NY Times, NBC ignored government reports of Iraq war's effect on global terrorism
Reports in the October 7 New York Times and October 6 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News misleadingly cast the Iraq war's impact on global terrorism as a partisan debate. Both the Times and NBC reported that President Bush claimed in an October 6 speech that the war in Iraq has not strengthened or invigorated global terrorists. But rather than noting that State Department and CIA reports contradict Bush's assertion, the Times and NBC simply reported that Democrats dispute the claim.
Both the Times and NBC reported that Bush, in his October 6 speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, rejected unnamed critics who, Bush alleged, argued that "extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq." Times reporter David E. Sanger noted that Bush "addressed criticism that he has deliberately conflated the battle on terrorism with the question of whether to remain in Iraq." NBC White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell reported that Bush was "[s]peaking to critics who argue [the] U.S. presence in Iraq actually provokes more terrorism," when he cited the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the 2004 Beslan school massacre in Russia to show that "[n]o act of ours invited the rage of the killers."
But the Times and NBC news accounts only mentioned Democrats who have disputed Bush's characterizations by arguing that the administration's Iraq policies have actually strengthened terrorist groups. In fact, government analysts have also found that U.S. actions in Iraq have aided terrorist groups' recruiting and provided them with a training ground for their new followers. By contrast, the October 7 Washington Post report on Bush's speech noted that Bush's assertions challenged the findings of the State Department's annual terrorism report:
Bush, however, rejected the idea that "extremism" had been "strengthened" by the ongoing U.S. war in Iraq, taking strong issue with analysts who believe that Iraq has become a "melting pot for jihadists from around the world, a training group and an indoctrination center" for a new generation of terrorists, as the State Department's annual report on terrorism put it this year.
"To say Iraq has not contributed to the rise of global Sunni extremism movement is delusional," said Roger W. Cressey, a former White House counterterrorism adviser under Bush and President Bill Clinton. "We should have an honest discussion about what these unintended consequences of the Iraq war are and what do we do to counter them."
As Media Matters for America has documented, the CIA's National Intelligence Council -- "the Intelligence Community's (IC's) center for midterm and long-term strategic thinking" -- also identified Iraq as succeeding Afghanistan as the major training ground for terrorists. "The al-Qa'ida membership that was distinguished by having trained in Afghanistan will gradually dissipate, to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq," the council stated in a report titled "Mapping the Global Future." At the time of the report's release in December 2004, NIC chairman Robert L. Hutchings stated that Iraq is currently "a magnet for international terrorist activity." The report also found that Iraq had "joined the list of conflicts -- including the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, and independence movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao in the Philippines, and southern Thailand -- that have deepened solidarity among Muslims and helped spread radical Islamic ideology."
From the October 7 New York Times article:
Mr. Bush used his speech, before the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington, to warn that Syria and Iran had become "allies of convenience" for Islamic terror groups, appearing to step up political pressure on both countries. He said, "The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them," and he warned that the "the civilized world must hold those regimes to account."
A senior White House official said Thursday evening that the president's 40-minute speech arose from Mr. Bush's desire to remind Americans, after "a lot of distractions" in recent months, that the country was still under threat, and had no choice but to remain in Iraq so Al Qaeda did not use it as a base to train for attacks on the United States and its allies.
[...]
Democrats were quick to answer Mr. Bush, saying that he was gliding past major errors of tactics and strategy in Iraq, and that Al Qaeda began operating there only after the American invasion.
Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, said: "The truth is, the administration's mishandling of the war in Iraq has made us less safe, and Iraq risks becoming what it was not before the war: a training ground for terrorists." Mr. Reid, of Nevada, said it was vital that the administration change course in Iraq.
[...]
[Bush] addressed criticism that he has deliberately conflated the battle on terrorism with the question of whether to remain in Iraq, an issue on which members of his own party are increasingly divided. He said those calling for an American withdrawal to avoid inciting militancy were engaging in "a dangerous illusion."
"Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with [Abu Musab al-] Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people and its resources?" he asked. "Having removed a dictator who hated free peoples, we will not stand by as a new set of killers, dedicated to the destruction of our own country, seizes control of Iraq by violence."
From the October 6 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News:
O'DONNELL: Speaking to critics who argue U.S. presence in Iraq actually provokes more terrorism --
BUSH (video clip): No act of ours invited the rage of the killers.
O'DONNELL: As evidence, Mr. Bush pointed out that on September 11th, the U.S. was not in Iraq. Another example, Russia had opposed the invasion of Iraq.
BUSH (video clip): Yet the militants killed more than 180 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan.
O'DONNELL: And he touted progress, planned attacks he says were stopped.
BUSH (video clip): At least 10 serious Al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three Al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States.
O'DONNELL: But on that point, the president had essentially asked Americans to take his word on how many have been disrupted. The White House said the information was classified, until this evening, when it released this memo, giving some details on the foiled plots.
NANCY PELOSI (House Democratic Leader, video clip): I do not believe that the president's actions and his mismanagement on the war in Iraq have made America safer.
O'DONNELL: A deep divide as the president works to defend the continuing sacrifice in the war on terror. Kelly O'Donnell, NBC News, the White House.
As with the "wars" on drugs and poverty, the "war on terror" will not be won. Why? Because the objective is not to win -- only that it continue ($$).
Has our invasion of Iraq increased global terrorism? Of course it has. Has it made us less safe? Of course it has. If you recall, one of bin Laden's main beefs with us was the stationing of US troops in Muslim lands. So what does Bush do? He INCREASES our presence there. Yet he can not reverse himself now. As with President Johnson during the Vietnam War, that would be tantamount to admitting a mistake. We won't get out of Iraq on Bush's watch.
