Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

War motives

March 26, 2008

Advertisement

To the editor:

Our vice president, just back from a trip to Iraq, makes the statement that the United States' involvement in Iraq is due to its part in 9/11. We all know that Saddam Hussein and Iraq weren't involved, so Cheney's statement must be an attempt to justify U.S. involvement.

I was a resident of south Texas in 2002, and I well remember George W. Bush making the announcement that when elected president, he would avenge the threat Saddam Hussein made against his father, George H.W. Bush, no matter what it takes, so I think this and the possibility of additional income through Halliburton and the no-bid contracts allowed by the White House are the big reasons we are at war in Iraq.

Why else the mismanagement of funds and the extravagant spending on the most expensive and elaborate embassy in the world that there is a possibility the United States may use only short-term.

Howard Lynch,

Lawrence

Comments

posessionannex 6 years ago

Similar ties can be found between George Bush and Hugo Chavez.

Who cares? Chavez is the choice of the people!

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

"Actually, it's for you to see that Cheney says there may have been ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda, ties that have since been confirmed."

Similar ties can be found between George Bush and Hugo Chavez.

0

posessionannex 6 years ago

Apologies, happens to me all the time.

Correction:

A good morning to clean up some logrithmic drivel:

For the record, the United States as ignored U.N. resolutions it does not like (those condemning actions it and Israel have taken) while embracing those it liked (like the resolution against North Korea and the resolution against Saddam's invasion of Kuwait).

For the record, we generally veto those resolutions, making them, uh, not resolutions.

For you and all the world to see: Cheney saying that Iraq was involved in 9-11.

Actually, it's for you to see that Cheney says there may have been ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda, ties that have since been confirmed. It's also for you to see Cheney say "We just don't know (if there was a tie between Saddam and 9/11)"

0

logicsound04 6 years ago

bozo,

That was hilarious and entirely analogous to the behavior of the Bush administration save for one part:

"black knight: All right; we'll call it a draw."

I haven't once heard Bush, in his 7.5 years in office, make any sort of concession whatsoever. If he were the black knight, his response would likely be something to the effect of "you've cut all my arms a legs off--why do you hate America?"

========================================

To those who are so impressed with their cleverness in refuting my "drivel", this is the first post of mine on this thread.

Properly reading screennames--so simple, so plain, yet so complicated for stupid people.

0

ReadingSports 6 years ago

Here is the report on captured Iraqi documents that shows the relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. It should dispel any myths about the relationship between the two and why the president led the United States to war.

It's an interesting read; although, you have to get past the rather vague Executive summary and read the report. put the http:// in front of the following: a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf

or http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf

0

Richard Heckler 6 years ago

Protest is justifed as a reaction to the insanity of the blood thirsty republican party that which mismanages the economy much like the local "emergency real estate anti economic growth Chamber party" demostrates. Both expand our tax bills.

Why is protest justified? British Correspondent Patrick Cockburn on Iraq's Growing Sectarian Divide and the Myth of "Success" in the US "Surge" As a new civil war threatens to explode in Iraq between US-backed Iraqi government forces and Shia militiamen, we go to London to speak with Patrick Cockburn, Iraq correspondent for the London Independent. Covering the invasion and occupation from the ground in Iraq for the past five years, Cockburn has been described as "the best Western journalist at work in Iraq today." He is author of the new book Muqtada: Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia Revival and the Struggle for Iraq. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/27/british_correspondent_patrick_cockburn_on_iraqs Iraq Imploding As We Speak http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-implodes-as-shia-fights-shia-801214.html http://antiwar.com/ Baghdad - Most dangerous City http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,484661,00.html

0

malcolm_x_obama 6 years ago

"For the record, we generally veto those resolutions, making them, uh, not resolutions."

I love reading this stuff because I get to laugh every day. So simple, so plain, yet so complicated for logicsound.

0

posessionannex 6 years ago

A good morning to clean up some logicsound drivel:

For the record, the United States as ignored U.N. resolutions it does not like (those condemning actions it and Israel have taken) while embracing those it liked (like the resolution against North Korea and the resolution against Saddam's invasion of Kuwait).

For the record, we generally veto those resolutions, making them, uh, not resolutions.

For you and all the world to see: Cheney saying that Iraq was involved in 9-11.

Actually, it's for you to see that Cheney says there may have been ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda, ties that have since been confirmed. It's also for you to see Cheney say "We just don't know (if there was a tie between Saddam and 9/11)"

0

Agnostick 6 years ago

Well, our current president bears a striking resemblance to this fellow, so, what'd you expect??

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x298/Agnostick/alfredbush.jpg

0

Red_Peters 6 years ago

No surprise bozo likens war and matters of international security to a Monty Python sketch.

0

posessionannex 6 years ago

No problem, Arthur (One, two, five!)

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

Sorry I didn't oblige, black knight.

0

posessionannex 6 years ago

This is the sketch from Monty Python's Holy Grail

Awww, I was hoping for the "Sort of dictator of the week...." exchange.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

This is the sketch from Monty Python's Holy Grail that I think typifies the defenders of all things BushCo. Just substitute the posts of any BushCo sycophant for the words of the Black Night, and I think you get the gist.

