. Public demands it…the election booth is the greatest motivator…
11 September 2006
at 9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksmoderate (Anonymous) says…
The only solution to the Iraq quagmire is a total paradigm shift in U.S. government. Installing a democracy (nation building….remember?) where a democracy will not prosper is the dumbest idea….ever.
In its current state, Iraq should be split into three separate and sovereign nations (Kurds, Sunni, Shia)….and then we and the “coalition of the willing” need to get the h#ll out!
11 September 2006
at 10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
“…Iraqis are taking more control of the situation on the ground.”
This statement assumes that anyone has “control of the situation on the ground.” After 3 years of playing whack-a-mole because this administration has never managed to be serious about winning, I'd think its high time the Iraqis took on some “control” - even if they're just sectarian deathsquads.
(What do we learn just yesterday in the newspapers but that Rumsfeld threatened to fire any subordinate who had the audacity to develop a post-invasion occupation plan.)
11 September 2006
at 11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
temperance (Anonymous) says…
The letter writer is living in a fantasy land. He probably still blames Saddam for 9/11. “The crucial battle of Talafar” — please. Look what's happened in that province since the “crucial battle” — sectarian violence is spreading and we're babysitting a civil war.
happy Patriot Day everyone
11 September 2006
at 12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bunnyhawk (Anonymous) says…
We went into Iraq to fullfill the neocon fantasy of 100% US hegemony over the gulf oil supply. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar……..Iran and Iraq are the missing 'dominoes' and Bush will do everything he can to put our young, and not so young, men and women on the ground in both countries before he leaves office. There was never any real intention to 'win' this war…….as clearly evidenced by the lack of planning and inadequate funding………..but they've been hugely successful in destabilizing the region and creating yet another sham provocation for imperialistic agression toward Iran. Wake up amerika! We are NOT the good guys anymore……..and we won't be until we change our campaign finance rules………so long as corporations own our politicians………our government will represent corporate interests………not yours and mine.
11 September 2006
at 5:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
drewdun (Anonymous) says…
“President Bush is offering a clear strategy to win”
This person does not live in reality. GOP filter!
“Situation Dire in Western Iraq”
“Anbar Is Lost Politically, Marine Analyst Says”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/…
“with U.S. troops in a supporting role, and every day, Iraqis are taking more control of the situation on the ground”
Gee, I thought that I had heard that there was only one Iraqi battalion capable of independent action w/out US backup. Damn that pesky reality for intervening again!
But hey, why rain on Bender's parade? Besides, bringing reality into the equation has never altered a wingnuts perspective before, why start now? We can all expect rt, conman, and the usual suspects here to defend the indefensible soon enough.
I especially love how the letter writer makes sure and throw in that most beloved of all right-wing talking points “cut-and-run.” You know a person has ZERO credibility and even less of an argument when they toss that rubbish in.