Publius brings up a often ignored point about American moral policy...what is good for generating dollars for the wealthy in this oh so powerfully wealthy country is the main catalyst for determining said policy. Would General Electric, owner of NBC, war profiteer, ever deign to allow that point to be broadcast?
"As with the "wars" on drugs and poverty, the "war on terror" will not be won. Why? Because the objective is not to win -- only that it continue ($$)."...by publius
That's pretty cynical. But not unlike the Conservative charge that Democrats/Liberals want to keep their poor (mostly minority) constituency poor in order to continue to make promises (that never quite come to fruition) to THEM at election time to keep their votes? Or the BELIEF that a CURE for Cancer will never be found because Cancer treatment is a multi-million $$ business.
Of course YOU might be correct...how sad for all of us if you are.
" Has our invasion of Iraq increased global terrorism? Of course it has. Has it made us less safe? Of course it has. If you recall, one of bin Laden's main beefs with us was the stationing of US troops in Muslim lands. So what does Bush do? He INCREASES our presence there. Yet he can not reverse himself now. As with President Johnson during the Vietnam War, that would be tantamount to admitting a mistake. We won't get out of Iraq on Bush's watch."...by publius
I agree with EVERYTHING above. I NEVER thought we'd find ourselves with another Vietnam...BUT it will probably be the NEXT President that brings our troops home. Maybe THIS time we'll FINALLY learn.
I think BOTH the NY Times and NBC have (in the past) mention the State Dept&CIA's reports, why they didn't this time is probably just sloppy reporting or wanting to FOCUS on the Democrats response only.
publius: If you recall, one of bin Laden's main beefs with us was the stationing of US troops in Muslim lands. So what does Bush do? He INCREASES our presence there. Yet he can not reverse himself now.
Response: Good for Bush. If you think the vast majority of the American people have any interest in ceding to Bin Ladens wishes, you are sadly mistaken. What he wants is irrelevant.
Yeah. "Bring it on!", right?
by brabantio - Tuesday October 11, 2005 04:01:32 PM EST ----------------------------
Clearly that is not what I said. I said that what Bin Laden wants is irrelevant. Publius' claim that we erred because we went against Bin Ladens wishes is factually wrong. We erred because there were no WMD. Or do you disagree?
"I said that what Bin Laden wants is irrelevant. Publius' claim that we erred because we went against Bin Ladens wishes is factually wrong. We erred because there were no WMD. Or do you disagree?"
My point is that it is one thing not to change your policy for the appeasement of terrorists, and it's quite another to accelerate the policy to make that situation worse. That's the attitude that the reaction of terrorists is irrelevant. That's the "bring it on" attitude, when you don't worry about the consequences of your actions because we're tougher and we can handle whatever they can throw at us. It's belligerent nationalism.
Well, sorry to say, but it IS relevant. That was probably the main reason bin Laden plotted an attack on the US mainland. To completely ignore that and, more than that, exacerbate it by increasing our presence inflames the Muslim world even more (forget about just bin Laden). Considering that in our foreign policy is not "giving in to demands"; it's recognizing the situation on the ground and taking those actions that are truly in the best interests of the American people.
by publius - Tuesday October 11, 2005 04:04:39 PM EST ---------------------------
Publius: That was probably the main reason bin Laden plotted an attack on the US mainland. To completely ignore that and, more than that, exacerbate it by increasing our presence inflames the Muslim world even more (forget about just bin Laden).
Response: Yes, I know in your mind that it's always our fault despite the fact that we were on the receiving end of the terrorism, remember?...thanks for stating it so clearly. Bin Laden will do what he will do regardless of what WE do.
Actions have consequences. Bin Laden is responsible for his own actions. But our foreign policy in the Middle East came back to haunt us. That's what I'm saying.
So we should base our foreign policy on doing exactly what people who don't like us hate the most.
What is that, the Annoying Little Brother Doctrine?
And, you know... doesn't it leave us open to the Brer Rabbit Defense?
"So we should base our foreign policy on doing exactly what people who don't like us hate the most."
Think. Bin Laden was once a client of ours. We even trained him and provided military intelligence in the 1980's. What changed? We based US military forces right in the heart of Muslim holy lands after the first Gulf War. That action turned out to have a consequence. What should be debated, rather than engaging in childish responses, is whether or not that move was, or still is, in our vital interest and worth the price (in blood and treasure).
publius,
No, I don't agree with bruce1ace that we should base our foreign policy on what the bad guys would hate most. I think that course would be -- strike that -- has been exceedingly childish.
I also realize that Bin Laden was one of our guys, just as Saddam Hussein was a CIA resource for years.
Sorry if my extreme disdain didn't come through in my previous post.
P.S., don't carramba's arguments seem rather familiar? I think helloagain is back.
They're typical of what you hear from the neo-con right. They fall apart upon inspection.
by Sagra - Wednesday October 12, 2005 12:03:40 PM EST --------------------------
Clever. I never said we should do what the terrorists hate the most. You were putting words in my mouth there. But if we HAPPEN to do what they hate the most (which is anything we do, BTW) then so be it.