Enjoy--

ARTHUR: You fight with the strength of many men, Sir knight. I am Arthur, King of the Britons. [pause] I seek the finest and the bravest knights in the land to join me in my Court of Camelot. [pause] You have proved yourself worthy; will you join me? [pause] You make me sad. So be it. Come, Patsy. BLACK KNIGHT: None shall pass. ARTHUR: What? BLACK KNIGHT: None shall pass. ARTHUR: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir knight, but I must cross this bridge. BLACK KNIGHT: Then you shall die. ARTHUR: I command you as King of the Britons to stand aside! BLACK KNIGHT: I move for no man. ARTHUR: So be it! [hah] [parry thrust] [ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's left arm off] ARTHUR: Now stand aside, worthy adversary. BLACK KNIGHT: 'Tis but a scratch. ARTHUR: A scratch? Your arm's off! BLACK KNIGHT: No, it isn't. ARTHUR: Well, what's that then? BLACK KNIGHT: I've had worse. ARTHUR: You liar! BLACK KNIGHT: Come on you pansy! [hah] [parry thrust] [ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right arm off] ARTHUR: Victory is mine! [kneeling] We thank thee Lord, that in thy merc- [hah] BLACK KNIGHT: Come on then. ARTHUR: What? BLACK KNIGHT: Have at you! ARTHUR: You are indeed brave, Sir knight, but the fight is mine. BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough, eh? ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left. BLACK KNIGHT: Yes I have. ARTHUR: Look! BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound. [bang] ARTHUR: Look, stop that. BLACK KNIGHT: Chicken! Chicken! ARTHUR: Look, I'll have your leg. Right! [whop] BLACK KNIGHT: Right, I'll do you for that! ARTHUR: You'll what? BLACK KNIGHT: Come 'ere! ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me? BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible! ARTHUR: You're a loony. BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then. [whop] [ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's other leg off] BLACK KNIGHT: All right; we'll call it a draw. ARTHUR: Come, Patsy. BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!

0

Red_Peters 6 years ago

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341995,00.html

Of course, we know the other wing of the Democratic Party, the mainstream media, will breeze over this. If it had been three Republicans, the conspiracy theories would be thick and heady.

"In exchange for coordinating the congressional trip, Al-Hanooti allegedly received 2 million barrels of Iraqi oil, prosecutors said."

No kidding?!

0

mick 6 years ago

Read up on PNAC in wikipedia. Read their manifesto and you'll see what the invasion and occupation of Iraq is really all about. Iran is next and none of the current candidates will do anything to stop the neocon agenda. The mainstream media will make it seem acceptable to the hypnotized American.

0

posessionannex 6 years ago

I'm not quite sure that's what is said here-but nonetheless, here's a link to the transcript from that program:

Yeah, I skimmed it, and I came away with this:

Cheney:

"With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story that's been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."

Wow, logrithmic, you're really good at this.

0

Agnostick 6 years ago

logrithmic (Anonymous) says:

Vet4:

For you and all the world to see: Cheney saying that Iraq was involved in 9-11.


I'm not quite sure that's what is said here--but nonetheless, here's a link to the transcript from that program:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

The more pertinent question for me is the Saudi connection. Many folks have brought that to the attention of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld. It's always been brushed away.

And I still say the focus has to be Bin Laden. Not because of his power or money, per se, but because to the world, he has become the symbol, the figurehead, the "messiah" of Al Qaeda and its associated movements. It's his face that appears on most of the videos. It's his voice that is heard on most of the audio recordings. It's his picture that is carried when terrorists march through the streets.

The 9/11 terrorists didn't just write down 100 different buildings on little strips of paper, and draw one out of a bag--they deliberately chose the WTC because they were the two tallest buildings in the USA, that happened to be in the largest city in the USA (and one of the largest cities on Earth), and because they were gleaming landmarks to free enterprise, capitalism, and freedom of choice--all dangerous, poisonous ideas to fascist theocrats of every shade, stripe, religion and faith.

They went after our symbols--we have to go after theirs (as well as the tactical, military, financial etc. powers)

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com http://www.uscentrist.org http://www.americanplan.org

0

Agnostick 6 years ago

Vet4Freedom (Anonymous) says:

"So if my family were eating at Applebee's and a group of immature college students was swearing up a storm, you would advise me to not ask the students to clean up their language and instead refrain from eating at Applebee's in the future?"


Oh, absolutely not!

In that situation, I would hope that you and your family would voice your concerns to management, and that the unruly patrons would be shown the door... and never allowed to dine there again.

But what unfortunately happens is that sometimes, even after those unruly types of patrons are shown the door... they somehow feel that the dining establishment "owes" them something. So they try one tactic after another: altering their appearance, altering their names, trying to sneak in with other guests, coming in the side/back door rather than the front door. And upon being exposed for the troublemakers they are, management escorts them to the door... again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again...

I'm sure you and I both know that this is much, much more analogous to the situation we have in this thread... and have had in several other threads.

For example, this one individual who has used various and sundry names like...

Arminius Arminius2 kozakid devildog ferdinandlanghoff sinsofthehusband

I know there's at least 10 others that I've missed...

This individual keeps coming back, time and time again, spouting off the same, tired crap: "Clinton did this, Clinton did that. Clinton didn't catch Bin Laden, Clinton causes hurricanes, Clinton causes tornadoes, Clinton Clinton Clinton..."