My exact quote was "Bin Laden will do what he will do regardless of what WE do." If you want to disagree with me, at least disagree with the actual comment, not some made-up version of my post.
by Sagra - Tuesday October 11, 2005 06:25:02 PM EST ------------------------------------
All our government can do is what it thinks is the best course. A new administration will get a shot at it in a few years to try and do better. There is no absolute right answer to fighting terrorism. But I don't believe that listening to terrorist demands is rational based on the fact that they flew airplanes into our buildings, a highly irrational act. That rendered their "opinion" of our policies irrelevant.
the answer to everything can't be that terrorists flew planes into the wtc. we know that. that's the bush rationale for every stupid step we've made so far.
Our policies were most certainly relevant. The "irrational act" was essentially the only means available to them. The Bush administration wants us to believe that an accomodation can not be reached. Oh, it can be reached. We just don't want to.
by publius - Tuesday October 11, 2005 09:02:47 PM EST ---------------------------
Actually, I was referring to our policy choices that we've made AFTER 9-11 but I wasn't clear in my prior post. If you have any ideas that haven't been tried in the middle east for the past 40 years and with 7 or 8 administrations, I suggest you bring them forward. Name me an administration that has reached an "accomodation" with these people in our lifetime? Give me some examples of progress. The breaking point was reached.
"If you have any ideas that haven't been tried in the middle east for the past 40 years and with 7 or 8 administrations, I suggest you bring them forward."
I've got a novel idea: quit our one-sided policy of supporting Israel. What do we get out of that policy? We're the objects of terrorism. Do we derive any benefit from it? Not that I can see. Someone make the case. That's one policy that hasn't worked "for the past 40 years", and continues not to work. We have adopted the Israeli method of combatting terrorism. Has it worked for them? I don't think so.
And if Israel should be "pushed into the sea" (though I don't see that happening), so what? What is lost? We can still deal with the Arabs for their oil wiht or without Israel existing. Do we need US troops permanently stationed in Saudi Arabia? If so, why?
carramba: "I disagree, and once again thankful that those that share your strategic world view have been vanquished from power by the American people. I truly hope that your side continues trying to "sell" that Saddam was a nice guy to the American voter........PLEASE!!"
What "my side"? I'm not selling that Saddam was a "nice guy", only that he was no threat to "the American voter". If he was, PLEASE explain how. Your "strategic world view" leaves a little to be desired.
The mainstream media still have not said that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. They treat that like it's a partisan issue as well.
Indeed. Very interesting that such things get treated as "a matter of opinion" when they clearly are not. I guess it benefits the MSM to perpetuate these black/white worldviews. They force people to choose sides on issues that don't have sides.
The same goes for the Delay scandals, and Bill Bennett.
Isn't interesting that Bush never talks about Bin Laden anymore. He puts us into a quagmire with lies and forgets about the one man who financed and planned 9-11. The only positive thing I can say is with the present legal problems with this group of repugs there will not be anyone left to screw up, Oh I forget, George will be on his own, boy are we in trouble!!!
Hopefully not off topic, but I find interesting the fact that Bush's speech on Oct 6th coincided with the 'leaking' of the information by Homeland Security about the possible subway terror threat in NYC. There were even allegations made of a direct Iraqi connection. The whole thing seems to have been based on bad intel and unreliable sources at this point. Coincidence?
"Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with [Abu Musab al-] Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people and its resources?...Having removed a dictator who hated free peoples, we will not stand by as a new set of killers, dedicated to the destruction of our own country, seizes control of Iraq by violence."
Does anyone else wonder how exactly Bin Laden would "control" Iraq? Doesn't it seem like that would probably require some physical presence in the country to actually manage things? Even if not, does al-queda have a large enough military force to control the population, government and resources? If so, did they have those types of numbers before we invaded? Perhaps this is the new justification for the war - Osama and Hussein weren't actually allies, Osama was going to take over his country, so we beat him to it!
And if they really wanted to take over a country, why wouldn't they take the opportunity to pile on Iran or Pakistan while we're bogged down in Iraq? Maybe Bush is talking about credible theory here, but I would really like to know more about the logistics of it.
brabantino,
It seems to me that Al Queda doesn't want to take over Iraq. They just want to continue the killing in Iraq in order to stir up a wider conflct.
If they really wanted the U.S. out of Iraq all they would have to do is fade into the woodwork for a while. The U.S. then would declare victory and bring the troops home. Once we are out, they would then just filter back in and start up their killing.
No, as I see it, Al Queda stated grievance isn't the U.S. presence in Iraq nor for that matter, U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia. That is just an excuse. Their whole purpose is to start a world war and kill the infidels. Only by continuing this low-level conflict can they achieve their ends.
They are hateful, twisted, and barbaric murderers as bad as Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot. They have no regard for human life. They simply want to kill.
No doubt once we took away their base in Afghanistan that they would have forged an alliance with Saddam. Thank goodness we liberated Iraq.
I think al-Qaida does want US out of Iraq, but also realizes that, for the present anyway, they can inflict as much damage as they can against us and have it viewed in a military context, rather than as terrorist activity. They're probably content for now to recruit and train new jihadists in what has to be the perfect environment to perfect their techniques.
I agree they are "hateful, twisted and barbaric", but how well do you suppose pictures and stories from Abu Ghraib help them fan the flames of jihadi? I think they simply want to kill US. We have made a bad situation worse by "liberating" Iraq, something that is becoming more and more clear as time goes on. No amount of spinning, punditry or playing a continuing game of "6 Degrees of Osama Bin Laden" is going to change that. That they hate us is clear, the reasons for their hatred are many and perhaps can only be understood by looking behind all the flag-waving and taking a hard look at America's current position in the world. I'm NOT blaming America, just the unforgivable short-sightedness that got us into this mess.
Rufus,
I think thos pictures from Abu Grahib only hurt the U.S. The court releasing the rest of them to the general public is reprensible in that it puts our soldiers at further risk.
However we all know that the history before that happened. I do not believe we made a bad situation worse. I believe we have only brought to the surface what has been hiding beneath.
I am apalled by the Abu Grahib pictures but even worse, I am sickened by the beheadings, the lynchings, the burning of bodies, the bombings, the torture, the kidnapping, the assasinations, the indiscriminate killing of innocents of the islamofacisists. There is no moral equivilency between them and us. The unauthorized and illegal torture on our side involved only embarrassing a few of them. Their torture involves cowardly killing and mutilating. They are evil barbarians. We cannot let them win. If we do, they will not stop with Iraq.
I think I read where the indiscriminate killing is turning Iraqis of all sects against them. (I hope that is true!) Since their ideology revolves around killing and death, we must keep fighting them. If we don't, I fear millions will eventually be killed by them.
The concept of moral eqivalency is debatable and certainly in the eye of the one making the comparison. I have trouble thinking that our cowardly torture involving killing and mutilating is any more defensible just because there's less of it or it's done by a side claiming the moral high ground. Don't get me wrong, I agree they appear to be evil incarnate, but looking at them in such a one dimensional way is what keeps us blind to maybe a more productive way to wage this campaign. We flail away without apparent purpose or plan at a hydra that just keeps sprouting more heads. We CAN'T win it this way. That's my point as it relates to this thread; this is an unforseen(at least by those determined to lead us into war) consequence of our ill-advised Iraq strategy and needs to be addressed and dealt with.
rufus wrote:"I have trouble thinking that our cowardly torture involving killing and mutilating is any more defensible just because there's less of it or it's done by a side claiming the moral high ground."
Would you be so kind as to back up your claim that the U.S. is involved in cowardly torture involving killing and mutilating?
Would you be so kind as to provide examples where this is U.S. policy?
Can you show any evidence where U.S. personel using these types of torture methods have avoided prosecution?
anotheramerican - Tuesday October 11, 2005 09:20:31 PM EST
Why do you guys keep doing this? I have many times linked to quotes by Rumsfeld saying the photos show inhuman cruelty and Lindsey Graham saying they depict rape and murder and then a couple of days later you people on the right come back and claim it was just some humiliation. THAT IS A LIE. RAPE AND MURDER is what happened there. Even Tagubas report talked about at least one man beaten to death, two were beaten to death at Bagram Air Force base the coroner ruled the deaths as homicides by blunt force trauma. IF you dont know about these things as often as links have been provided here it is only because you dont WANT to know, you just want to keep repeating the LIE.
I'm referring to the torture, mutilation and killing of Iraqi citizens who are detained in prisons without formal charges, many of whom are most likely not even enemy combatants. Does the Geneva Convention ring a bell? Oh, that's right, we've decided to ignore that little document. The pictures tell the story, and, yes, I think there are many higher up the chain of command who have avoided prosecution in yet another case of government whitewashing. Torture is torture, no matter which side of the leash you're on.
The fact that Al-Qaeda is evil does not give the U.S. a pass to commit evil acts as well. If this is a class of civilizations, as many on the right have suggested, then the U.S. had better demonstrate its moral supremacy by acting within the framework of international and domestic law, which it so far has not done. Officially, 86 prisoners in the "war on terror" have died under U.S. custody, with the military characterizing 26 as official homicides. These numbers refute the right's claim of incidents of torture being limited to a few bad apples. More and more military personnel have come forward describing the widespread use of torture by the government in this conflict and how a lack of a coherent policy from the top set the mood of ambivalence in the rank-and-file that led to torture. In fact, it is known that the Bush administration has refused any attempts by Congress to regulate its power to detain anyone it deems as a threat in this nebulous war. The Bush administration threatened to veto the ENTIRE defense authorization bill because GOP Senators McCain and Graham wanted to put some regulations on the military as to how it could treat prisoners. To this administration, ANY oversight of its conduct in this war is unacceptable, yet they are the self-appointed purveyors of freedom and democracy who stand for all that is opposite of Al-Qaeda.
blueblood wrote: "Officially, 86 prisoners in the "war on terror" have died under U.S. custody, with the military characterizing 26 as official homicides."
It would be nice if, when quoting these statistics, you would show the sources.
Just what is an offical homicide? How did the other 60 die? Were they already wounded? Sick? Any further information is greatly appreciated.
According to the military's own count, 86 detainees have died while in the custody of U.S. personnel, and military investigators have determined that at least 26 of these deaths are outright homicides.
If you will not believe the DOD, then who will you believe, AA?
blueblood,
You misunderstood me. My apologies. I am not disbelieving the DOD figures. I simply wanted to look for myself at the actual link where you obtained those statistics. I don't know, maybe you didn't get these figures online? That is okay. I sometimes cite things I read or watched on TV.
I don't doubt your sincerity or your honesty citing DOD. But since you didn't answer any of my questions regarding what was meant by some of those statistics, I am hoping that perhaps the source of your counts could.
As I stated before, I am appalled at the actions that some of our soldiers in Abu Grahib. There is no excuse for it.
But, I'll stand by my main point. There is no moral equivilency between the U.S. and its goal in freeing Irag and the murderous butchers we are fighting.
"But, I'll stand by my main point. There is no moral equivilency between the U.S. and its goal in freeing Irag and the murderous butchers we are fighting."
Yeah, because they're not invading our country in the hopes of stealing our oil.
"I think thos pictures from Abu Grahib only hurt the U.S. The court releasing the rest of them to the general public is reprensible in that it puts our soldiers at further risk."