Truly, my heart goes out to this sad, disturbed person. They obviously have some deep, troubling emotional issues tied to one man... as if, everything that's ever gone bad in this person's life or the history of the USA can somehow be attributed to former president Clinton. I can't begin to imagine the suffering this person's "significant other" and/or children must be going through. The long hours they're ignored by their loved one, all so the spouse and parent they want to spend time with can spend countless hours on another book, another web site, another audio recording... sign up for another free email address to sneak onto another web site they've been booted off of, so they can preach more of the same, tired stuff.

Really, it's unsettling.

But to get back to your question: The owners of establishments like bars, nightclubs, restaurants and web sites sometimes have to deal with unruly visitors and patrons. "Cost of doing business," I suppose. It's when these people can't take a hint that things truly become miserable for everyone.

0

Jcjayhawk1 6 years ago

"Can you tell us when Congress authorized the use of force during Operation Desert Fox and Operation Allied Force? When did the UN offer its approval for those operations?"-Vet4

There are 2 types of resolutions we are talking about here.

1.) The UN resolutions. Resolutions that provide authority for operations such as Desert Fox. UN resolutions cover a wide variety of compliances enacted by committee.

2.) The H.J Res. 411. The resolution approved that gave Bush the power to act as he wished according to the threat Iraq posed at the time. (which was little to none)

My commentary should be referenced only to the latter.

The problem is..... Congress and the President(s) have replaced declaration of war with resolution & extended military action. We are at war. Our actions are consistent with war.....let us declare it not redefine it. Resolutions are created to bypass the checks and balances that are important when deciding to go to war.

I think the US should operate independently of the UN and throw any relationship we have with them into the toilet.

0

Jcjayhawk1 6 years ago

"She said we abandoned Afghanistan. Is there some confusion over the word "abandon"?"-Vet4

I seriously doubt that Dorothyhr contends that we have NO troops in Afghanistan eventhough he/she used the word abandon. It's similar to the interpretation of what Cheny had said regarding Iraq's involvment.......or lack thereof..... in 911.

It's this type of selective & literal interpretation of words that troubled me when you replied to the post. You are obviously an educated individual on the topics of the war. (which I sincerely believe) I also enjoy your insights. But we both know what Dorothyhr ment by abondon. Your energy is better applied to providing information.

0

logrithmic 6 years ago

Vet4:

For you and all the world to see: Cheney saying that Iraq was involved in 9-11.

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

logrithmic:

"As is evident in America, rightwingers say they are patriots but fail at basic patriotism. Like Bush, they see no problem with trampling on the Constitution as they see fit. It really is sad."

We'll keep that in mind the next time liberals attack the First Amendment by trying to pass the Orwellian "Fairness Doctrine."

0

logrithmic 6 years ago

Pisa,

You can believe what you want about the U.N. charter. That still does not dismiss the U.S. obligation as established under our Constitution to treat treaties that we sign as the supreme law of the land. For better or worse, that's what the Constitution says. You're welcome to put forth an amendment to change the Constitution if you want to. Or you can fight against treaties by asking your representatives to vote against signature.

For the record, the United States as ignored U.N. resolutions it does not like (those condemning actions it and Israel have taken) while embracing those it liked (like the resolution against North Korea and the resolution against Saddam's invasion of Kuwait).

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

logrithmic:

"Cheney's exact words linking 9-11 to the illegal and criminal invasion of Iraq"

But that's not what the letter writer wrote. He said Cheney said Iraq was involved in 9/11. We have already gone over this.

And again, bin Laden himself said there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq.

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

Jcjayhawk:

"The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148) limits the power of the President to wage war without the approval of the Congress.

"The Iraq war was never approved by congress."

Can you tell us when Congress authorized the use of force during Operation Desert Fox and Operation Allied Force? When did the UN offer its approval for those operations?

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

bozo:

"You never tire if demonstrating your ignorance, do you? The military has repeatedly said that they don't do casualty counts. "

Of course, that's not what you said. You said:

"BushCo have set out from the start to conceal that figure, and in a country that has been destroyed in every way conceivable, we'll never know exactly how many have died."

If the military is not counting Iraqi casualties, how can they have a figure to conceal?

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

Jcjayhawk:

"I don't see where Dorothyhr said we had no troops in Afghanistan."

She said we abandoned Afghanistan. Is there some confusion over the word "abandon"?

0

pisafromthewest 6 years ago

logrithmic;

And Hussein was following the UN Charter when he attacked not one but two of his neighbors?

The UN charter has never been worth the paper it's written on. It does nothing ... nothing ... to control people like Saddam Hussein and everything to hamstring a country that follows the rules from taking any action. The UN's own resolutions called for a reconvening of the security council if Iraq did not comply with their earlier resolutions, and Hussein laughed in their face for eleven years while the UN hemmed and hawed and tried to make up their minds whether to ... you guessed it ... pass yet another useless resolution.

0

Jcjayhawk1 6 years ago

7 out of 9 of H.J. Res. 114's list of reasons for action can be applied to Iran, possibly Saudi Araiba, and a few other mid-east countries with stronger ties to Al Qaeda and state sponsored terrorism.

0

Jcjayhawk1 6 years ago

"The Iraq war was never approved by congress."-Jcjayhawk

Correction the war was "approved" through a RESOLUTION sponsored by Bush and approved by vote in congress.