You think that nobody over there knew about the torture anyway? Not everybody depends on American TV for their information, you know.
-by anotheramerican - Tuesday October 11, 2005 05:34:02 PM EST
Wrote: " I am apalled by the Abu Grahib pictures but even worse, I am sickened by the beheadings, the lynchings, the burning of bodies, the bombings, the torture, the kidnapping, the assasinations, the indiscriminate killing of innocents of the islamofacisists. There is no moral equivilency between them and us. The unauthorized and illegal torture on our side involved only embarrassing a few of them. Their torture involves cowardly killing and mutilating. They are evil barbarians. We cannot let them win. If we do, they will not stop with Iraq. I think I read where the indiscriminate killing is turning Iraqis of all sects against them. (I hope that is true!) Since their ideology revolves around killing and death, we must keep fighting them. If we don't, I fear millions will eventually be killed by them. "
Sir, you obviously are NOT a learned student of American History!!!
A goood starting point would be "Without Sanctuary"
frijolesnegra,
You're equivilancy fails in that it has never been the policy of U.S. to lynch people as you are suggesting.
Yes, those lynchings are a very also morally reprehensible and a terrible part of our history. I couldn't agree more.
You might argue of the moral equivilency of between those who did the lynchings and the barbarians in Iraq and I would agree. But to transfer the evil of those heinous crimes by those in the past to that of the U.S. fighting for freedom and democracy today and trying say that our side is morally equivilent to the mass murder of innocents by islamofacist death squads, doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned.
-by anotheramerican - Tuesday October 11, 2005 09:39:38 PM EST
Wrote: "You're equivilancy fails in that it has never been the policy of U.S. to lynch people as you are suggesting.
Yes, those lynchings are a very also morally reprehensible and a terrible part of our history. I couldn't agree more.
You might argue of the moral equivilency of between those who did the lynchings and the barbarians in Iraq and I would agree. But to transfer the evil of those heinous crimes by those in the past to that of the U.S. fighting for freedom and democracy today and trying say that our side is morally equivilent to the mass murder of innocents by islamofacist death squads, doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned."
Response: (1) Policies are not relevant when 300 years of documented facts are available! Ask a Native American. Do you know of an Indian Treaty that was ever honored by the US?
(2) IMHO, we should give Iraq 250-300 years to stop lynching and being barbarians (same as US time frame), then they can enter the Eurocentric stage of invading small weak countries without provocation.
frijolesnegra,
You make it clear you are an apologist for the islamofacisist and you are defending their right to murder and kill innocent people. Go ahead and side with the barbaric, totalitarian, facists. Yes, back those who want to kill others simply because they believe in a different God. Go ahead and defend those who want to enslave women. Go ahead.
I would hope everyone here would condemn your position, but alas, there are many America haters who probably back your twisted logic.
I would argue that your are the one ignorant of history. Yes, America is flawed, but it has brought more freedom to more people than any other country in history. Nobody else comes close.
"Yes, America is flawed, but it has brought more freedom to more people than any other country in history. Nobody else comes close."
Really. Please cite the evidence, and the definition of said "freedom". One could make the case that, as a result of our actions, more people were enslaved (communism).
publius,
Hahaha... Very funny!
If you want to make the case that the U.S is responsible for communism, go right ahead. Hahaha...
I didn't say it was "responsible" for communism; you said that. I said that as a result of our policies, many people were enslaved to communism. BTW, still waiting for your evidence.
publius,
You are the one who is making the silly argument that U.S. actions enslaved people to communism. Of course anyone can say if we kept going in WWII, we might have defeated Stalin. You could argue that if we continued the fight, we might have defeated the Chinese and North Koreans. You could argue that if we killed Castro, we would have freed Cuba. You could go on and on.. But that is all conjecture.
You're thinking is twisted. The people responsible for communist enslavement are the communists themselves, If you think it is U.S. policy that caused communist enslavement because we didn't fight wars, you could make the same argument that Brazil or the Congo, or India or any other country's policies are the ones responsible. if that is your argument, it is riciculous.
As for the U.S. freeing people it is such common knowledge your question seems to me to be ludicrious.
Civil War. World War II. Korean War. Gulf War. Iraq War.
These are just some of the major fights where we've freed people. Don't forget the Cold war keeping communism from overtaking Central and South America and finally causing the U.S.S.R. to crumble.
Lets see, how many billions of people did the actions of the U.S. free from totalitarinism and dictatorships? I'll let you count.
There, I have stated the obvious. Stop being silly.
What do you mean "it's common knowledge" that "the US has brought more freedom to more people than any other country in history. Nobody else comes close." I didn't know an enumeration had ever been done. It's not "ludicrous" at all.
Yes, we should not have accomodated Stalin, we stabbed Chiang Kai Shek in the back, allowing Mao to come to power, the action in the Korean War resulted in the Koreans being divided for more than 50 years, with unspeakable atrocities occuring in the North, the "Gulf War" didn't really "free" anybody -- Kuwait was a creation of the Western powers and that area Iraq claimed did rightfully belong to them, and as for Iraq, the only thing that's going to happen there is that it will, in all likelihood, fracture the country into 3 parts.
"Lets see, how many billions of people did the actions of the U.S. free from totalitarinism and dictatorships? I'll let you count." No, YOU count. Let's see your tally, if indeed "nobody comes close".
publius - I see the weakness in your arguments.
First of all you won't directly back up your assertions.. all you do is write back and say, "no, you do it."
Secondly, you are attempting to subplant a different issue with regards to Kuwait. The issue we're discussing is freeing people from totalitarinism and dictatorships. Not whether or not Iraq has a legitimate claim.
Thirdly, you are indeed using that false argument that just because the U.S. didn't wipe out Communism completely, we are responsible for the communist oppression. That is ludicrious.
Finally, counting the people freed by American armed forces from totalitarianism and suppression is simply adding up the populations of those countries. You are being silly for not accepting this point.
But if taking extreme counter-viewpoints and advancing silly arguments is your shtick, go ahead.
anotheramerican - I see what you are doing. You make a statement then, when called on it, can't back it up.
Making a claim that "the US has brought more freedom to more people than any other country in history. Nobody else comes close." is nothing more than empty rhetoric. It sounds good, but it's basically meaningless if it can't be backed up with figures/study.
"Lets see, how many billions of people did the actions of the U.S. free from totalitarinism and dictatorships?" Billions? Tell me how you arrived at that.
As regarding Kuwait, we didn't "free them from totalitarinism and dictatorships". We simply pushed Saddam's forces out of the northern portion of Kuwait. Further, Iraq had a legitimate claim -- in fact they were right: that area had historically been part of Iraq until Kuwait was carved out by the Western powers. Check your history.
Further, Iraq had a legitimate claim -- in fact they were right: that area had historically been part of Iraq until Kuwait was carved out by the Western powers. Check your history.
by publius - Wednesday October 12, 2005 11:37:02 AM EST
So, based on your stated positions, in Publius world, you would restore power to Saddam in Iraq, and give him Kuwait to boot! Interesting strategery!!
Saddam was not a threat to us, so if he were still in power, what of it? At least when he was in charge, terrorists weren't running free around Iraq. Saddam considered them a threat to his power. And what of Kuwait? Do we care who's hands it's in? If so, why?
by publius - Wednesday October 12, 2005 11:37:02
Publius, these guys are facts challenged!
Regarding your "Thirdly, you are indeed using that false argument that just because the U.S. didn't wipe out Communism completely...", I never said it because we didn't "wipe out communism completely" that we were "responsible" the ensuing oppression. The leaders of those countries were responsible. What we did, in most cases, was enable these leaders to gain and/or consolidate power. If you tally that side of the ledger (the ensuing oppression), you may find that we helped facilitate oppression to the same degree as we were "freeing people".
anotheramerican - Tuesday October 11, 2005 05:34:02 PM EST
Here we go again, this is why the photos must be released, you claim about Abu Ghraib--"The unauthorized and illegal torture on our side involved only embarrassing a few of them." --Yet according to Donald Rumsfeld the photos show acts of inhuman cruelty and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham say the photos he has seen depict RAPE AND MURDER. As long as the rightwing keeps lying about the extent of the attrocities at Abu Ghraib the American public will never know the real extent of the attrocities there, and therefore will never really come to grips with what transpired there.
solon,
I am not lying. You may say I'm mistaken, but to categorically state I am lying is a bit over the top. I have not seen the pictures to which you are referring. Perhaps you could provide a link showing the ones depicting rape and murder?
My comments regarding the Abu-Grahib pictures were based on the pictures I found in the mainstream media back when they first came out. I did not look at all of them.
I do enjoy debating with you, and if you feel I am in error, please tell me. I only ask that you tone it down some.
anotheramerican - Tuesday October 11, 2005 10:56:00 PM EST
NO ONE has seen those pictures outside the government that is why the ACLU is trying to have them released. What I HAVE linked to at least twice before when this subject was discussed is REPUBLICAN Senator Lindsey Graham who HAS seen them saying they depict rape and murder, why would he lie, and Donald Rumsfeld himself saying they depict acts of inhuman cruelty or something close to that. I sincerly appologize for implying you were lying, I get frustrated at making arguments which I back up with links to see them ignored and the same assertions previously refuted completly repeated the NEXT time the subject comes up. You are always reasonable and I was out of line.
Saddam resisted Al-Qaeda attempts to become friendlier with Iraq. There is absolutely NO evidence that Saddam did or would have made connections with Al-Qaeda. What you said is pure speculation. Democracy requires a higher standard of proof than just what you THINK MIGHT have happened.
Anyways, Al-Qaeda could not take over Iraq because their presence over there is too small. They account for only about 10% of the insurgency. The best Al-Qaeda could hope to do is continue what it is doing now, being a thorn in the side. The real insurgency is composed of Iraqi Sunni nationalists who do have a stake in the outcome of a successful Iraq, but as long as government backed Shiite death squads carry out targeted killing of Sunnis there will be no peace. Negotiation is the only way out of Iraq and to stop the vioence.
The U.S. must quit intimidating prominent Sunni clerics through raids on their homes. It is clear that the U.S. so far is not concerned with any Sunni opposition to the political process, and that more than anything else will lead to civil war and cause the U.S. to be forced to leave with no groundwork being laid for a peaceful future.
AA< you neglect the rationlaity of Osama Bin Laden. he was a militant jihadi well before he aimed his attacks at the United States. First it was the U.S.S.R when it invaded Afghanistan, THEN it was the U.S. after it used Saudi bases in the First Gulf War. OBL has been very consistent about wanting to rid the greater Middle East of foreign occupation, that includes the U.S. and its support for the corrupt regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, France due to its relationships with Algeria, and the U.K. for its prison-bitch relationship with Amerika. OBL's ambitions are only regional. He could not care less about Amerikan society just as long as its government GETS OUT of the region!!
It's refreshing to find that so far nobody has argued that Bush's claims made any sense.