The case for the war was outlined in the resolution (H.J. Res. 114). Some of the reasons are violations from the previous military engagement with Iraq and had nothing to do with 911. One other reason was Iraq's treatment of it's civilians which as deplorable as it was could be applied to a host of other countries that fit the bill.

The most disturbing provision of the resolution is as follows:

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Read the part about defending the national security of the US against the threat POSED by Iraq?

Iraq was crippled and incapable of attacking us. Any theoretical attack would not be a case for war........err I mean extended military engagement.

0

malcolm_x_obama 6 years ago

log, Look in the mirror to find that unpatriotic unAmerican person you're commenting about. You would give our national sovereignty over to the UN and world courts for some nefarious anti-American purpose. It is a sad day when the likes of you don't renounce your citizenship and move to a socialist utopia...say Cuba. Sad it is when you hide behind the protections provided by men and women who will die in order to secure the republic, you are a traitor and a coward.

0

logrithmic 6 years ago

As is evident in America, rightwingers say they are patriots but fail at basic patriotism. Like Bush, they see no problem with trampling on the Constitution as they see fit. It really is sad.

0

logrithmic 6 years ago

X,

You're clearly not an American. Otherwise you would respect the laws of the United States and its constitution.

Under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, it states:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

Here is where you can find the text:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6

It's sad that we can find unpatriotic and unAmerican people right here in the good old USA.

0

logrithmic 6 years ago

Pisa,

There is no resolution forbidding US entry into Iraq or ordering the US to leave. But the UN Charter does state the necessary steps its members must take to avoid war crimes:

Chapter 1, Article 2 of the UN Charter states:

"The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles:[1]

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Also, the UN adopted resolution 3314. Resolution 3314 states:

Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression:

(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof,

(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;

(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;

(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;

(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;

(f) The action of a State in allowing its temtory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;

(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.

0

malcolm_x_obama 6 years ago

logrithmic (Anonymous) says:

Peters,

Bush's war is illegal and criminal because it violated the U.N. Charter and the Nuremberg Principles. In keeping with Article. VI. of the U.S. Constitution, which states "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land," the U.N. Charter and the Nuremberg Principles are part of the "supreme Law of the Land."

Dumbarss post of all time. The supreme court just shot down the US case against Texas that stemmed from the world court ruling that Texas should retry 21 killers because they're foriegners. USA first, always and forever.

The administration has not violated international law, Bush is not a war criminal, logrithmic is not an intelligent person, and claiming that the UN charter is supreme is remarkably stupid.

0

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 6 years ago

There are too few troops in Afghanistan. All our troops should be there, not Iraq. They can't do their job, because they were ordered to do something else. They left the capture of bin Laden up to Afghani warlords who are on the side the pays the most. Our energies have been focused on Iraq, not Afghanistan. Their commander in chief is the one responsible for them not being able to complete what should have been the real mission.

0

logrithmic 6 years ago

Vet4Enslavement:

Cheney's exact words linking 9-11 to the illegal and criminal invasion of Iraq:

"This long-term struggle became urgent on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. That day we clearly saw that dangers can gather far from our own shores and find us right there at home. So the United States made a decision: to hunt down the evil of terrorism and kill it where it grows, to hold the supporters of terror to account and to confront regimes that harbor terrorists and threaten the peace. Understanding all the dangers of this new era, we have no intention of abandoning our friends or allowing this country of 170,000 square miles to become a staging area for further attacks against Americans."

0

Jcjayhawk1 6 years ago

"Why do you nutcases call it an illegal "war" then turn around and say Bush never declared war and proceed to prop up your propaganda?"


The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148) limits the power of the President to wage war without the approval of the Congress.

The Iraq war was never approved by congress.

0

pisafromthewest 6 years ago

logrithmic (Anonymous) says:

"Bush's war is illegal and criminal because it violated the U.N. Charter ..."

Maybe you'd be kind enough to provide a link to the UN resolution forbidding US entry into Iraq or ordering the US to leave.

0

logrithmic 6 years ago

Peters,

Bush's war is illegal and criminal because it violated the U.N. Charter and the Nuremberg Principles. In keeping with Article. VI. of the U.S. Constitution, which states "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land," the U.N. Charter and the Nuremberg Principles are part of the "supreme Law of the Land."

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

"Which is it?"

WTF are you talking about?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

"I truly feel sorry for you. You must lead a miserable life."

Ah, that's touching. You want to know what would be truly miserable? To be an ignorant, ideological cheerleader for a bunch of lying, murdering thugs.

"They have? Where's the proof for that? Or are you merely manufacturing claims again?"

You never tire if demonstrating your ignorance, do you? The military has repeatedly said that they don't do casualty counts. I don't believe that, but that just means their real intent is to conceal the count, and not to just not make the count.

0

Jcjayhawk1 6 years ago

Vet4

I don't see where Dorothyhr said we had no troops in Afghanistan.

0

Red_Peters 6 years ago

Well, now wait just a gosh darned minute here! I thought the anti-war crowd says Bush never declared war, and that it's an illegal war. So why a "war" motive"?

I thought the A/W bunch says it's illegal war. It's not a war. It's a military engagement referred to as the Iraq Conflict.