"Their whole purpose is to start a world war and kill the infidels."
I'm not finding this to be much more believable, however. Since al-queda is not a country, much less a country with strong military alliances, I don't quite see how they expect a world war to come around. If you believe they are simply delusional, I suppose you could believe anything to be their cause.
"No doubt once we took away their base in Afghanistan that they would have forged an alliance with Saddam."
No doubt? Where are the indications this was a possibility, much less a virtual certainty? Why is it so likely that a radical muslim would form an alliance with the leader of one of the only secular countries in the region? If Iraq had been an islamist state, as it looks to be in the future, I might find that idea slightly credible.
This quote from Bush bothers me:
"Yet the militants killed more than 180 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan"
The attack in Beslan was carried out by Chechens. The Chechens have their own beef with Russia that has nothing to do with Bin Laden's beef with the US. Why would Bush think that they would be deterred from attacking Russia just because Russia opposed the Iraq invasion? Does he think Bin Laden is going to tell the Chechens to leave Russia alone because of this? Does he think the Chechens would listen to him if he did? Can't he tell them apart?
wanderwoman,
Taking a quick look, I found that Al Queda has been training the Chechnyian islamofascits.
Below is a snippet from:
Jihad@Work Behind the Moscow-theater attack.
By Mark Riebling and R.P. Eddy
In December 1994, Jokar Dudayev, a former Soviet air-force general, began fighting for an independent Chechnya. Since then, Moscow has seen a series of bombings which are thought to have been carried out by Chechen Islamists.
That al Qaeda has trained these Chechens — and perhaps even planned some of their operations — is clear. In fact, the Chechen conflict has long been seen by bin Laden as but one front in the global jihad which began on February 14, 1989, when the last Soviet soldiers Afghanistan.
After the Soviets left Afghanistan, a multinational force of mujahadin slithered into Chechnya. The key operative was Jordanian Omar Ibn al Khattab, who had trained in bin Laden's camps. Bin Laden and Khattab enjoyed an unusually close theological affinity, and exchanged personnel and resources.
In Chechnya, Khattab was made operations chief under the overall commander, Shamil Basayev. Like Khattab, Basayev had trained in al Qaeda camps and was personally close to bin Laden.
The bin-Laden-Khattab-Basayev nexus — the Chechnyan connection — is a scarlet thread in the otherwise murky world of global jihad. Consider:
The 9/11 hijackers from Mohammad Atta's Hamburg cell initially joined al Qaeda to fight in Chechnya. According to German court testimony this week by Mounir Motassadeq, a Moroccan who was apparently Atta's moneyman, Atta came to the attention of al Qaeda's inner leadership while training for the Chechnyan jihad.
Though Atta and his crew were chosen by al Qaeda for a "holier" mission, bin Laden has sent many brigades of non-native Muslims to fight in Chechnya. At the start of this year Russian security officials estimated that over 300 foreign jihadists were with the Chechens. U.S. intelligence calculates that a hardened al Qaeda cell of perhaps 100 militants is holding together an otherwise rag-tag band of Chechens in their lawless Georgian sanctuary, the Pankisi Gorge.
On bin Laden's last videotape before the 9/11 attacks, circulated during the summer of 2001, he and his advisers made impassioned speeches about Muslims being attacked in Chechnya.
In August 2001, the FBI received information from French intelligence that Zacharias Moussaoui had recruited European Muslims to fight with the Chechens.
Last month, apparently after intercepting the conversations of Chechen Muslims in the U.S., the FBI warned that Arab jihadists envisioned "hijacking a commercial airliner using Muslim extremists of non-Arabic appearance," such as Africans or Central-Asian Chechens, to avoid scrutiny by security personnel.
As with other jihadists under the al Qaeda umbrella, the Chechens have made common cause with Palestinian terrorists. In October 2000 a Chechen leader offered a 150 mujahadin from Chechnya as "readily available to perform jihad in Palestine. We ask Allah to destroy the heartless Jews and their allies. Amen."
[link to www.nationalreview.com]
by anotheramerican - Tuesday October 11, 2005 04:44:29 PM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
While I understand that there are links between various terrorist groups, I think it is a mistake to pretend they are as cohesive as he is implying in his statement. Each group forms for its own reasons and has its own motives. If we pretend they are acting as unit, I think we are being naive. If we don't understand how they operate, I don't think we will have much success in eliminating the threat they pose.
"This quote from Bush bothers me:
"Yet the militants killed more than 180 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan"
The attack in Beslan was carried out by Chechens. The Chechens have their own beef with Russia that has nothing to do with Bin Laden's beef with the US. Why would Bush think that they would be deterred from attacking Russia just because Russia opposed the Iraq invasion? Does he think Bin Laden is going to tell the Chechens to leave Russia alone because of this? Does he think the Chechens would listen to him if he did? Can't he tell them apart?"...by wanderwoman
================================
wanderwoman, I think when Bush talks about fighting World-Wide Terrorism he SOMETIMES tends to lump ALL the various groups together--Hamas, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Mujahedeen etc.
Just a thought as to WHY he might of mentioned the Chechens.
He's jealous of Reagan's "Evil Empire."
Terrorism is a meme. It's hard to fight a meme.
wanderwoman, I think when Bush talks about fighting World-Wide Terrorism he SOMETIMES tends to lump ALL the various groups together--Hamas, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Mujahedeen etc.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Yes, and I think it's a mistake. My fear is that he sees them as if they were a cohesive foreign army and they aren't. I think it would be a mistake to fight them as if they are.