Why do you nutcases call it an illegal "war" then turn around and say Bush never declared war and proceed to prop up your propaganda?

Which is it?

0

posessionannex 6 years ago

the Democrat's heroine defines this as ducking and running for cover during a sniper attack:

Here's the video (hilarious):

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

Jcjayhawk1:

The fact is that dorothyhr suggested that we have no troops in Afghanistan, when, in fact, our troops have been there since 2001 and have had their lives at risk every day since then. If you feel the need to lecture someone, may I suggest you lecture dorothyhr?

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

bozo:

"He's murderous lying a**hole. What's not to hate?"

I truly feel sorry for you. You must lead a miserable life.

"BushCo have set out from the start to conceal that figure, and in a country that has been destroyed in every way conceivable, we'll never know exactly how many have died."

They have? Where's the proof for that? Or are you merely manufacturing claims again?

0

pisafromthewest 6 years ago

scenebooster (Anonymous) says:

"Explain the surge, or the fact that 2007 was the most violent of the war:if major combat ops have ended?"

So tell us, scenebooster, when the last tank battle took place. Or maybe the last battle between opposing aircraft. Or a battle between brigade sized units of organized armies.

Of course, if you really think that an operation to capture a handful of resistance fighters using small arms and IED's constitutes a "major combat operation," that goes a long way towards explaining why the Democrat's heroine defines this as ducking and running for cover during a sniper attack:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/03/20/PH2008032002697.jpg

0

Jcjayhawk1 6 years ago

"We never abandoned the mission in Afghanistan. It's an insult to the troops who have been serving in Afghanistan to say that they have not been doing their jobs. They have been there the whole time and risking their lives every day."-Vet4

Lets distinguish the difference between troops doing their jobs and the failed outcome of a mission......

The troops do what is asked of them and they have done so for the most part. But when it comes to the overall construction of the mission plan they have little to do with it's design.

The troops can do their job and still be part of a failed mission.

Using the ....(It's an insult to the troops who have been serving in Afghanistan to say that they have not been doing their jobs.)....as an argumentative tactic is an example of the " say anything critical about our overseas operations then you are insulting and not supporting our troops" crowd. Vet don't be one of those people....please

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

" She is a Barack supporter and Bush-hater,"

He's murderous lying a**hole. What's not to hate?

" yet even she refuses to even repeat that bogus 1 million dead figure because she knows it would be a lie."

No one knows exactly how many people have died. BushCo have set out from the start to conceal that figure, and in a country that has been destroyed in every way conceivable, we'll never know exactly how many have died. But given that there are over 4 million refugees in a country of 24 million, the surveys which estimate that as many as 1 million (or more) people have died, it isn't all that hard to believe-- unless you know nothing about anything outside your precious ideology.

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

logrithmic:

"I just proved using Cheney's own words that he did. Again, you clearly have trouble with reading comprehension. May I suggest a remedial course."

You did no such thing (and again with the insults?). Cheney did not say, as the letter writer claimed, that Iraq was involved in 9/11. It is simply a falsehood to say he did.

Given that at least four people here have now pointed out that Cheney did not say Iraq was involved in 9/11, is it not possible that you may have the reading comprehension problem?

"Completely irrelevant to the discussion. Are you saying these terrorists that Saddam gave refuge are the ones that piloted the planes on 9-11? If not, are you calling Cheney a liar?"

Cheney did not say they were. However, they clearly shared an ideology with bin Laden.

"Belief it is: belief is enough to kill a million people over in a war of criminal agression that violates the Nuremburg Principles, of which this country is a signatory."

Another falsehood. See Rosa Brooks' column in today's J-W. She is a Barack supporter and Bush-hater, yet even she refuses to even repeat that bogus 1 million dead figure because she knows it would be a lie.

0

logrithmic 6 years ago

Vet4Enslavement:

"You're obviously a poor translator. Cheney did not, as the letter writer claims, say that Iraq was involved in 9/11. To say so is a falsehood."

I just proved using Cheney's own words that he did. Again, you clearly have trouble with reading comprehension. May I suggest a remedial course.

"The official policy of the U.S. government since 1998 was regime change in Iraq. The argument since then was that there would never be peace and security in the Middle East as long as Saddam was in power. In addition, Saddam's Iraq had been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism during the entire 1990s and up until after the invasion. Also, as Cheney noted, Saddam had given refuge to numerous terrorists and, reportedly, had offered asylum to Osama bin Laden. See http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/:"

Completely irrelevant to the discussion. Are you saying these terrorists that Saddam gave refuge are the ones that piloted the planes on 9-11? If not, are you calling Cheney a liar?

"Combine all of that with the belief that Saddam had and/or was pursuing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and it is clear that the urgency for regime change dramatically increased after 9/11. As Richard Clarke noted in 1998, nations such as Iraq could hand over weapons of mass destruction to terrorists."

Belief it is... belief is enough to kill a million people over in a war of criminal agression that violates the Nuremburg Principles, of which this country is a signatory.

"However, noting all of that is not the same as Cheney saying that Iraq was involved in 9/11. The letter writer either deliberately mischaracterized his words or didn't hear them correctly. We can excuse him for the latter. However, we cannot excuse your dishonest attempt to put words into Cheney's mouth after the letter writer has been corrected."

To this, I would simply quote the great blind man in the movie U-Turn, "Your lies are old, but you tell them well."

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

bozo:

"Never happened. Repeating lies doesn't make them true."

That's not what Michael Scheuer has said. Scheuer was in charge of the bin Laden unit at the CIA. Here's what Scheuer wrote ABC News during the controversy over "The Path to 9/11":

"As I have told you, the core of the movie is irrefutably true: the Clinton administration had 10 chances to capture or kill bin Laden." http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2006/09/index.html

I think you owe Cato an apology.

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

bozo:

"That's what BushCo did with Iraq- they claimed Saddam had WMD, and needed to be disposed of. Why the different policy with Pakistan?"

Saddam's Iraq was quite different. First, it was a state sponsor of terrorism. Second, it had ignored numerous UNSC resolutions called on it to demonstrate that it had destroyed its weapons f mass destructions. And, third, the U.S.'s official policy since 1998 was regime change in Iraq because it was argued that there would never be peace and security in the Middle East as long as Saddam was in power.

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

bozo:

"It takes a severely willfully ignorant ideologue to deny that BushCo lied (continually) to the American people about a connection between Saddam Hussein and the attack of 9/11."

Can you cite one example of where any member of the Bush administration said Saddam was involved in 9/11?

Obviously, there is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, but the mainstream media do not report on that. CNN even removed its 1997 interview with Osama bin Laden, in which he makes the connection, from its web site. Fortunately, the interview can be retrieved using the Wayback Machine. See http://web.archive.org/web/19990203201222/cnn.com/CNN/Programs/impact/9705/09/feature/transcript.ladin.html

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

"Agnostick, bin Laden is free because President Clinton and his advisers deliberately chose not to take advantage of the sure opportunity of his capture,"

Never happened. Repeating lies doesn't make them true.

0

scenebooster 6 years ago

"You apparently missed the "movement" part of my comment. Do you currently see the movement of large U.S. untis against Iraqi units? We have had such major combat operations such the Iraqis surrendered."

This is such a laughable parsing as to be sad. You're right. S**t is golden for our soldiers in Iraq.

BTW - you've still skipped the second part of the question.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

"So, do we invade Pakistan, a sovereign nation with nuclear weapons, to get bin Laden?"

That's what BushCo did with Iraq-- they claimed Saddam had WMD, and needed to be disposed of. Why the different policy with Pakistan?

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

Agnostick:

"Why, then, are you still here?"

So if my family were eating at Applebee's and a group of immature college students was swearing up a storm, you would advise me to not ask the students to clean up their language and instead refrain from eating at Applebee's in the future?

Great recipe for a civil society.

0

cato_the_elder 6 years ago

Agnostick, bin Laden is free because President Clinton and his advisers deliberately chose not to take advantage of the sure opportunity of his capture, primarily out of concern for how certain European countries would view such action. Had they done what they should have, as President Reagan did with Libya, the tragedies of September 11, 2001, could have been avoided.

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

Agnostick:

"Bush swore to make bin Laden's capture a priority. Why is bin Laden still free: and alive: and communicating freely with his followers?"

So, do we invade Pakistan, a sovereign nation with nuclear weapons, to get bin Laden? And, again, if bin Laden were easy to kill or capture, why wasn't this done before Bush even became president?

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

scenebooster:

"Uh:what? Accounting for the surge, we have 150,000 soldiers in Iraq:that doesn't include "large units of troops"?"

You apparently missed the "movement" part of my comment. Do you currently see the movement of large U.S. untis against Iraqi units? We have had such major combat operations such the Iraqis surrendered.

0

Agnostick 6 years ago

Vet4Freedom and others who feel that the tone of this message board is unjust...

Why, then, are you still here?

Why do some of you, even after having one identitiy eliminated, keep re-registering, time and time again, to someplace that you find so unfair, so offensive?

Those of you that don't like it here: There is a bit of fine print in your membership agreement that allows you to get a partial refund on your registration fee, if you don't like things here. It's only a partial refund, and it takes a couple of weeks to get (so I'm told), but it can be done, and has been done in the past.

You paid good money to post here. Why fritter away your money on someplace you enjoy so very, very little... where there are, literally, dozens of other message boards (and probably free, to boot) where the political environment might be so much better for you?

Just a pondering... or two...

--Ag

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

It takes a severely willfully ignorant ideologue to deny that BushCo lied (continually) to the American people about a connection between Saddam Hussein and the attack of 9/11. Many of them still believe it, and Cheney's statement is clearly designed to reinforce that belief.

0

Agnostick 6 years ago

posessionannex (Anonymous) says:

"Since I generally argue from a radical right position, I've been archiving my previous posts in preparation for my inevitable banning from this site."


Personally, I think you usually argue from a "radical right" or extremist right position... but every once in a while, you slip up and actually let slip a few intelligent words of moderacy.

Shame you can't tap into that more often...

--Ag

0

Agnostick 6 years ago

Naturally, dorothyhr's excellent question is being ignored. So, I'll take a crack at it, and bring out my ol' "broken record"...

On January 7, 2006, journalist Jill Carroll was kidnapped by Muslim extremists; Carroll was freed several weeks later, on or about March 30th. A few months later, on or about August 10th, a crack team of Marines captured the kidnappers.