O.K. it's my turn to rant. I have sat back and read what has been posted here, and I have to speak my mind.
First, do any of you believe for a minute that Saddam would not have sought out the help of ANY terrorist organization in his effort to get revenge on the US for the first Gulf War, and the dozen or so UN sanctions against him? Forget politics for a minute and just use common sense. He had the Billions he skimmed from said UN ( France, Germany, and Russia ), he had the ability to produce chemical weapons, and he had the motivation.
Second, do any of you truly believe that Osama is in this for any other reason than power? He could never accomplish any of his goals like getting the US out of the Middle East. It will never happen as long as Israel is still there. As long as the US is a major power in the world, Osama will have a target. Are you suggesting that we become a weaker nation just to please a terrorist, or is MIGHT the only way to ensure our safety? I vote MIGHT. I'm sorry if that bothers some of you Peace Lovers, but if you check your history, you will see that war is commonplace. Why? Because you always have these crazy extremist who want all the power and don't care who they have to kill to get it.
Third, I hear alot of people crying that the President, and the Republicans have made a mess of the war on terror. Well, where are your ideas. What should we do? And please don't start with pulling all of our troops out now. It won't work. How about some real ideas instead of just bitchin' about it.
Thank you for letting me get that of of my chest, but I don't really think this post will stay up that long. Anywho!
so you're not denying bush has made a mess of the war on terror?
"do any of you believe for a minute that Saddam would not have sought out the help of ANY terrorist organization in his effort to get revenge on the US for the first Gulf War, and the dozen or so UN sanctions against him?"
It's certainly possible, but it's too much speculation to base a war on. Was there any intelligence to suggest that was going to happen?
"do any of you truly believe that Osama is in this for any other reason than power? He could never accomplish any of his goals like getting the US out of the Middle East."
Whether or not we pull out of the Middle East or not has no bearing on the possibility of that being his goal. What power do you think he's expecting to have? His own country? Wouldn't we then know where he is?
"I hear alot of people crying that the President, and the Republicans have made a mess of the war on terror. Well, where are your ideas."
People can criticize the bungled war on terror without having a detailed plan of their own. It's not working. There's no reasonable explanation of how it could possibly work. I don't have to have a 10-point plan to mention that.
brabantio - Tuesday October 11, 2005 07:12:59 PM EST
chevymans rant is ludicrous, the first Gulf war ended in what 91? What acts of terror DID Saddam carry out against America? The CIA said they had NO evidence of any international terrorism by Iraq in more than a decade in their threat assessment of 2002. What evidence is there of collusion between Iraq and Al Queda in that decade? NONE, the Senate intelligence report was clear on this there was NO evidence of any collaborative relationship between Iraq and al Queda in that decade so are we suppose to just believe the right wing canard was suddenly going to come true a more than a decade after the provocation that was supposed to cause it even though for that decade it didnt happen? This is pure desperation by propaganda parrots who dont spend one second thinking about the talking points they regurgitate, to see if they make even a shred of sense.
Don't forget those crazy capitalist extremists who will stop at nothing to ensure the flow of cheap labor and energy that feeds the insatiable profit hungry beast.
Wise up Kool Aid drinkers and dittoheads...most of the world is REALLY getting pissed at us and we better start paying attention!
"First, do any of you believe for a minute that Saddam would not have sought out the help of ANY terrorist organization in his effort to get revenge on the US for the first Gulf War, and the dozen or so UN sanctions against him?"
_______________________________
So what are you saying with the above logic, is that the US has to occupy indefinitely every country it attacks or puts sanctions on out of fear of revenge.
Let's see, we attacked Libya and killed Kadafi's 15 month old adopted daughter, we invaded Cuba in the 60s (Bay of Pigs) and have had sanctions on it since, we killed untold numbers of Vietnamese before pulling out, gave tacit support to (and continue to fund) the opposition that tried to overthrow democratically elected Venezuelen president Chavez (who is very popular), assisted in the coup in Haiti that led to the ousting of a democratically elected Aristide, allowed Afghanistan to become the world's heroine capital after we attacked it and for the most part abandoned it, except for continued military action, we invaded Iraq again and continue to kill,... Do we have to occupy or fight these countries indefinitely out of fear of revenge? What kind of foreign policy is that? Saddam is no angel, but he was not threatening us, nor was not a military threat to the US, as we were able to take him out of power in a matter of weeks.
People that have been put in jail have motivation and ability for revenge, but that doesn't signify intent. Do we keep everybody in jail forever?
west1 - Tuesday October 11, 2005 10:31:28 PM EST
You left out Iran 53, Guatemala 54, The Dominican Republic 64, Brazil, also 64 a busy year, and Chile in 73. This of course is a very partial list only going back to the 50's.
If O'Donnell admitted that the State Dept and CIA were the "critics", NBC would have to offer the reports as arguments against what Bush is saying, which would effectively dilute O'Donnell's statement that Bush has "evidence" that we are not enraging the Iraqi's. By only saying that a Democrat is a critic, O'Donnell's story that Bush has evidence still sounds like a credible report.
By the way, how does Russia's conflict serve as evidence that our occupation and attacks in Iraq does not provoke the Iraqis (insurgency forces which are overwhelmingly Iraqis) to fight back against us and the US supported security forces?
A thought: After WWII to ~1989, the US linked all national movements to communism.
From 1989 to now, all national movements are considered Terrorist.
Example: Viet Nam fought China for 1500 years, France for 200 years and the US for 10 years.
The point? Maybe we should not meddle in the affairs of other countries, hence leaving them free to solve their own problems! We will be the richer for it.