Osama bin Laden helped orchestrate, finance and inspire the World Trade Center bombings on September 11, 2001. More than six years later, bin Laden is sitll free, and still inspiring terrorists with his regular videotape and audiotape releases. Most recent reports suggest that his organization, Al Qaeda, is concentrated in the hills along the Afghan-Pakistani border.

Bush swore to make bin Laden's capture a priority. Why is bin Laden still free: and alive: and communicating freely with his followers?

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com http://www.uscentrist.org http://www.americanplan.org

0

scenebooster 6 years ago

"Major combat operations entail the movement of large units of troops. "

Uh...what? Accounting for the surge, we have 150,000 soldiers in Iraq...that doesn't include "large units of troops"?

I see you skipped the second part of the question...

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

dorothyhr:

"Then we abandoned that important mission in Afghanistan and invaded Iraq where there was an egotistical dictator that only gave lip service to Al Queda."

We never abandoned the mission in Afghanistan. It's an insult to the troops who have been serving in Afghanistan to say that they have not been doing their jobs. They have been there the whole time and risking their lives every day.

"Now we have a whole lot of new converts to Al Queda to fight who didn't exist before. I've asked over and over, why is Bin Laden still alive?"

Do you believe we should invade Pakistan, a sovereign nation, to get bin Laden? As someone noted elsewhere, if getting bin Laden were easy, he would have been captured before Bush even became president.

"Why are there still Al Queda in Afghanistan? How many new recruits have they gotten since we invaded Iraq? The invasion of Iraq has been a godsend to the terrorists, more targets, more recruits. Bush has no goals for the future. He'll just leave it up to the next president to clean up the mess. What a wimp."

More name-calling from a liberal. Is that all you've got left. Can't you make a cogent argument here?

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

scenebooster:

I understand that you did not serve, so I can see your confusion. Major combat operations entail the movement of large units of troops. That is not what the surge is about. The surge would be classified under the type of operations Bush talked about aboard the USS Lincoln (see above).

0

scenebooster 6 years ago

""Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

"That was a true statement."

Explain the surge, or the fact that 2007 was the most violent of the war...if major combat ops have ended?

If you cannot admit that you're seriously parsing here, then there's really no reason for you and I to engage each other.

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

anxious:

"I get it, you are "pro-freedom", so everyone who disagrees with you is "anti-freedom"

I never made that claim. Is it not possible for you liberals to debate in a calm, rational manner? Or is this guy right about liberals in his new book?

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Mind-Psychological-Political-Madness/dp/097795630X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206555049&sr=8-1

0

posessionannex 6 years ago

I support anxiousatheists' right to suppress information that he does not agree with.

0

malcolm_x_obama 6 years ago

anxiousatheist, You didn't refute anything, you merely provided an emotional, hysterical response based upon your opinion. You've got simpleton mastered, now lets see you master shut the hell up.

0

Clint Gentry 6 years ago

"The media is wrong, 2/3 of the peole in our country are wrong, professors, journalists, ex-military, all wrong" Hello, my name is "vetforfreedom". You're so couragous to be so pro-freedom, I mean the intellectual breadth of your claim astounds even the most thoughtful of us. I get it, you are "pro-freedom", so everyone who disagrees with you is "anti-freedom", I didn't realize that the world was so simple. Simple is as simple does...

0

malcolm_x_obama 6 years ago

Vet4freedom, I notice the same bias. Apparently all support has been thrown to Baghdad Barry and his plan for defeat.

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

Wow, I overlooked another false claim in Lynch's letter. Halliburton dod no receive a no-bid contract for work in Iraq. Halliburton won the 5-year LOGCAP bidding process in 2001, which covered work in Iraq (which started in 2003).

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york070903.asp

Thus, Lynch shared three false statements in three, short paragraphs.

0

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 6 years ago

"So the United States made a decision: to hunt down the evil of terrorism and kill it where it grows"

Then we abandoned that important mission in Afghanistan and invaded Iraq where there was an egotistical dictator that only gave lip service to Al Queda. Now we have a whole lot of new converts to Al Queda to fight who didn't exist before. I've asked over and over, why is Bin Laden still alive? Why are there still Al Queda in Afghanistan? How many new recruits have they gotten since we invaded Iraq? The invasion of Iraq has been a godsend to the terrorists, more targets, more recruits. Bush has no goals for the future. He'll just leave it up to the next president to clean up the mess. What a wimp.

0

posessionannex 6 years ago

" We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people.

"The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq.

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html

Again, scenebooster can quote no member of the administration with saying "mission accomplished."

"But we all know what was meant..." wink wink.

Or: "Gee, who could have misconstrued that statement?"

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

scenebooster:

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."

That was a true statement.

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

possessionannex:

That was very eloquent and thoughtful.

I'm not sure what happened to the J-W. It used to be much more balanced, but, apparently, someone made the decision that it needed to move to the left. It is very disappointing to see so many LOEs that contain claims that are obviously false. The truth has no bias, but apparently falsehoods do.

0

scenebooster 6 years ago

"As far as your point, there is absolutely nothing in Cheney's recent quote that comes close to supporting Howard Lynch's false claim that Cheney said Iraq was involved in 9/11."

Whoa! That's some serious parsing there, vet.

""They said Mission accomplished!" When they did not",

http://www.davidstuff.com/usa/lincoln/bush-mission.jpg

"and furthermore an even cursory reading of the speech Bush made on the Aircraft Carrier that day reveals a lot of "long road ahead" language."

"Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. "

Gee, who could have misconstrued that statement?

0

posessionannex 6 years ago

Since I generally argue from a radical right position, I've been archiving my previous posts in preparation for my inevitable banning from this site. While I was doing so, I stumbled upon this observation:

"I apparently misread Cheney's quote as referring to Ahmedinejad because so much of this administration's rhetoric centers around the Iranian President's comments as if they had anything to do with the rule in Iran.

"Upon further review, you [posessionannex] are correct that Cheney did not call Ahmedinejad a tyrant."

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/oct/22/cheney_we_will_not_allow_iran_have_nuclear_weapon/#comment_442618

Now this was posted by logicsound, not logrithmic, but it reminded me of his thinking on this thread.

The left sees what they want to in the statements made by the administration based upon their own prejudices about the administration. Thus, to them, the real meaning of any statement made by Cheney or Bush is to be understood with logic that is the opposite of Clinton's "taken out of context" excuses, they are devoid of some context and meaning that only the left feels it is able to provide. So the left routinely attreibutes statements to the administration that the administration never uttered. Thus:

"They said Iraq was behind 9/11!" When all they ever say is that 9/11 changed the nation's views on military action against state sponsors of terror, and that Saddam headed a terror funding state.

"They said Mission accomplished!" When they did not, and furthermore an even cursory reading of the speech Bush made on the Aircraft Carrier that day reveals a lot of "long road ahead" language.

etc.

That the Journal World would reprint such excrement only weakens their credibility, even further than the routine purging of right wing views on this site.

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

logrithmic:

You're obviously a poor translator. Cheney did not, as the letter writer claims, say that Iraq was involved in 9/11. To say so is a falsehood.

The official policy of the U.S. government since 1998 was regime change in Iraq. The argument since then was that there would never be peace and security in the Middle East as long as Saddam was in power. In addition, Saddam's Iraq had been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism during the entire 1990s and up until after the invasion. Also, as Cheney noted, Saddam had given refuge to numerous terrorists and, reportedly, had offered asylum to Osama bin Laden. See http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

Combine all of that with the belief that Saddam had and/or was pursuing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and it is clear that the urgency for regime change dramatically increased after 9/11. As Richard Clarke noted in 1998, nations such as Iraq could hand over weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

However, noting all of that is not the same as Cheney saying that Iraq was involved in 9/11. The letter writer either deliberately mischaracterized his words or didn't hear them correctly. We can excuse him for the latter. However, we cannot excuse your dishonest attempt to put words into Cheney's mouth after the letter writer has been corrected.

0

logrithmic 6 years ago

Simple. You're not about freedom. You're about spreading your form of democracy at the point of a gun.

That's enslavement.

Sorry you have trouble reading.

I'll point out the relevant parts:

"That day (Cheney is referring to 9-11) we clearly saw that dangers can gather far from our own shores and find us right there at home... So the United States made a decision: to hunt down the evil of terrorism and kill it where it grows (translation, we invaded Iraq because of 9-11), to hold the supporters of terror to account and to confront regimes that harbor terrorists and threaten the peace (of course Cheney says nothing about our own threat to peace by invading a country who had not attacked us).... Understanding all the dangers of this new era, we have no intention of abandoning our friends or allowing this country of 170,000 square miles to become a staging area for further attacks against Americans (it was not nor will it ever be a staging area of attacks against Americans, unless we are in and on their land)."

I hope that helped out. Please let me know if I can be of further service in your cause of enslavement.

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

logrithmic:

Why the name-calling? If you think you have a good point, I would think that would not be necessary.

As far as your point, there is absolutely nothing in Cheney's recent quote that comes close to supporting Howard Lynch's false claim that Cheney said Iraq was involved in 9/11.

0

logrithmic 6 years ago

Here's exactly what Cheney said, and you can see Vet4Enslavement is misstating the truth:

"But Cheney, who spent the night at a sprawling U.S. base in the northern town of Balad, told soldiers they were defending future generations of Americans from terrorism.

'This long-term struggle became urgent on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. That day we clearly saw that dangers can gather far from our own shores and find us right there at home,' said Cheney, who was accompanied by his wife, Lynne, and their daughter, Elizabeth.

'So the United States made a decision: to hunt down the evil of terrorism and kill it where it grows, to hold the supporters of terror to account and to confront regimes that harbor terrorists and threaten the peace,' Cheney said. `'Understanding all the dangers of this new era, we have no intention of abandoning our friends or allowing this country of 170,000 square miles to become a staging area for further attacks against Americans.'"

This was taken from the link below:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/story/461967.html

0

Vet4Freedom 6 years ago

"Our vice president, just back from a trip to Iraq, makes the statement that the United States' involvement in Iraq is due to its part in 9/11."

No such comment was made.

" was a resident of south Texas in 2002, and I well remember George W. Bush making the announcement that when elected president, he would avenge the threat Saddam Hussein made against his father..."

No such announcement was made.

Why does the J-W continue to publish LOEs that contain obvious falsehoods?

0

i_tching 6 years ago

Pork. And death. Without these, Republicans cease to live and breathe.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.